Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I Ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on our side I have Senator Wicker and Senator Shelby, who have been here waiting, and I would like to give them 15 minutes from the time on our side. I know there are others here, but these Senators have been waiting for quite a while.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Up to 5 minutes for Senator Wicker and up to 10 minutes for Senator Shelby.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in part, the letter says: The FCC enacted these Net Neutrality rules despite a complete lack of Congressional authorization and after being told by a court that they lack jurisdiction. Remember, this court, in the Comcast case, basically said to the FCC: You and all the other regulatory agencies that are independent must have specific authority from Congress to regulate in this area. They found in the Comcast case they did not have such jurisdiction. Once again, citing from the letter in support of passing S.J. Res. 6-- which is signed by Grover Norquist, Phil Kerpen, David Williams, Thomas Schatz, and Mario Lopez--it says: The FCC's order also runs contrary to the broad and bipartisan conversation in Washington about how best to grow the economy and spur job creation. President Obama and Members in Congress on both sides of the aisle have called to rein in overbearing regulations that harm economic growth. Here we have yet another regulation on top of the EPA and the NLRB and the NMB coming forward to put a damper on our economy. Mr. President, I would like to read from an opinion piece written by Phil Kerpen, who is with the Americans for Prosperity, and I thought this was relevant to the debate. Network neutrality sounds nice. Originally, it was the idea that all of the traffic . . . that travel over the networks that comprise the Internet should be treated exactly the same way. But engineers cried foul, because the routers that make the Internet work are highly sophisticated with millions of lines of code that necessarily prioritize different types of traffic. Streaming video can't tolerate delays of a few seconds whereas an e-mail could. So network neutrality morphed into something even more dangerous, empowering the FCC bureaucrats to play traffic cops, micromanaging networks, and deciding which traffic can or can't be prioritized. The result would be a precipitous decline in private investment because the companies that spent billions of dollars building networks could no longer be certain how the FCC bureaucrats would allow those networks to be used. I am reading from this letter, and I will continue. The letter says: A recent study from New York University found that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. The tech sector--the brightest spot in our economy--would be burdened by Federal regulations the way the rest of the economy has been. So these are excerpts from Mr. Kerpen's opinion piece that say it is now crunch time to stop the FCC's Internet takeover. I think these outside groups that are weighing in are showing that just regular consumers--I heard the list of groups that are supporting this rule that has come out. But the citizens who are for free markets and tax reform and for letting our businesses grow and thrive through the American innovation--I like some of the things they have said that I think are very important in this debate. I urge my colleagues to look at whether we are exercising our responsibility as Members of Congress when we would vote against stopping a Federal agency that has not had a delegation of authority from Congress to regulate in this area. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of this resolution. We need to send it to the President and say to the President: Congress did not delegate our authority. It is overstepping its bounds, and furthermore it is going to put a damper on the most thriving part of our economy today, and that is the tech sector. It is where we are, hands down, ahead in the world because we have kept the free markets. Why would we give that up to unelected Federal agencies that have not been asked by Congress to regulate in this area? And if we did, we should be required--because it is our constitutional responsibility to do so--to say exactly what we would ask a policy to be in a new regulation. We have not done that, and we should not allow the Federal agencies, which are appointed but not elected, to take over this area that is so important for our economy. If we have any guts at all in this Senate, we should stand up for our one-third of the balance of power in the Federal Government and assert ourselves to keep control over runaway Federal agencies that do not answer to anyone.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I Thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 bill before the Senate--the Rebuild America Jobs Act. The Rebuild America Jobs Act contains a variation of a bill that I cosponsored with Senator Kerry--we call it the BUILD Act. It is the Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act, and so we call it BUILD. But the changes that have been made in the bill that is before us today are untenable, and I cannot support it. Last March, I introduced the bipartisan BUILD Act along with Senators Kerry, Warner, and Graham. It puts forward a method of addressing our infrastructure needs that I think is the right way forward. The need and demand for greater infrastructure investment is unprecedented. