Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 3768 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768. When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill. The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas, unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year. Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period. Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself. It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the Federal money that every other State has as an allocation. The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue. In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed, would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant Governor. It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated $830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So Texas has just been turned down. If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that will just create a level playing field. We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided Texas should have a different standard. We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas, every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right. I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America. Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described happens in the bill. The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in our rightful way. We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from every other State in America. Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State. That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine. Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then, second, that we be able to distribute according to the State requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I think it will be the right thing to do. Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas. If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I hope we can right this wrong.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768. When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill. The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas, unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year. Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period. Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself. It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the Federal money that every other State has as an allocation. The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue. In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed, would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant Governor. It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated $830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So Texas has just been turned down. If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that will just create a level playing field. We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided Texas should have a different standard. We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas, every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right. I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America. Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described happens in the bill. The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in our rightful way. We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from every other State in America. Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State. That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine. Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then, second, that we be able to distribute according to the State requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I think it will be the right thing to do. Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas. If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I hope we can right this wrong.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to our colleague Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He served his beautiful mountain State for a record-setting 57 years in Congress, including 51 years in this Chamber. He cast more rollcall votes and served in more leadership positions than any other Senator in U.S. history, including 12 years as his party's leader. He revered this body so much that he wrote four volumes on Senate history from 1789 to 1989. Over nine terms, he mastered parliamentary procedure in an effort to protect the Senate's rules and to defend the legislative branch's authority. He carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, and he peppered his speeches with frequent references to the intent of our Framers. When asked how many Presidents he had served under, he replied, ``None. I have served with Presidents, not under them.'' Senator Byrd will enter the history books as one of the Senate's true giants, but his beginnings were humble. His biography is a shining testament to the American dream. He was adopted in infancy and raised in impoverished coal-mining towns. His first job was to collect garbage scraps for his family's hogs. Although he graduated valedictorian of his 1934 high school class, at first he could not afford college. He married his high school sweetheart, Erma Ora James, with whom he enjoyed 68 happy years. The outstanding work ethic and solid values that he learned while growing up in Raleigh County helped him later devote 10 grueling years of his life to studying while simultaneously serving as a Member of Congress. When he finally earned his law degree in 1963, President John F. Kennedy awarded him his diploma. Senator Byrd served his beloved home State with unprecedented devotion. He wrote in his autobiography that ``it has been my constant desire to improve the lives of the people who have sent me to Washington time and again.'' Virtually every county in West Virginia will long remember his hard work, dedication, and legendary contributions. Like many Americans today, I commend him for his outstanding service to his State, to our Nation, and to the institution of the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman. He accommodated many of the amendments I had, particularly as it concerns community banks. That was a huge concern in the original draft of the bill. I thank the chairman for accommodating those concerns. It did make it a better bill. I wish to return to the aftermath of the financial crisis, when Congress was tasked with the responsibility of modernizing our financial regulatory structure so that we would have proper oversight of today's banking system and financial markets. We were called to fill in gaps in regulations which allowed American home buyers to simply sign on the dotted line to purchase a house that was in many instances beyond their means, to let companies