Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I could interrupt the Senator from Oregon just to add two more cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator, and I would be glad to list the Senator as a cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 1189, also for the purposes of having it pending, and then I would like to speak about what I am trying to do with the majority.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment I have put on the table, and which is now pending, I think is so important because we must try to help the Chrysler dealers that have only gotten 3 weeks' notice to shut down. I am working with the Senators from Michigan who have concerns about whether this amendment would in any way delay the bankruptcy proceedings so that Chrysler can come out of that, and I do not want to disrupt that whole effort that is being made to help Chrysler. So we are working with the White House and with the Senators from Michigan and the people who are representing Chrysler to try to come up with language that will assure that nothing that we do would affect the timeliness of Chrysler being able to come out of bankruptcy and the courts. What we are trying to do, however, should not cost Chrysler anything. We want to try to move forward, if we can, to get this agreement and the correct language so as not to affect the bankruptcy in any way but to give these dealers more than 3 weeks' notice for shutting down a dealership that has been in their family or one that they own and in which they have made their investments. They are looking at bankruptcy too. Many times these dealerships are the largest employer in a whole community, in a whole county, and we know hundreds of them--over 700 across this country, 789 on May 14--3 weeks' notice to shut down. I know we can do better in this country, Mr. President, and I want to work with everyone who is affected. I have talked to the chairman of the Banking Committee who has agreed to clear this if it meets all the tests so it will not hurt the bankruptcy. But these dealers are forced into bankruptcy too, and I hope we can give them just 60 days instead of 3 weeks. It is only adding 3 weeks. They will then have much more capability to have an orderly process to shut down their businesses. We are not trying to affect the decision. We are not trying to reach into Chrysler's decisions that they have made that will shut down these dealerships. We are just asking for 3 more weeks to let them shut down in, hopefully, a little bit better situation. Let them get some help to know what they have to do and to sell all the parts, all the equipment, and try to get their financial arrangements in order. This will also be good for the surviving dealerships because, hopefully, they are going to buy some of this equipment, and they will need financing to do that as well. Our taxpayers are funding a lot of auto manufacturers' operations. I think the least we can do for many of those people who are paying these taxes--and that is the dealers--is to give them a chance. I have a list of the number of dealers in these States that are getting shut down, and I am just asking for some kind of equity for them. It is not equity when they are going to be shut down anyway, but 3 weeks is just not rational. So I don't want to hurt the Chrysler situation. I don't want to delay their bankruptcy. I don't want to in any way obstruct what they are trying to do because I want Chrysler to succeed. I do. So I am going to work with the Senators from Michigan, and I am going to work with the White House to try to come up with language that would say this doesn't delay the bankruptcy, and try to go forward and give these dealers that 3 extra weeks--the 3 weeks that will help them have an orderly shutdown and, hopefully, keep their employees a little longer because this is a big hit to many people in this country--789 dealerships, 3 weeks' notice, Mr. President. I don't think that is the way our country should be operating in this crisis.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am proposing an amendment that would give just 3 more weeks to the Chrysler dealers that are going to be shut down--3 more weeks for that process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move that we vitiate a rollcall vote on this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time is left, or would we be able to secure 20 minutes for Senator Graham and myself?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to have 20 minutes for Senator Graham and myself. If there is something else that is scheduled, I am happy to scale that back.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to be notified at 10 minutes so I can assure that Senator Graham of South Carolina can also speak. We are speaking today on a very important subject. We are urging President Obama today to reconsider the decision to close Guantanamo Bay until he can reassure the American people that there is a viable alternative for detaining terrorist combatants. Let there be no mistake. We are fighting a war on terror. This is a war that is just as important as any we have ever fought. Every war that we have fought for almost two centuries in this country has been a fight for freedom, and this is a fight for freedom too. When President Obama announced by Executive order that he would close Guantanamo Bay, my initial reaction was, What are we going to do with these prisoners? What is the plan? We have not seen a plan, yet we have an order that says we are going to execute a closing of Guantanamo Bay with no plan for what we do with them. I have been to Guantanamo Bay. I have visited that prison. I can tell my colleagues that in my observation and everything that we have learned since, the prisoners are being treated with respect. They are being well fed. They get health care coverage they have never had in their lives. Yet President Obama is saying we are going to close it even though we don't know what we are going to do with those prisoners. What kind of precautions would be necessary to transfer these suspected terrorists? Well, we know that American prisons are simply not experienced in handling this unique and unprecedented brand of prisoner. In the United States, even petty and unsophisticated criminals find ways to plot behind