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a $2.2 trillion investment is needed over the next 5 years to restore our infrastructure to an adequate condition. Ignoring these needs hampers our economic growth, impedes the flow of inter- and intrastate commerce, and slows the development and distribution of domestic energy production. We should consider new, innovative ways of financing our infrastructure. Traditional government mechanisms alone cannot keep pace with our national demand. Our legislation--Senator Kerry's and mine--creates the American Infrastructure Financing Authority. This would be an independent authority designed to facilitate private investment in critical infrastructure projects. It is designed like a bank, providing loans or loan guarantees for regionally or nationally significant projects in transportation, energy and water sectors. Let me emphasize that this will not provide grants. Grants will not be given. They will not be allowed. Nationally significant projects or regional projects would be at least $100 million. There is a $25 million category for rural areas, but we are not looking at a stimulus where we go in and provide financing for small projects. This is for dams, for desalination plants, or for an electric grid that isn't working and causing brownouts in major areas. We are talking about big dollars that are not easily raised in the government sector or the private sector alone because it doesn't make economic sense, unless we put the loans and the loan guarantees together. There is a prohibition against spending more than 50 percent of the project cost, and the other 50 percent has to have come from another source--a private source or a State or local government source. In addition, there has to be a revenue stream that will have the ability to pay this loan back. We want the loans paid back so that more infrastructure can be built. So we are talking about a revenue stream from, say, water bills, if it is a water desalination plant that is going to provide water for economic development, or if it is a dam that is going to provide electricity, we have electric bills. But we have to have a revenue source. So we have narrowed our legislation so that it will have the ability to pay back the loan. It is going to be something that can work. In its first 10 years, it is estimated that our BUILD Act would provide $160 billion in financial assistance for major projects like this. So if it would be highways or bridges, there would be a toll that would be necessary for the transportation--something that would have a revenue stream to pay these back but allow them to be built because the private sector is sitting on the sidelines right now. The bank would not replace our existing Federal funding mechanism, but it would supplement them for the large projects that have a major public benefit. The bank administering this fund would apply sound underwriting principles to assess the risk of a loan or loan guarantee. The BUILD Act would require an initial appropriation. Senator Kerry and I have committed to identifying a reasonable offset. Additional deficit spending has never been an option for the BUILD Act. So it would be $10 billion that would be taken from a program today and put into this long-term bank so we can match loans and loan guarantees with private funds or State or local funds and do big things, not little things, except in rural areas where there is a $25 million threshold. It is going to be $100 million or more, and no more than 50 percent of it can be from this program. I appreciate the fact the bill before us incorporates some elements of the BUILD Act and seeks to correct some of the flaws in the previous infrastructure bank proposals that have been put forward by the administration. However, I think the differences between our BUILD Act and the legislation brought forward by the majority leader take away the bipartisan appeal of the bill. Let me also say there is in this legislation--in addition to the $10 billion in the long-term plan Senator Kerry and I introduced--a $50 billion stimulus package, which is why I couldn't possibly support this bill. It is another $50 billion stimulus package. I appreciate the need for investment--obviously, that is why I support the BUILD Act--but $50 billion in the bill in addition to the $10 billion bank is more of the same type of stimulus that has not worked. It is more debt. Well, I guess it isn't more debt because they pay for it with a tax, which is even worse. The bill before us has the $50 billion added to it, and it is paid for with a surtax on people who are making more than $1 million a year, and mostly from their businesses. That is why I can't support it. It proposes a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary spending program. That is bad policy in itself. Raising taxes on incomes that would harm business owners and job creators is part of the reason people aren't hiring today. The President keeps talking about more taxes on business. On top of the Obama health care plan, it is causing businesses not to hire people, and we have a 9-percent unemployment rate in this country. So I think it is important we defeat the bill before us and try to come up with something that is more akin to the BUILD Act that Senator Kerry and I have put forward. Data from an August 2011 Treasury report says four out of five people who would be hit by the surtax are business owners--the same people we need to encourage to create jobs. I think it is going to be essential, if we are going to try to create jobs in our country, that we stop talking about surtaxes on businesses. We have to stop talking about more costs, and we have to stop the overregulation. We have overregulation, the talk of more taxes, and we have the Obama health care plan that is going to have fines and taxes that are coming after the next election when that all comes together. Businesspeople are seeing this and saying: I am going to hold where I am now instead of hiring people and getting our economy jump-started. So I think job creation should be the key of anything we do in this Congress. It should be our focus. It should be the priority, and that means we should have conditions in the private sector that will create job growth. The bill before us today is simply another $50 billion stimulus plan that we have already seen doesn't work, and it is paid for with a new tax that is going to further stifle business hiring. Now more than ever we must focus our