hide trillions of dollars in assets from regulators, and ultimately led our government to lose hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out financial institutions--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and AIG. Thus, were financial regulatory reform to succeed, we needed to enhance mortgage underwriting standards, bring greater transparency to the derivatives markets, and once and for all end too big to fail. The conference report before us takes steps toward these goals. The legislation puts in place measures to address too big to fail; however, it falls short in fully addressing the risk of future government bailouts by failing to make changes to the Bankruptcy Code. In this legislation, we have also made strides to strengthen mortgage underwriting standards. I am concerned that a newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take the lead rather than our banking regulators, and this is one of the biggest concerns I have with the bill. I am pleased that the conference report includes numerous measures for which I fought. I thank Chairman Dodd for his willingness to work with me and his constructive approach to making changes to the bill, including a more level playing field for community banks across the country to compete through my amendment to bring parity to FDIC insurance assessments; my amendment, along with Senator Klobuchar, to allow State-chartered banks and small and medium-size bank holding companies to retain Federal Reserve supervision so that our monetary policy truly reflects economic conditions throughout the country, not just on Wall Street; relief for small and medium-size public companies from the burden of rule 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley; and assurance that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions will not extend to the insurance affiliates of insurance companies with depository institutions. These are positive changes for which I give the chairman great credit. However, these positive changes are greatly outweighed by misplaced priorities to create new layers of bureaucracy while failing to address the root causes of the financial crisis--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Additionally, there are a series of provisions that are troubling to me. No. 1 is this consumer protection bureau. It is using the faults of Wall Street banks and executives to create a cumbersome new bureaucracy which will impose job-killing regulation at the expense of Main Street small businesses and families. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with endless authority over all facets of our economy, is not the answer. I am particularly concerned about the effect this bureau will have on well-regulated, safe, sound community banks. These banks largely avoided the subprime market, and they didn't engage in the risky speculative trades that contributed to the financial meltdown. However, these community banks are going to have 27 new or expanded types of regulation after this bill is passed. The consumer bureau could ultimately determine what products community banks can offer, on what terms they can offer these products, and under what settings and circumstances. Overall, the consumer bureau will result in fewer products and services for American families and small businesses. The Texas Bankers Association tells me consumer bureau rules could result in the end of free checking accounts, higher fees on all consumer services, and less opportunity to negotiate on loans. It is not the big banks on Wall Street voicing concerns and opposition to this bill. The opposition is coming from community bankers in Texas who are worried they will be unduly penalized for faults they did not commit. Small businesses are also against this new consumer bureau. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are very concerned about this bureau. We need community banks to continue extending credit to worthy families looking for a home and to small businesses to invest in and create jobs. I cosponsored an amendment during Senate consideration to ensure that safety and soundness regulators would have a say in the rules and regulations imposed on their institutions. That amendment was rejected, leaving community banks subject to this new bureau's unlimited and unchecked rulemaking authority. I am also concerned with the treatment of derivatives in this legislation. I am concerned that the lack of transparency that needed reform has been exchanged for a regulation I do not think is going to properly regulate derivatives. However, we must also protect end users such as airlines, utilities, manufacturers, and oil and gas companies. These companies use derivatives as a cost effective strategy to control price and risk. Many structure derivatives contracts are unique to their business, making it difficult to clear and trade on a market. I share concerns from derivatives end users that this mandate to post margins with cash, rather than collateral, will remove capital from investment and job creation. While Senator Dodd and Senator Lincoln say that this legislation will not impose margin requirements, I worry that there is not a statutory exemption for end users. End users may even choose market volatility instead of risk-controlling derivatives altogether, exposing Americans to higher prices, slower economic growth, and more job losses. We should seek transparency through greater reporting requirements, but businesses should not be forced to arbitrarily move money to margin accounts. I am concerned that this legislation will cost more jobs at a particularly harmful time with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent. The Chamber of Commerce reports that the margin requirement on OTC derivatives could cost 100,000 to 120,000 jobs in S&P 500 companies alone. This legislation does nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since the government takeover of these two GSEs, taxpayers have paid $145 billion to keep them afloat. The CBO reports that the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. These costs contributed to a Federal deficit which has topped $1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2010. They have helped push our national debt to $13 trillion. A couple of weeks ago, the CBO reported that United States debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, the highest since just after World War II. We cannot continue to this dangerous path and mirror the crisis that currently ravages Europe. We cannot sustain these debts and deficits. We offered solutions to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. During Senate consideration of this legislation, I cosponsored amendments--No. 3839 and No. 4020--which would have re-imposed the cap of Federal assistance to the GSEs at $200 billion each. These amendments would have brought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac onto our budget so that Americans could see their true cost. And they would have brought an end to Fannie and Freddie's government conservatorship in 2 years. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. Furthermore, the conference committee would not even permit amendments to be offered on the GSEs. Instead, this legislation calls for a report, punting the plan for Fannie and Freddie that we need to the future. We need reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now, but this legislation does not even allow for debate of the GSEs. The American people are frustrated with our government, and this legislation is an example of why. Under the guise of financial regulatory reform, this legislation continues the unprecedented growth in government. The American people want sensible financial reform. However, this purported financial regulatory reform legislation does not even address the root causes of the crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead, it uses the crisis to add layers of Federal bureaucracy, and threatens to slow down our economic recovery, risking job loss and restricting access to credit. For these reasons, this legislation is not the reform we need, which is why I must oppose the conference report for H.R. 4173. We need to fully look at some of the concerns in this bill with the hope that when it passes--I cannot support it, but it will pass--these cautions will be looked at going forward to perhaps, when the problems come to light later, make some changes to the law that will better accommodate the needs of consumers and small businesses and community banks in the country. There are good parts of this bill. I think the chairman deserves a lot of credit for pushing this financial reform, knowing that we needed to do it. I don't think it fully meets the test of doing what we should be doing, but I do think it is a first step, and the chairman is to be commended for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our military construction program and some concerns I have about an apparent shift in strategy, what this means for our American soldiers and their families and for the growing debt and deficits we are seeing on the taxpayers of this country. Without question, our military construction program should be fiscally responsible and driven by the future security posture of the U.S. forces. Dating back to the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military determined that our Armed Forces would be best trained and equipped for service when stationed at installations on U.S. soil. Our military adopted a force projection strategy that allows our U.S.-stationed service men and women to deploy from home rather than being based primarily overseas. This Congress has been very supportive of the Army's transformation to a more modular and expeditionary force structure, allowing more troops to be stationed in the United States. In 2005, the Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force projection strategy. It applauded the vision behind the Pentagon's efforts to transform the military and restation tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil. So the Pentagon's strategy, endorsed by the Overseas Basing Commission, has guided the way Congress directs resources and funding for military construction facilities. We have invested more than $14 billion to build housing, stationing, training, and deployment capabilities at major military installations in the United States. We have proven we can best train and deploy from the United States and do it more cost-effectively. Despite these taxpayer-backed investments, the Pentagon's current MILCON program is shifting military construction projects, military forces, and taxpayer dollars overseas. Strategically, this would set in motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing that would actually expand our overseas presence, and this at a time when the aid given to American efforts in the war on terror is, with a few exceptions, not impressive. Fiscally, the Department of Defense is pursuing expensive and, in some cases, duplicative military construction projects in Europe, Korea, and Guam without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies or projected future costs. This shift in global posture fundamentally disconnects with stateside basing capabilities and reverses the Overseas Basing Commission's recommendations. Europe: In Germany massive plans are underway to move U.S. Army headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden. I question this move because European and African Commands already have substantial infrastructure in Stuttgart where efficiencies would be available. The Government Accountability Office does not believe the Army will achieve any cost savings. Not only would these huge and costly projects create thousands of foreign jobs, but they would require continuous taxpayer funding to maintain facilities and training capabilities. The United States has averaged spending $278 million per year in Germany in the last 5 years, but the Department of Defense now plans to raise that spending to $750 million per year. It costs nearly 15 percent less to build in the United States than to build in Germany, and while American taxpayers have invested $1.4 billion in German infrastructure from 2006 to 2010, Germany's contribution has averaged $20 million per year, or less than 10 percent. This is a poor taxpayer investment considering the serious limitations to U.S. military training and deployment capabilities overseas. It would also create duplicative headquarters at several locations in Germany. Our troops must have access to training areas where they can maneuver freely, conduct live-fire exercises, and work with night vision devices. Many overseas locations prohibit such intensive training. Others allow only certain aspects of the training to be done under closely monitored circumstances. These limitations hinder the readiness of our troops while taxing our citizens more. Deployment impediments also exist in Europe. During times of peace and war, our troops face restrictions traveling through many countries. In 2003, deploying American forces from Germany into Iraq was complicated when several European countries denied U.S. troops access to air and ground routes. Merely having our troops forward-deployed is no guarantee they will be available when and where we need them. Korea: The Department of Defense is also planning to spend millions to build deployment facilities in Korea. The Pentagon is proposing to shift 1-year deployments for troops alone to 3-year tours that include their families. This change would expand U.S. presence in Korea from 30,000 service personnel