prison walls. For example, there was a recent news release about prisoners smuggling cell phones behind bars. The problem is so widespread that I have introduced, along with Congressman Kevin Brady on the House side, legislation to prevent prison inmates from using smuggled cell phones. In Texas, authorities say a death row inmate, Richard Tabler, used a smuggled cell phone to make threatening calls to a State Senator. Tabler's phone was found in the ceiling above a shower, and when they found it, they also found 11 more phones belonging to other death row inmates while they were looking for Mr. Tabler's. Do we want to take the risk that key al-Qaida terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the attacks on 9/11, won't be able to do what Richard Tabler and so many other prisoners have done-- get a cell phone and plot attacks or escapes? I think many of my colleagues understand the stakes here. On July 19 of 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society, nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. So what is the alternative? There is another alternative. We could let them go. We could release them back to their home country or to some other foreign country, but let's look at the risks of that. We now know that as many as 61 detainees previously released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield, many of whom are now waging war against Americans. The prisoners already released were believed to be the least dangerous and yet many have returned to the battlefield. The ones remaining are considered the most dangerous and the most likely to kill again or plot to kill again. Earlier this year, we learned that one former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, is currently serving as the deputy leader of al-Qaida in Yemen. Those terrorists are directly responsible for the 2008 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in which 10 people were murdered. Even though Al-Shihri was transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia for a period of rehabilitation, he rejoined al-Qaida and assumed a leadership role in the planning and execution of terrorist acts. With this knowledge, can we be serious that we would abandon the security of Guantanamo Bay for an alternative of foreign transfers that could pose harm to ourselves and our allies, and especially to our young men and women serving right now in the military in the Middle East? Without a viable option--and I do not consider it viable to let them go, because we have a history of what happened with that, nor do I think it is a viable option to transfer them to a prison in the United States until we know how we are going to secure that prison from any visitors, any capability of getting cell phones or, worse yet, weapons, so that we can assure there will not be plots from an American prison to kill Americans who are innocent anywhere in our country. Unless we have a viable option, I urge the President not to set a deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay until the American people are assured that there is a safe place for them to go. I believe the safest place for them is right where they are. Guantanamo Bay is secure. There have been no escapes from Guantanamo Bay, and they are getting treated very well. I have witnessed that, and many others of my colleagues who have taken the time to visit know they are being treated well. In many cases they are getting better care than they have had in their lifetimes. I implore the President to change this order. Let's have a plan before we release these people out into the world to plot against Americans or bring them onto our soil before we know that we have a safe, secure environment, and where communities are willing, able, and encouraging that they be there in their midst. Madam President, thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I want to say about the chairman that I do believe he made very credible changes in the original budget proposal by saying he would not sign on to many of the even bigger spending items that went over the 10- year period. This budget has some redeeming value, and I appreciate his leadership. Because it is very difficult when you have the President of your party and Congress also with leaders from your party trying to say: You have to do this. It is hard sometimes to reconcile all of that. I appreciate that effort. I am speaking against the budget resolution today because the overwhelming parts of the budget that are unacceptable outweigh the few good things that were done. Reconciliation was the subject of conversation. Reconciliation, of course, is the procedure that is used to completely wipe out the minority's opportunities for input. Maybe we will have input, but no Republican amendments will pass. On reconciliation, you do not have the ability to filibuster at all. While reconciliation is not completely allowed on the climate change bill, the report says: It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change. I am going to take the chairman at his word saying that global climate change will not be subject to reconciliation because it is very important we have amendments. One of the amendments I had on this budget resolution, which was taken out by the conference, relates to the energy portion of the bill. So not having reconciliation and taking away the ability to filibuster in the climate change bills that will come later is a positive. However, reconciliation is in the health care part of this budget, which means health care reform and the single-payer system that has been proposed by the President and the leaders in Congress is in reconciliation, which means there will be no opportunity to filibuster or possibly have input--certainly no leverage by the minority. That is in the health care section of the resolution, which may be the most important one that affects people's lives. We know our system of health care in America is the best in the world. There may be a few other countries that have equal access to private choices and doctor choices and the ability to choose what hospital and the type of care you are going to get and the kind of insurance coverage you get. But I think it is best in America. I know the countries that have gone to the single-payer system--which takes the private sector