efforts in this Congress on commonsense measures that will jump-start the economy and make our businesspeople think it is worth hiring. Then we will have a surge in the private sector, which is the sector that can create jobs that will last. So I am not going to be able to vote for the bill before us, but I would like to urge my colleagues to look at the Kerry-Hutchison bill that offers a long term approach. It is not going to be immediate because it would take up to a year to set up this bill. But we shouldn't be just talking about today. We shouldn't just be talking about something that will jump-start the economy between now and the end of the year. We should also be looking at the long term as well. We should be looking at the long term fiscal situation and how we assure that not only are we trying to jump-start right now but that we are looking forward to the future. That is what a true BUILD Act would do. That is what an infrastructure bank that is put in place with solid principles would do. The Kerry-Hutchison bill is such a bill. The bill that is before us is not. I hope we will be able to have a chance for our bill to go through the Finance Committee and to get suggestions from our colleagues on ways to strengthen it. But the bill before us today would hurt our economy, hurt job creation, and that is not the direction we should be going. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is there time remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is the most massive encroachment on States rights I have seen in this body. It is $5 million on a priority we should not have. I will work with the Senator from Virginia to pare it down so a Federal commission will look at the Federal system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Webb amendment to the bill. Senator Webb from Virginia spoke earlier about the purpose of this legislation. I believe if we had the time to work on this amendment we could accommodate the Senator's proposed goals for the commission. However, this has not gone through the Judiciary Committee. It is an authorization of a commission--it is called the National Criminal Justice Commission--which is purporting to look at the entire criminal justice system--Federal, State, and local. This is an overreach of gigantic proportions. It is certainly within the purview of Congress to do a national commission to look at the Federal criminal justice system, but to go into State and local governments and purport to examine the criminal justice systems of our States and local governments is far beyond the reach of Congress, and it is certainly not a priority we should meet in appropriations bills when we are already in a deficit and debt crisis in this country. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National District Attorneys Association and a letter from the National Association of Police Organizations be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the letter from the District Attorneys Association looks at an earlier version of the bill which had a $14 million pricetag and the pricetag on this amendment is $5 million. So with that caveat I submit the letter, because the points the District Attorneys Association makes are very valid except for that one error of the amount of money. However, let's talk about the $5 million. Is it the priority of the Justice Department to have a national commission that purports to go into State and local governments and look at their criminal justice systems at a time such as this? They are taking the $5 million from the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs administrative account. That is the account that administers the following grant programs, all of which I will not read, but they include: the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Byrne-JAG grants, the National Sex Offender Registry, the Bulletproof Vest grants, the National Stalker Database, and it goes on and on. So the Senator from Virginia wants to take $5 million from the administrators of this account and put it into looking into the criminal justice systems of our 50 States and whatever local governments they would choose to look at. The Senate position is already $118 million for that account, which is $64 million below the fiscal year 2011 levels. The House has put $79 million in this account. We would be taking away $5 million more for us to go to conference with to do an overreach against States rights in order to fund a commission that is going to look into programs, and take away from the fund grants that are so important to so many of our State and local governments, not to mention the people of our country. Let's talk about the budgetary decisions of the States; for instance, New York and Vermont or the State of Virginia or Texas or Alabama. How are we going to look at the criminal justice systems with this national commission and say, Oh, we think the priority for New York State and its prison system or its number of district attorneys should meet the Federal standard? Would that be the same standard for the State of Vermont? This is such an overreach, and it is not a priority in these tight budgetary times, in my opinion. The budgetary decisions of our State and local governments and the criminal justice systems should be done at that level. If there is a massive problem, there will be lawsuits about it. There would be a lawsuit against the Texas prison system. There was one, and it changed the way the Texas prison systems were even built and how much space there was in the cells. If there is a problem, there is a remedy. But we don't need a national commission to come in and tell the State and local governments they have a problem and rearrange the budgetary priorities of those States and local governments. The GAO looked at this bill as a freestanding bill and they said the definition of ``criminal justice system'' is way too broad. A report on the Federal criminal justice system could be valuable to Congress, which I submit I would