to approximately 84,000, counting dependents. Substantial taxpayer funding would be required to build adequate housing, schools, hospitals, fitness centers, childcare facilities, commissaries, and more. We have asked for the numbers that would be projected for this. The Department has not given us any numbers nor any projections on the costs of adding 50,000 more people into Korea than we now have. Investing these resources into Korea makes no sense when we are already building up infrastructure and deployment capabilities at U.S. bases where amenities support military families and are well established. Guam: Plans to shift Marines currently stationed in Japan to the tiny island of Guam are also problematic. There are significant environmental concerns with trying to accommodate such a large number of military personnel in such a small space, and the island lacks sufficient existing infrastructure. In addition to that, the timeline for transitioning marines stationed in Japan is implausible and the costs are staggering. They are now estimated at $16 billion. With these considerable barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored. Again, we have asked the Department to look into this, to give alternatives. We have suggested alternatives, but we have received no feedback from the Department. The Department of Defense has indicated this new military construction program is intended to build partnership capacity. Some argue that U.S. presence overseas provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has shown this is not always the case. Basing American military personnel at key locations in Europe did not deter the Russians from conducting military operations against Georgia in 2008. Even with our 30,000 troops in Korea, North Korea did not hesitate to attack a South Korean naval vessel in May of this year. Let's look at what the partnership agreements we are seeking have given us so far. We are in a war on terror in which the United States now has more than 78,000 troops. Germany has 4,350. The United Kingdom has double what Germany has. So the United Kingdom, which has a smaller population, has more troops by double than Germany. Yet we are looking at all of this buildup in Germany for building partnership capacity. Germany contributes 4 percent of NATO troops to Afghanistan, but they have strict rules of engagement that include not going on offense and restrictions on night operations. So if we are going to do so much ourselves, does it make sense for the American taxpayer to be building what would be about a billion and a half more in Germany, in facilities that we already have in the United States? Or if there needs to be more Army building in Germany, at least do it in Stuttgart where the Army already has a headquarters, instead of a whole new operation in Wiesbaden. If the United States wants to make sure our assure our allies and deter our enemies, we should do it with strong military capabilities and sound policy, not by keeping troops stationed overseas, siphoning funds from equipment and arms, and putting it into duplicative military construction. Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad and advancing the Department's new goal of building partnership capacity, we should be building American infrastructure. We are carrying the heaviest load by far in the war on terror, and we are carrying it for freedom-loving people throughout the world. We need to build up bases in our country which we have already done to accommodate the strategy since the Cold War. Yet now we appear to be reversing that strategy, and I am asking why. I have asked the Department of Defense. I have asked the Secretary of Defense for answers and have not yet been able to receive anything that would show why we would make such a huge investment in these foreign bases, with training constraints and deployment constraints, when we could do the same thing at home and deploy our troops at will. Following World War II, the United States constructed bases in Europe to establish a strong presence as nations rebuilt. We stayed in Europe and placed bases in Korea to protect the interests of America and its allies during the Cold War. The world has changed, and with it our Nation's military priorities must also change. Our military construction investment should reflect our strategic principles. It should meet the needs of military families. It should maximize the force flexibility of our modern military, and it should demonstrate the fiscal discipline that taxpayers rightly expect. Secretary Gates has made fiscal discipline a priority at the Department of Defense. He has said we are going to cut defense spending. So this military construction plan is puzzling. I am not sure the military and the Department heads are on the same wavelength because we are looking at $1 billion of foreign construction we do not need with capacity we have already built in America. So I am asking the Department of Defense to look at this and to make sure we are in every way having respect for the taxpayers and making sure our military and our families have the security and support they need, and I believe that can be done with bases at home. I will offer amendments to reduce the level of spending in overseas construction and possibly in administrative costs at the Department of Veterans Affairs that do not affect veterans health care or benefits. There is more at stake for our future, for our economy, and for the American taxpayer. Out-of-control spending is putting the short- and long-term fiscal health of the United States at risk. The national public debt hit an historic $13 trillion in May. This year, the Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, and it is spending 67 percent more than it brings in. In pursuit of its costly and damaging big government agenda, the Obama administration has increased the total public debt by $2 trillion in less than 2 years, an increase of 23 percent in 16 months. If the spending continues at this rate, at the end of President Obama's first term he will have added an additional $6 trillion to the public debt. If we go along with the requests of the White House, $6 trillion more will be added to our debt in this term. This is irresponsible and unsustainable. As the appropriations process moves forward, I will offer amendments to bring military construction back down to levels that are consistent with the Secretary of Defense's own stated objective, which is to cut military spending. I am going to offer amendments I believe will be responsible, will protect our forces, and will be better for our military families, and it will achieve the spending cuts the Secretary has said he believes are necessary. We need to make the tough decisions. I am offering a way forward. I am offering commonsense cuts that