largely out of health care, takes the choice out of health care--end up with a system that allows people to die while they are waiting to have the procedures they need that they would have in the United States of America within a week. So we have that in this budget in reconciliation, which means it is a 51-vote bill. That in itself is enough for us to vote against this budget. But there are other reasons as well. We know our Nation is in the middle of an economic crisis the likes of which none of us have ever seen. Yet we are looking at a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that says basically to the American people: We know you are struggling. We know you are trying to make ends meet. We know you cannot get loans from the bank. We know your small businesses are struggling to stay open. But not the American Government. The American Government is growing. It is getting bigger. It is going to be a burden that is going to be beyond what we will be able to bring back or contract if we can get through this economic crisis. So while the American people are proving their resilience in the face of hardship, we are seeing the American Government grow as if we had all the money in the world to spend, which we do not. We are now looking at an unprecedented growth in Government in this country with a $3.5 trillion budget, on top of a $1 trillion stimulus bill, on top of a $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill--all of which have been passed in the last 100 days. The American people know this increase in Government spending is not free and it is not sustainable. The American people will be forced to pay for it. It is a short-term gain for a very long-term cost. It will double the public debt in 5 years. In 10 years, this budget will triple the American debt. The distinguished chairman, Senator Conrad, would not allow this budget to go forward for 10 years because he saw that debt and he had the integrity to say no. So it is 5 years. Hopefully, when this budget resolution is adopted--because it is going to despite our objections-- hopefully, in the next 2 years, if we can see the economy coming back, the people with integrity in the majority will say it is time to start reversing some of the debt that has been created, get these deficits down, and give our country a chance to recover for the long term and not hand our children this debt. Because if we go on with this budget as it is today, which will presumably be adopted by Congress today-- because the House has already adopted it--it will create more debt than every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined--more debt than all the Presidents of our country combined. In 10 years, this budget will spend nearly four times more on interest payments than on education, energy, and transportation combined. That is staggering. I would urge my colleagues to think twice before they vote for this resolution because reversing it will be very difficult. There are some good parts of this budget. One is I want to commend the majority leader, Harry Reid, because he did take the lead in making permanent the State and local sales tax deduction. It is something I have worked on with him and with others in this body, who represent the eight States that do not have a personal income tax, just to get equity. Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, myself, and the Senators from Tennessee have all worked tirelessly, along with Senator Reid and Senator Ensign, to rectify the inequity that has plagued the eight States that do not have the State income tax. But they do have sales taxes. What the majority leader has led the fight to do is to allow those eight States, on a permanent basis, to deduct our sales taxes on our Federal income taxes, just like all the other 42 States in our country are able to deduct their State income taxes on their Federal income taxes. This all started in 1986, when the sales tax deduction was eliminated, but the income tax deduction was kept. Since 1986, until 2004, we had that inequity. But we corrected it in 2004 with the efforts of many of us. Thank goodness we have had extensions. Now we will make it permanent. That is a fundamental issue of fairness, and I commend Senator Reid for his leadership. However, my amendment to permanently eliminate the marriage penalty, which was adopted by the Senate, was taken out in conference. I think it is the most egregious antifamily tax we have in this country today. We, in the plan that is before us, did not make that tax relief permanent. We have had it since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I hoped to make it permanent. But we were not able to do that. What is going to happen after 2010 is the marriage penalty is going to come back in full force for those who make over $200,000--many of which are subchapter S corporations. They are the small businesses that create jobs. We have a common goal: President Obama and the Democrats in Congress and the Republicans in Congress all want to create jobs. The problem is, the policies that are put forward in President Obama's budget and in the one that is getting ready to be adopted will hit, with tax increases, the people who will create jobs, by increasing their tax brackets, by increasing the marriage penalty on them. We should follow our goals with policies that will achieve them. But instead, unfortunately, we are going in the opposite direction. Here is another example: the Outer Continental Shelf. President Obama said in the campaign, and he has said since: We have a goal of energy independence for America. Sixty percent of our energy needs are imported from foreign countries--countries that do not want us to succeed, countries such as Venezuela, countries in the Middle East. We are importing our energy needs from countries that would like to shut us down. We have a goal. It is a common goal, once again--Democrats and Republicans--energy independence for America. But we are taxing the only energy source in this country that actually produces enough energy to make us independent. Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would open exploration and give every State that allows that exploration a part of the royalties. We would encourage environmentally safe drilling off our shores, using our natural resources for our common goal of energy independence for our country. But, no, the amendment the Senate adopted was taken out of the conference report that would have encouraged the expansion of oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf. It has been shown by the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is today our largest source of oil off our own shores--because we know how to drill in an environmentally safely way, just like we could do in ANWR, where the people of Alaska want to be able to drill in a very small frozen tundra in Alaska, where we would have an even bigger resource than the Gulf of Mexico, and yet that, too, has been shut out. We have a unique position in the world; that is, we are the only country in the world with abundant natural resources that could reduce our energy dependence in an environmentally safe way. Yet we refuse to use those natural resources. Other countries in the world fight for natural resources that we have in abundance but are unable to use because we have shut those down. Every one of us in this body believes that wind energy is great, that solar energy is great, that we need to do more research in technology, so that solar and wind energy will be more available on a 24-hour, everyday basis. We want more technology to learn how batteries can increase their capacity so we can have electric cars that could run for a long time. We want those things but not at the expense of environmentally safely using the resources we have--such as nuclear energy, for instance, which is the cheapest source of electricity in this country. There are no carbon emissions from nuclear energy. We have not built a new nuclear powerplant in this country in over 30 years. We must encourage these energy sources that would make us energy independent in an environmentally safe way. There are so many parts of this budget that are wrong, and I hope that we will say no to it--if only for the reason of having reconciliation in health care and adding an unprecedented amount of money to our debt, giving us deficits that are unable to be stopped as far as the eye can see. Go back to the drawing board and bring us a budget that tells the American people: We get it. We know a big increase in Government is not in a family's best interest, a family that is struggling to make ends meet and stay in their home and either keep their job or produce jobs for others. This budget will not do that. I hope the majority will listen to what we are saying: Defeat this budget and then, in a bipartisan way, we can come up with a plan that will be good for America and that will give Americans confidence that they are going to have an economy once again that will create jobs and good incomes for their families. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. May I have 15 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, first, wish to thank Senator McCain for leading this effort to present an alternative because we all know, after looking at the Democratic budget and the Obama administration budget which produced the Democratic budget, that the debt is unsustainable. This is a budget that would double our debt in 5 years, and if it goes out to 10, it would triple our debt. As a matter of fact, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. We have to start putting some common sense in this budget process or we are going to go into an abyss. We must take the reins of this budget and hold it back. Today, our debt-to-gross domestic product is 57 percent. That is pretty high. The average over the last 50 years has been about 40 percent. This underlying budget today would take our debt-to-gross domestic product ratio to 80 percent. That is simply unsustainable on a long-term basis. During the Great Depression, during World War II, we saw numbers such as that, but you cannot sustain it over a long period of time. It was brought back down after World War II so that it was in the 30-percent range. Forty percent is optimum. We are at 57. We would go to 80 if we don't do something. That is why Senator McCain and those of us who are cosponsoring his substitute are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to produce an alternative that is responsible and takes care of the needs of our country at the same time. The key points of this substitute are that we would cap discretionary spending at baseline levels plus inflation, except for defense and veterans. That means every program we have can grow with inflation. You are not cutting anything from today, but you are allowing it to just grow by inflation, which will cap it--except for defense, which does increase, and our veterans, which does increase. We have increased our veterans, we have increased defense, we continue to do so because we know our duty to those who are serving our country and protecting our freedom. This substitute also extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That means marriage penalty relief will be extended. It means we will not put a shock into the stock market by increasing the capital gains and dividends rates at a time when we want to shore up our stock market. The worst thing we can do is send a signal that those taxes are going to go up in 2 years when our economy is already flailing. It will lower everyone's tax burden--everyone's. It will keep that 10-percent rate instead of moving it up. It will keep everyone's tax burden lower. Marriage penalty relief is something I am going to offer an amendment on if this substitute does not pass because we need to make it permanent. The marriage penalty in this country, if we go back to the way it used to be, is over $1,000 a couple. Is this a country that wants to dissuade people from getting married? That is the core of our family support in this country. Our substitute will extend the tax cuts, including marriage penalty, including every bracket, and including capital gains and dividends, to encourage savings and shore up our stock market. It also takes the bigger picture view. This is a 10-year substitute, so it ensures that revenues collected from closing the tax gap would only be used for debt reduction. This is planning for the future. This is saying we are going to bring down that debt burden that is in the underlying bill before us. It will not be used to increase Federal spending because we are going to cap that at the baseline plus inflation. We are not going to hurt anyone. We are not going to also add to our debt. In fact, we would cut $4 trillion from the budget that is before us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I hope my colleagues will look at this responsible alternative.