agree with. Maybe that would be important. But to be effective, the GAO said, such a report should be narrowly targeted on specific features of the Federal criminal justice system such as law enforcement, courts, detention facilities, number of prosecutors, whether there is a victims rights advocate--they can look at a lot of different things, but they should narrow the scope if they are going to be effective. If Congress is to responsibly and wisely use our taxpayer dollars in these economic times, I think it is essential that we narrow the scope. Let me mention something that is also mentioned in the District Attorneys Association's letter, which is something that caught my eye when I read this amendment. The 14-member commission is on its face 7 members appointed by Republicans and 7 members appointed by Democrats. So we have a 14-member commission. On its face, seven from each party would pass muster for bipartisan. However, it has the President of the United States appointing two of the Republican members. If we want a commission that is seven and seven, wouldn't it be more fair or pass the test of bipartisanship if Republicans appoint the Republicans and the Democrats appoint the Democrats? This commission would essentially be nine to five, not seven and seven. I don't know that we have partisan issues in criminal justice. In some areas we probably do but, in the prioritizing of the budget, probably not. Probably there are political differences in our priorities for the criminal justice system, so if we are going to have a fair commission that purports to have a seven-seven makeup, let's make it seven-seven. The reason we have a rule in this Senate that says we can't authorize on appropriations bills is because we have authorization committees that have hearings, that mark up legislation, that make the necessary changes to accommodate the needs of the majority and the minority and assure that something has at least been vetted. This bill has not been authorized. This comprehensive amendment appointing this national commission to study the criminal justice systems of the Federal, State, and local governments needs a lot of work. I wish to reach out to Senator Webb to work with him to assure that it is a Federal commission looking at the Federal criminal justice system, and perhaps find out what his priorities are for his commission to study, and let's focus on those as the GAO said would be necessary. I would not take the $5 million from the accounts administering the very important grant programs to our State and local governments and to the people who are affected by missing and exploited children, to assure that the State Criminal Alien Assistance program, SCAAP, which helps our border counties in the States that are on the border, accommodate the incarceration of illegal alien criminals. In my State of Texas, the counties on the border don't have the money to incarcerate the prisoners who are illegal aliens and who are Federal responsibility. The administrators of these programs, such as the Mentally Ill Offender Grants, the Cybercrime Economic Program, the Coverdell Forensic Improvement grants, the Adam Walsh Act--we shouldn't be cutting the accounts that administer those programs. That would not be my choice if I had had the ability to work with the Senator from Virginia to accommodate his needs, as an authorization committee would. This should not be in this bill. If we are going to have a 14-member commission--that is 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats--let's have a fair appointment of those 7 members on each side. To say the President of the United States would appoint two of the Republicans and that is an even distribution, it does not pass the test of what appears to be the fairness in the appointment of the commission. So I oppose this amendment, and I would like to work with Senator Webb to have a national criminal justice commission that would focus on the national criminal justice system. We do not need to overreach into State and local governments. We do not need to set the priorities for the budgets of States and local governments. We do not have the capacity to do it. I will guarantee, with 14 members, they are not going to represent 50 States and the needs of the States that are small and the States that have large urban areas and the cities that are dealing with these crimes. We are into vast overreach with this amendment, and it is not the priority, I believe, right now to take $5 million from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Byrne grants that are so important to our State and local governments and the border prosecution funding and the SCAAP funding. It has not been vetted as we require in the Senate. Unfortunately, the agreement that was made between the majority and minority leaders last night said no points of order would be able to be launched against this amendment. I would have raised a point of order because it is authorizing on an appropriations bill. The reason is, it has not been vetted by the Judiciary Committee, which ought to have taken up this bill and corrected the problems in it before it came to be full blown in an appropriations bill. I will reiterate that I will work with Senator Webb. I will work on a national commission that studies the national criminal justice system. If we can pinpoint it carefully to the needs he is trying to meet, I will be happy to work with him on that. I will be happy to work with him on the appointment of the commission. If it is supposed to be seven and seven, let's make it seven and seven, not nine and five. I hope he will withdraw this amendment. I hope the Senate can defeat it, if he does not. Most certainly, if we go to conference with this amendment on this bill, I will do everything in my power to eliminate it, unless it is changed significantly to meet the needs of our country to assure a fair Federal system. We do not need to get into the State and local government budgetary priorities in this appropriations bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire on behalf of the leader. She has brought to the floor an outstanding amendment that needs to be addressed because this is an issue that is certainly on a lot of people's minds, as to why we would be using our judicial system for enemy combatants. She has articulated it so well, as the former attorney general of New Hampshire, and we appreciate so much that she has brought this amendment. It is going to get a lot of support from the American people as well as Members of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, very shortly, we will vote on President Obama's nominee to be the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Mr. John Bryson. This is the most senior position in the Department, which is tasked with promoting business, creating jobs, and spurring economic growth. While this has always been important, it is very appropriate now, with the unemployment rate at 9.1 percent. The administration has talked about job creation and the need for regulatory reform. But respectfully, I have not seen regulatory reform yet a priority on the President's agenda. You might not find a pricetag for regulation, but there is no question that businesses know when they are overregulated. It stifles their ability to create jobs. This year alone regulations are projected to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.8 trillion, and new regulations imposed by the administration in 2011 would cost over $60 billion. So during the confirmation process, when Mr. Bryson was before our committee, I asked him about his view on overregulation. He stated that he would be a voice in the administration for simplifying regulations and eliminating those where the cost of regulation exceed the benefits. I believe his business background qualifies him to address that issue. It would give him the experience to be helpful in bringing back the regulations that are stifling the growth of business and therefore the job creation in our country. I also appreciated that Mr. Bryson said in the confirmation hearing that the National Labor Relations Board was wrong in trying to keep Boeing from choosing where it would manufacture its products. On the corporate tax rate, the United States currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, behind Japan, which has said it will lower its rate, ultimately leaving the United States with the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate should be a substantial part of any tax reform, and although that tax policy is beyond the Commerce Secretary's responsibility, I did ask Mr. Bryson whether he believed our corporate tax rate was too high and would he be a voice for lowering it. He said he would. I thought that was a very important statement for him to make, and important for the Secretary of Commerce to commit to doing. We have now passed the free-trade agreements that held up consideration of his nomination. If confirmed, I expect Mr. Bryson to take advantage of the agreements and work to assist our businesses with the efforts to reach out and expand new markets with these new free- trade agreements. Mr. Bryson made statements before the Commerce Committee supporting cap-and-trade legislation because he felt that the electric utility industry--he was the chairman of a major corporation in that industry--needed regulatory certainty. That was his reason for coming out for cap and trade. I disagreed with him on that. I agree with many of my colleagues that that is not the right approach for America. We should not have cap and trade, as some have called it, cap and tax. But Mr. Bryson again said that he had no interest in pursuing that kind of legislation if he is confirmed as Secretary of Commerce. I would point out that Mr. Bryson has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers. They will be major constituents he will represent in trying to build business for our country. He is also supported by six former Secretaries of Commerce, including Secretaries that served in the administrations of George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Richard Nixon. In summary, I believe the President should be given deference in selecting the members of his Cabinet unless there are serious issues against the nominee. I have voted against a few of the nominees of some of the Presidents while I have been in the Senate, but I do it rarely and very carefully, because I think that elections have consequences. I believe the President has the right to make his decisions. I do not believe there are issues that rise to that level in the case of John Bryson. He does have a business background. He is well regarded by many colleagues who have called me on his behalf, who have been with him in the business world. I do not see any issue that would cause me not to vote for his nomination. I will support his nomination. I will work alongside him to be a voice for job creation in our country. I hope he is confirmed. I think he will be confirmed. I would hope he would then work with other Members of Congress who want to help him be an effective voice for business and investment in America and create the jobs that will get this unemployment rate back down and get people back to work. I do not have people on my side yet who are going to speak, but there are two others who wish to speak. I will put us in a quorum call until they get to the floor and then that will probably allow us to yield back. I will ask my colleagues, any who are listening, if they wish to speak on behalf of or against Mr. Bryson to please come to the floor now so we might be able to know that everyone has been satisfied and we will be able to take this to a vote. I do think Mr. Bryson has waited very patiently for a very long time to have this come to a conclusion. I hope we can do that on as quick a basis as we can, giving everybody the ability to talk if they so choose. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona. I want to say that he was chairman of the Commerce Committee and did a fine job. I am so appreciative that he put a perspective on the role of advice and consent in the Senate, because there are times when all of us have said the issues regarding a certain nomination are so great that they would not allow us to vote for confirmation. But that is not the case here. I do think Senator McCain made the eloquent statement that Mr. Bryson might not be his choice, but that is not the question before us. He is qualified for this job. He has the business background we need. We certainly need a Secretary of Commerce to be able to help our businesses grow and create jobs, and elections do have consequences. I thank the Senator from Arizona for taking the time to come and make that part of the record complete. I am pleased we are having this kind of discourse. I think the record will be complete, and I believe that when our colleagues think about the importance of the President having his nominee for this job, and the qualifications that Mr. Bryson has, even if you disagree on issues--which I certainly do, Senator McCain does, and Senator Barrasso does, and we are going to disagree on issues; that happens every day. But does it rise to the level of voting against this nomination? That is the question we have to answer. I thought Senator McCain answered it very well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, every one who has asked for speaking time on my side has spoken, and I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, and I am very pleased that the bill we are presenting is a bill Chairman Mikulski and I worked on together. We came together in compromise, but we didn't compromise on the top level of spending, and I commend Chairman Mikulski for her leadership in this very important effort. We have a top line that is $491 million below the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution and $4.9 billion below the President's request. So we set a very strict top line, but within that I believe we worked a good compromise on the competing priorities of law enforcement, terrorism prevention, research, and competitiveness through investing in science. I will just say that I relate so much to what the chairman said about the Webb telescope and the importance of that, and that the Nobel Prize winner whom we are so proud to have from America--in astronomy-- mentioned that was how he was able to do his research makes me so proud that we have made that kind of investment. You will see that in other areas where our finest scientists have been supported, and it is the kind of research that is not going to be done in the private sector. So this is how we will be able to create something that will provide jobs of the future. America is ahead in the world. Our economy is vibrant not because we manufacture better but because we have the ideas for the manufactured products that have kept our economy going for hundreds of years. The chairman has gone over the major funding levels, so I won't go into that, but I do want to point out a few of those that I think are important. First, in law enforcement, we have worked hard to ensure that law enforcement receives the priority funding needed to protect our Nation, our communities, our children, and victims of crime. One thing I would like to add is that we have ensured that the FBI has the resources needed to continue the significant increase in their contribution to counterterrorism and working with the CIA and counterintelligence worldwide. This added responsibility commenced after 9/11, and Director Mueller has overseen this, really the largest transition in this agency probably in modern times from really traditional crime fighting to these added missions. I anticipate we will add even more in conference with the House, and I will support that. I think they have become a major contributor to our national security and the global security we are all seeking. The language is included also to encourage the Department of Justice to maintain its fiscal year 2011 current level of funding focusing on the southwest border. It is $1.9 billion. This is so important as violence continues to spread across our border and the drug cartels become increasingly emboldened and, unfortunately, sophisticated. So this was something the chairman and I agreed we must keep at the level funding, and we have done so. The El Paso Intelligence Center is another important program that is one of our first safeguards along the border. This is a national tactical intelligence center that supports law enforcement in the United States, in Mexico, and the whole Western Hemisphere. It is the Drug Enforcement Administration's most important intelligence-sharing entity focusing on all that is related to the border. Another important program I will point out is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We call it SCAAP. SCAAP provides Federal assistance to States and localities that are incurring the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses. This is a Federal responsibility, and county jails and the State prisons should not be holding these prisoners without help from the Federal Government because they are illegal aliens. Lastly, this bill provides significant support for NASA. The diverse set of programs that are aimed at the exploration of space and understanding Earth are so important for our country's future. Senator Mikulski and I have crafted a bill that balances the needs of science while also encouraging the vehicles that will take our astronauts to the space station for research and making use of that very important scientific station. Our part is part of a national lab, and it was designated as such, and then, in the future beyond, it will include the supporting of emerging commercial space companies to bring cargo and astronauts to the space station, supporting our investment, taking advantage of the opportunities for discovery on the space station, and ensuring that NASA will provide