will assure we will be able to meet the needs of our military, the security of our military, the security of the American people, and a respect for this enormous deficit. We can cut back on this deficit with responsible spending. I have outlined some of these concerns in today's Politico magazine, and I ask unanimous consent that my op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the opportunity to lay out the strategy I am offering to the administration. I hope we can come back to the strategy adopted by Congress over the last 10 years that would have American troops in America, would create American jobs in military construction, will save taxpayer dollars, and will assure that when our troops go into harm's way, they will not be blocked by European countries that do not allow us to use airspace or train troops on the ground. We cannot afford that kind of luxury in this kind of environment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for GEN David Petraeus to be confirmed as our Nation's top military commander in Afghanistan. I want to say I have had a great experience with General Petraeus and also watching him from afar. When he introduced the concept of the counterinsurgency in Iraq, and embedding our troops with Iraqi troops to try to train the Iraqi troops to do the security for Iraq as we were leaving, I had grave concerns about embedding our troops and the counterinsurgency, because I feared for the safety of our troops and troop protection. I did not want to publicly ask questions of his judgment or disagree with him, but I did ask him to come see me and explain this to me so I would feel more comfortable, which he did. He came to my office. He walked me through it. He gave me confidence that it could work. Then later, when he was in Iraq, and I was taking one of the trips I have made to Iraq, the first place that General Petraeus sent me to see was the Iraqi police station with our embedded troops. He never said a word to me about my questioning of how it would work, but he sent me in. Later that night I was able to have dinner with him and Ambassador Crocker. I said: I know why you sent me to the police station, because I had questioned how you were going to protect our troops. I became a complete believer in General Petraeus and certainly how they do protect our troops as we are also teaching the foreign forces to take on their own security. So I do have complete confidence in this man. What I do not have confidence in is the mission he is being given, because I sense a mixed message. I sense a mixed message from the President, and a division in what our Members of the Senate are saying, even as they questioned General Petraeus yesterday. Here is my concern. We know you cannot set a hard and fast deadline and say, our troops are leaving no matter what the conditions are, and gain the confidence of the people on the ground that you are going to see the mission through. It seems our mission should be clear, that we are going to prepare the Afghans for the security of their country, and also assure that the Taliban and al-Qaida cannot get a stronghold that would allow the export of terrorism to America and other freedom-loving countries in the world. That should be the clear mission. I believe that is the mission General Petraeus understands, and I think that is what President Obama is saying. But my concern is this questioning of General Petraeus by members of the Armed Services Committee about the withdrawal date. The President has said firmly the withdrawal is going to be July of next year. General Petraeus is very careful in every answer that he makes to say, conditions on the ground will dictate when we withdraw. July is the date. We acknowledge that, he says. But it will also depend on conditions on the ground. I hope we will have a united view in the Senate, a united view in the House of Representatives, and the President acknowledging that we must have the confidence of the people on the ground in Afghanistan and also the confidence of the enemy, the Taliban, and al-Qaida, that we are not going to leave in July if there are not conditions on the ground for the Afghans to repel the evil forces of the Taliban and al-Qaida. As we vote today on the confirmation of General Petraeus, I am voting for this general because I believe in him. I believe in his creativity. I believe in his judgment. I want to make sure he has everything he needs to do the job we are asking him to do. He has proven he can do the tough jobs. He changed the atmosphere in Iraq and he did it the right way. He protected our forces as he was doing it. So we must assure that we give him the same level of confidence and support in Afghanistan to do the job there, because it is clear that the place where al-Qaida and the Taliban are operating from is that area of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we cannot allow them to strengthen their efforts to be able to export terrorism to our country again. At the same time, we have got to make sure there is not a bull's-eye on the back of our troops in Afghanistan because the enemy thinks we are leaving no matter what. Conditions on the ground are the prerequisite. I hope the President has given General Petraeus the level of confidence that I feel in him, and that I think our Senate will show to him today to do the job as he sees fit, because he is going to have the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. I have been to Afghanistan, as have most of my colleagues. I know how tough it is, the terrain, the type of government they have had throughout their centuries, and it is not adaptable easily to our concept of governance. So we have to work within a framework that is very difficult both geographically as well as in the governance structure. I am voting for General Petraeus today because I know this man can do the job. I hope the President will give him the free rein to do the job we are asking him to do, and, in the process, protect our troops and protect him as they are doing this very tough job with everything he asks us to provide to him to finish this job and make the Afghan people say--give them the ability to create their governance in a way that works for them and to protect the people of the United States from any further terrorist attack. That is when we will be able to say ``mission accomplished.'' And General Petraeus can do this job. We must give him the backup so he can be successful. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would appreciate, Mr. Leader, if I could ask a question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is fine. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the flood insurance bill that was passed by the House that will extend flood insurance for those coastal State people in what the leader just read.