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase the marriage penalty tax. We have worked very hard in Congress to eliminate the marriage penalty, which we have not been able to do completely, but we have mitigated it, lowered it significantly. Before we addressed this issue, the marriage penalty was an average of $1,100 per couple; that is, two single people getting married caused them to have to pay $1,100 more in taxes because of the marriage penalty in the Tax Code. We have mitigated that to a great extent. This amendment would create a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase the marriage penalty. We all know we should not in any way discourage marriage in this country. We have been able to do that. I think we need to stick with it, and this is the way to do it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 868. I do support Senator Reid's amendment. It is important. Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator from South Carolina is going to have amendments that will try to bring this budget, which is going to increase the debt in our country, down to a level that can sustain our future generations. So I am proud to work with him to try to do that. I rise to discuss three amendments I will offer tomorrow as well. I truly believe we have made some progress today because some of the amendments that have passed will have an effect that I think will be positive on this budget. Anywhere I go in my State, or anywhere I go in this country, people are talking about the mounting debt. It is almost breathtaking because we have never seen this kind of debt. This debt, juxtaposed against our gross domestic product, is the highest we have seen since World War II. We know that World War II and the Great Depression before that were extraordinary times. Clearly, these, too, are extraordinary times, but we have a responsibility to our country and to the hard-working people of our country, and the people who have lost their jobs in our country, to act responsibly. We have already passed a trillion-dollar stimulus package. We passed another trillion dollars in spending just for this year, much of which was duplicative with the stimulus package. So that is $2 trillion we have obligated in the first 2 months of this year. Now we are looking at a budget that, over a 10-year period, is going to increase the debt by another $9 trillion. That is not sustainable. We are coming to a tipping point in which we will not be able to sell our debt because there will be a fear that we cannot repay it. That will be a financial crisis for sure. So I am offering three amendments, and I would like to start with amendment No. 866. It would provide permanent marriage penalty relief. My amendment would establish a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase a marriage penalty, which is the most egregious antifamily action in our Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. The marriage penalty pushes married couples into a higher tax bracket than two single earners earning the same combined income. After years of fighting this issue of equity, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made a great stride toward eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering tax rates, doubling the standard deduction, and simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married in 1999, amounting to approximately $1,400 per couple. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness. But we may lose it. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table, buy clothes for their children, or send them to college, the budget that has been proposed by the President would raise taxes on the top two income brackets, both of which still include a marriage penalty. As a result of increasing the tax rates on this bracket, the President further exacerbates the marriage penalty for married couples in those brackets, effectively reversing the progress we have made in ensuring that marriage would not be a taxable event. The benefits of marriage are well-established. Yet, without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code gives a disincentive for people to become married. My amendment would affirm this body's commitment to the institution of marriage by creating a point of order against any legislation that would impose or increase a marriage penalty. We should be celebrating marriage. Marriage and families are the core of our society. We should not be penalizing it. Amendment No. 868 enacts a permanent deduction for State and local sales taxes. I have worked, since I came to the Senate, to rectify a tax inequity that plagues eight States. They are the eight States that have a sales tax but not an income tax. Before 1986, taxpayers in these States--Texas, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, and Tennessee--had the ability to deduct their sales taxes, like every taxpaying citizen from States that impose income taxes. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local taxes--sales taxes, that is--was eliminated. Together, the eight States that impose sales taxes in lieu of income taxes fought to correct this injustice from 1986 until 2004, when we finally did correct it. Since then, we have provided extensions every few years, with the current extension set to expire at the end of this year. While the budget before us assumes an extension of that valuable relief for an additional 2 years--through 2011--what we really need is to make this relief permanent. The majority leader has an amendment, which I have cosponsored, to accomplish this goal. I support his effort, and I welcome his leadership on the issue because it is an initiative that we must accomplish to ensure fairness for our constituents. He certainly was one of the leaders in correcting the inequity in 2004, and I appreciate that. While I support his effort--I am not opposed to the approach he is taking--I do today rise to offer an alternative approach that ensures a permanent sales tax extension