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the leader very much.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in the couple minutes before the vote starts, I just want to say this is a huge move for the people of the gulf coast who have been trying to purchase flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program that lapsed June 1. The hardship is that, of course, we are going into hurricane season. Private insurance is not available on the coast for floods right now, so the Federal program is all there is. People have not been able to close on housing contracts, on purchases of houses, because flood insurance is required and they have not been able to get it. So Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, I, Senator Cornyn, Senator Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Nelson, Senator LeMieux--everyone has been very concerned about this if we represent a border State--and Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker. So we have been pressing, and I know there have been a lot of competing interests. But it is very important we are passing the bill that has passed the House already. It will be sent to the President, and the people of the gulf coast will once again be able to purchase that flood insurance, as we see a tropical storm moving toward our gulf coast as we speak. So it is certainly timely. It will certainly be a relief, and the extension will be until September 30. So the people who want to purchase insurance, which, of course, they need and will know they are covered, will be covered. I thank the Chair. I thank the leader as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business about the National Flood Insurance Program and talk about the importance of extending the National Flood Insurance Program as a tropical storm--that could be a hurricane--is growing in the Gulf of Mexico and moving toward my home State of Texas. We all know the Gulf of Mexico has had a lot of trauma, and the people who live all along the gulf have suffered quite enough. Now we have a situation in which tropical storm Alex is gaining strength off the coast of south Texas. Winds are gusting upwards of 70 miles per hour, and it could reach hurricane strength at any point. Texas communities from Padre Island to Matagorda Bay are under a hurricane warning. The National Weather Service is calling for up to 20 inches of rain in some parts of our State and is warning communities to brace for life-threatening flash floods and mud slides. However, at this very time, thousands of Texas homeowners are left vulnerable to the damage this storm could wreak on their homes and property. Why? The National Flood Insurance Program lapsed at the end of May, which means homeowners are currently unable to take out new policies. Allowing a lapse in federally backed flood insurance is unacceptable at any time, but the failure to extend it at the outset of hurricane season is unthinkable. The very purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program is to make sure coastal residents and other flood-prone communities can purchase reliable, federally backed flood insurance. The program allows homeowners to purchase flood insurance policies in areas where private insurance is hard--and in some cases impossible--to get. Since residents in some areas are required to have it in order to close on home purchases, many gulf coast families cannot close on mortgage contracts. My Houston office received 200 calls yesterday from people who were in the process of closing on homes which required flood insurance protection to be shown before they could close, and they cannot get the flood insurance because it is not available out of the private sector and this program has lapsed. Today, it is the Federal Government that is standing in the way of these people being able to close on a contract. Because of previous devastating storms, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the National Flood Insurance Program has incurred billions of dollars in claims and is in an economically tenuous position. I have supported legislation to revise and update this program. It needs to meet the demands of today while still providing access to flood insurance coverage to Americans living in floodplains--Americans who are trying to do the responsible thing. They are trying to purchase insurance. It is not available in the private market, and we need to have that kind of opportunity for people to be able to purchase their own insurance for them to be able to close on homes, of course, and to be able to protect themselves from damages. These are people who do not want to have to file claims against the Federal Government. They want to be able to purchase their own insurance and know they have it. In 2008, I, along with an overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate, supported the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. Unfortunately, despite big support in the Senate and in the House, our two Chambers failed to resolve our differences. Therefore, it has operated in limbo ever since, surviving only in short-term extensions. Now there is a bill to extend the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30. It has been approved in the House and was sent to the Senate. It is currently being held up. My colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, offered a unanimous consent request this morning to bring up this House bill, pass it in the Senate, and send it to the President. It would have extended the flood insurance program until September 30 so that people could buy insurance, know they would be covered, be able to close on their homes, and be able to get coverage while we continue to hammer out the differences in a long-term extension of the program. Unfortunately, there was an objection raised to the House bill going through the Senate. It is so important that we do this. I asked the reason for the objection. I asked one of my colleagues on the other side: Why was this objected to? The answer was: Is it more important than the tax extenders bill? I cannot say it is more important because we do need to extend unemployment insurance, but they are not mutually exclusive. We can do one or the other; we can do both. There is no objection to the substance of the bill. No one on the other side of the aisle objects to the bill. They just want to pass the extenders package. We want to pass the extenders package too. We want it to be paid for. We can do this. It is so important and so timely. It is timely because people are not able to close on contracts. Mortgage companies are saying: Our hands are tied. You have to show that you have this flood insurance to close, and there is no flood insurance available on the private market. The National Flood Insurance Program has not been extended. This is one that Congress can resolve. We are going to be here for a few more days this week. We can do this. I implore my colleagues: Please, let's unanimously consent to letting this bill go through. The House has passed it unanimously. A hurricane is headed right now for the Gulf of Mexico. It is time to allow our responsible citizens who want to purchase flood insurance to be able to do so in a responsible way. We certainly need to modernize the National Flood Insurance Program, and I will work tirelessly to make that happen. But with a storm approaching right now, we need to extend this program until the end of the hurricane season. We do not want people to have to flood into the government after the fact when they are desperate, not knowing if they are going to get coverage. We do not want them to have to come to the Federal Government and ask for claims to be processed. Let them cover themselves so they can deal with the issue, knowing exactly what their coverage is. That is not too much to ask for the residents of the gulf coast. I hope the majority leader and the majority will work with us to begin to address this issue in a timely way. The House has passed this bill unanimously. I urge my colleagues in the next 2 days to please allow the National Flood Insurance Program to be extended until September 30, a bill that has unanimously passed the House and surely should be able to go through the Senate since there is no substantive objection to this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the remarks that were given by my colleague from Montana about Senator Byrd were certainly appropriate, and I know anytime we lose one of our Members who has been sitting with us for so long, there is a void to fill. What I appreciated about Senator Byrd is how much he respected the Senate itself and protected the rights of the Senate against anyone who he believed overstepped the rights of the Senate and the decorum and protocol of the Senate. He was truly a defender of this body. He loved it, and I think we all respected him for that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the many historic gems Texas has to offer. I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman Rodriguez introduced earlier this year. During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s. Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San Antonio Missions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the many historic gems Texas has to offer. I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman Rodriguez introduced earlier this year. During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s. Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San Antonio Missions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the oilspill that is absorbing so much of the time and attention of our country. There is a minor point, one that I think needs to be addressed right now, and that is the Jones Act. The Jones Act was put in place in 1920 to ensure that the United States was able to maintain a fleet of merchant ships. It was really for protection of U.S.-flagged carriers against competition from foreign carriers that might undercut our ability to have profitable merchant ships. The Jones Act is currently preventing resources, however, from being used in the massive cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation that has been on the books since 1920 is hindering foreign vessels from assisting gulf communities as they work to prevent oil from reaching their shores. Currently, foreign vessels need to obtain a Jones Act waiver from the Federal Government in order to help with the cleanup efforts. For many of the vessels wishing to respond, this request needs to be reviewed by three separate agencies--the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, and Customs and Border Protection. That is three layers of bureaucracy when time is of the essence. During this crisis, we need to cut through the redtape. We must get all available assets on the scene as quickly as possible. I think everyone agrees. Other countries have offered their services. They have offered to help. There are European countries that also drill in the oceans and waters on their shores, and they have offered to send ships to help to try to absorb the oil and skim it off. There are volunteers waiting with the right equipment, and they are willing to come to our aid. We should know that with oil leaking from the ocean's floor, the natural resources of the gulf are being destroyed as we speak. We need every resource at our disposal to prevent further destruction. In my State of Texas, I have a constituent who would like to provide equipment to aid in the cleanup--his ship has a foreign flag--but he is unable to help because no waiver has been issued to the Jones Act in this particular crisis. There is precedent for waiving the Jones Act in disasters. It has been waived to speed up disaster responses in the past, including a waiver that was issued in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina nearly 5 years ago. It was done by the Executive with an Executive order. Without this key waiver, foreign vessels are prohibited from working with their American counterparts to skim the oils from the water of the gulf within 3 miles of shore. Of course, that is where we desperately need to have the most help to skim the oil before it reaches and damages our shores. That is why next week I intend to introduce legislation that will waive the Jones Act for vessels whose sole intent is to assist in the cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico. We will ensure these foreign ships will work under the auspices of the Coast Guard. We will make sure there is a clearinghouse for them, but we should not be waiting to have three different Federal agencies look at a Jones Act waiver request when we know what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We see the pictures every day. This waiver would be applied for a period of time that is necessary to respond to this oilspill and restore the waters of the Gulf of Mexico during this emergency. The Federal response to this spill has been a little short of immediate. It has been a day late and a dollar short, and that is not acceptable. It is time that Congress does what we can with the resources we have to urge the administration to act while it can to mitigate the damages we know are already there. It is time for us to be proactive. It is time for us to act. I look forward to having cosponsors. I am in the process of getting this bill in order now. I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Our Gulf States have a bipartisan senatorial delegation. I want to help to do everything possible. If we can waive the Jones Act for this disaster with all of the