by actually accounting for it directly in the budget. There is a key distinction between our amendments. The majority leader's amendment requires our States' tax equity to be paid for by other changes in the budget, whether it is spending cuts or other tax increases. I disagree that our States should have to pay for tax relief that not only pays for itself but is granted to taxpayers who do not have sales taxes but do have income taxes, or maybe they have sales taxes and income taxes. It is a fundamental issue of fairness. While I will support any measure that makes the sales tax deduction permanent, I think we should not have to be held to a higher standard than other States when we are dealing with tax relief that really pays for itself. We should be equal in this country. The Federal Government should not be giving breaks to people who have income taxes but not the same breaks to people who have sales taxes. All the States collect taxes. They do it in different ways. The Federal Government should not pick winners and losers. The amendment I am offering today will permanently end the discrimination suffered by the eight States that have no income tax but do have a sales tax and don't have the option of that deduction. There should be a deduction, and you should be able to choose. People in income tax States should be able to choose that as their deduction; or if they would prefer, they could also deduct sales taxes. But the people in sales tax States that don't have an income tax should have the same rights. So I urge the adoption of amendment No. 868 when it is brought forward tomorrow. Mr. President, I have a third amendment, No. 867. This is the Outer Continental Shelf expansion budget resolution amendment. I wish to speak in support of the amendment I have filed with my colleagues, Senators Bond, Vitter, and Murkowski, which ensures that we will expand domestic offshore energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Section 202 of the budget resolution directs that we reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing green jobs, promoting renewable energy development, establishing a clean energy investment fund, and encouraging conservation and efficiency. While I support these initiatives, which will play a role in making our country more energy independent, we cannot overlook our own domestic oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, which this budget before us does. The goal of reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil is one on which both sides of the aisle should be able to agree. Our President has said we must reduce our Nation's imports of oil. It is irresponsible to put our economic and national security in the hands of unstable and unfriendly regimes. Today, we import over 60 percent of our energy needs, and too much of it comes from unstable and unfriendly regimes, such as Venezuela and parts of the Middle East. In 2008 alone, we spent close to $475 billion on imported oil. This amendment I have will reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of energy, minimize future increases in gasoline prices, and help reduce the debt with new lease revenue. We must reduce our dependence on dictators, such as Hugo Chavez, who control our energy supplies. Increased domestic oil and gas production right here at home, in the waters off our shores, will help us reduce our foreign dependency and make us more energy independent, and we can do it in an environmentally safe manner. Expanded energy production off U.S. shores will also help us minimize future price increases. With a lack of supply that could force up energy prices, increasing supply will certainly bring it back down. Some will say: Well, oil prices are low now. Why should we drill? That is exactly the kind of attitude that will ensure that prices go up. We could sit back and wait for oil prices to go back up and then act, but we have more responsibility and hopefully more leadership in the Senate than to wait because we know that if supplies dwindle, prices will go up. We have oil right here off our own shores. We need to use it. We are the only Nation in the world that has an abundance of energy supplies yet refuses to use them. Other nations either don't have energy supplies or they are trying very hard to get some kind of energy in their own countries. We have the capability to provide for our energy independence and we are not doing it. And we are letting down the people of our country if we don't. So I urge support for amendment No. 867 when we vote tomorrow. Mr. President, I just want to end by saying that I am a cosponsor of Senator McCain's amendment that would be a substitute for this budget. I hope to be able to talk on the floor tomorrow about his substitute. I believe we must produce an alternative to this budget. We have certainly criticized how big it is and how much we have to borrow to pay for it and the taxes that would have to be raised. The budget currently before us spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. We can do better in this country. The substitute of Senator McCain and myself and other cosponsors will certainly do more in the area of bringing our budget down to a sustainable size and doing what is right for this country. It basically freezes spending and adds as the rate of inflation, so the programs in place right now would be able to grow with inflation, but it will show the American people that we mean to cut back in the outyears of this spending so we will not increase the debt. In fact, the McCain substitute will lower the debt that is envisioned in this Obama budget by $3.9 trillion. This would be our first step toward fiscal responsibility and doing what the Senate ought to do. I hope to talk more about the McCain substitute of which I am a cosponsor because I think it is the responsible approach and I think it is our responsibility to provide an alternative. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor of marriage penalty amendment No. 866.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments when they come up, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Five minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is that going to take away anything you need from your side? Are you saying there is only 3\1/2\ minutes left on our side on this?