appropriate cautions that are necessary and get those foreign ships that are ready to help our country, that have offered to help our country, to get into the 3-mile limit before this oil does further damage to our coast and to the wildlife and to the natural resources on our coast, we need to do it. This is something that should have been done weeks ago. It was not done. It is time for Congress to step in. I hope my colleagues will help us move this legislation expeditiously and urge the administration to do what is within their realm, even before Congress acts. That would be my wish. If the President would issue an Executive order, that would do it. But since he has not and since weeks have passed, it is time for Congress to take the reins and try to do everything that is within our power to mitigate the damage to the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Thune amendment. This is the Republican alternative. Of course, we now know the Baucus package did not get the 60 votes required to go forward and, therefore, we are now looking at the Republican substitute and waiting for a new bill to come from Senator Baucus. I think it is so important that our Senate say to the American people that we know the debt being created in this country is unsupportable. Our bailouts have skyrocketed, our spending, our borrowing, now taxing--it is more than the American people can stand. Our national debt now tops $13 trillion. Since President Obama took office 18 months ago the debt has grown by over $2.4 trillion. The President's budget shows there is no end in sight. It doubles the national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. In order to sustain this current spending level, the Federal Government is being forced to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends this year. The Federal Government is spending 67 percent more than it is earning. This is similar to a household that earns $62,000 but spends $105,000. From whom are we borrowing that money? We owe China over $900 billion, Japan nearly $800 billion. Every household in America knows what it is like to set a budget. They know what the income is, and they know how to stick with it. It involves setting priorities, making tough decisions, and discipline. The bill we are debating on the Senate floor today includes important policies that are national priorities, and I support many of them. However, it is time that the Federal Government does what every other household does; that is, pay for our priorities. Here is what the Thune amendment does. It extends the expiring unemployment provisions until November, the expired tax provisions, including the local and State sales tax deduction through the end of the year. So we know that any of the expired tax cuts that people have been counting on that have been in place for several years would go through the end of this year so people would know that is at least one stabilizing force on which they can count. It drops the job-killing tax increases in the Baucus substitute. The Thune amendment proves that government can make the tough choices. The Thune amendment is paid for. According to CBO, it cuts taxes by $26 billion, it cuts spending by over $100 billion, and it reduces the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years. It shows the American people that this Senate is serious about stopping the deficit spending we have seen in the last 18 months. Spending cuts in the Thune amendment: one, it rescinds the unobligated stimulus funds; two, it imposes a 5-percent, across-the- board cut in government spending for all Federal agencies except the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense; three, it freezes for 1 year Federal employee salaries, including, of course, Congress. It is very important that our Federal employees have the same kinds of restrictions that most Americans are feeling right now. It is a freeze, not a cut, in Federal employee salaries. It requires the selling of $15 billion of unneeded and unused government property. I believe the doctor fix that we have done in a patchwork way year after year since the balanced budget amendment is now another patch. Medicare pays doctors in a fundamentally broken way. It has become an access-to-care crisis for our seniors. Too many seniors are unable to find a doctor who takes Medicare because the Federal Government has proven time and again that it is an unreliable business partner. We need a long-term solution so that the best and brightest in our country will choose medicine for their career and will choose to serve Medicare patients. Medicare is supposed to make seniors comfortable that they will be able to get medical care, but so many Medicare patients cannot find good doctors; they can't go to the doctors they want to see because the doctors have just said: I have had enough. In Texas, over 60 percent of our counties are considered health professional shortage areas. The number of medical school graduates choosing primary care has dropped 50 percent since 1997. Fifteen medical specialties have reported physician workforce shortages, and we could face a physician shortage of more than 150,000 physicians in the next 15 years. The Thune amendment provides over 2 years of a positive update for our Medicare physicians paid for by the kind of tort reform that has saved Texas doctors so much. The tort reform has brought down insurance premiums in Texas and we have increased our number of doctors since tort reform was enacted. We could do the same thing at the Federal level, and then the many counties I hear about from my colleagues all over our country that don't have a primary care physician or don't have an OB-GYN physician would be able to start seeing an influx of medical personnel back into the practice of medicine. We can do something good for America. We can show America that Congress understands that this debt is unsustainable, if we pass the Thune amendment. It is essential that we pass an amendment that will pay for the extension of unemployment insurance, that will not have any more deficit spending and not increase taxes. We need to continue the cutting of taxes so that our businesses will feel they can hire people, so that we will have an economy that can be sustained without sending more and more money to the Federal Government, which is growing bigger and bigger. We need business to grow, to hire people, to get our economy going again so that all of the sectors, including retail as well as manufacturing, will survive in our country. It is my hope we can pass the Thune amendment. It is fully paid for, it will not have deficit spending, and it will cut taxes rather than increase taxes on businesses. That is the alternative that we think is important for America to see. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.