for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. So many of us watched the last shuttle return. Knowing we had no vehicle that would take Americans into space under American control for at least the foreseeable future was not well regarded in our country, and we need to make this commitment. We have made the commitment today with appropriations to ensure that we are going to continue our preeminence in space, that we are going to go through low Earth orbit and we are going to see what is beyond the Moon in an astroid or Mars, see if there is life there and what we can learn from life that might be enhanced on Earth. So it is important that now we have the heavy lift launch vehicle design NASA released last month. It will carry our astronauts in the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle to the Moon, the astroids, and beyond. Now that this decision has finally been made, we can focus on the future, and I think Americans expect that from us. NASA has announced its commitment to the path Congress has authorized, and now we can provide the funds to accomplish the development of that rocket. So in addition to what the chairman has already mentioned, I am certainly a supporter of America COMPETES. I would like to do much more in the science area, the hard science, because I think that is our future. It is how we create jobs and keep our economy vibrant, having the new products and the new ways to secure more jobs and more economic vitality in the technical sector in our country. I am very pleased. I thank the Senator from Maryland and her staff so much for helping and working with us. They have been great partners. I could not ask for any better. I think we have done a job that was hard to do with the lower levels of spending that we all expect and accept, but I think we have been able to cover the priorities well. I wish to end on a lighter note and say my friend, the Senator from Missouri, is sitting here. I want to point out this will be the last time in the next 10 days that he and I are going to be on the same side because, of course, the mighty Texas Rangers are going to meet the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series very shortly. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in favor of the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in international trade. Currently, U.S. exporters operate at a distinct disadvantage in countries where U.S. goods face high tariffs or discriminatory regulations. Passage of these three free-trade agreements will erase those disadvantages and allow our American businesses to compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace. For far too long, these trade agreements have sat on the President's desk. This delay has hurt our competitive advantage and cost American jobs. Moreover, the administration's slow walk of these bills has encouraged some of our major trading partners to go forward and quickly negotiate their own trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, putting their workers at an advantage over U.S. workers. Canada has already approved trade deals with both Colombia and Panama. The European Union has passed agreements with all three countries. Canadian and EU workers and farmers are reaping the advantages of greater access to these markets. Creating jobs, increasing investment, and growing the U.S. manufacturing and farming sectors should be our top priority. With a 9.1-percent unemployment rate, this is a no-brainer: export more, make our products more competitive by lowering the tariffs, and create jobs in America. What could be more clear? If we fail to act, American businesses will continue watching from the sidelines as other countries enjoy duty-free trading and continue to gain an advantage over American companies and employees. It has been estimated that failure to implement just the Colombia and South Korea Free Trade Agreements would lead to a decline of $40.2 billion in U.S. exports. The net negative impact on U.S. employment from these trade and output losses could total nearly 400,000 jobs. Small businesses in America will be the largest beneficiary of these free-trade agreements. These are the businesses that account for the largest group of U.S. exporters. Indeed, more than 97 percent of the U.S. companies that export are small businesses, and they account for one-third of the total U.S. merchandise exports. Our farmers and ranchers will also benefit from these agreements as the exports of our agricultural products have historically suffered from high tariffs and other nontariff barriers. South Korea. The South Korea Free Trade Agreement will be America's largest free-trade agreement in Asia. South Korea is our Nation's seventh largest trading partner and the United States is South Korea's third largest trading partner. The White House has estimated that when the free-trade agreement with South Korea is fully implemented, U.S. exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion annually and add as many as 70,000 U.S. jobs. The pending agreement will open the door for increased U.S. exports to South Korea of our automobile products, which are among the U.S. industries and workers that will benefit. It should also be noted that approval of this free-trade agreement will send a strong message that we stand with our allies in Asia and will further strengthen our long and positive relationship with South Korea. Right here in our own hemisphere, the implementation of the U.S.- Panama Free Trade Agreement will guarantee American companies access to Panama's $21 billion in services. This includes priority areas in financial, telecommunications, computer, distribution, express delivery, energy, environmental and professional services. Once implemented, 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial exports to Panama will become duty free. The remaining tariffs would be phased out over a 10-year period. We need to act now in order to preserve current exports to Panama and pave the way for more. Panama has recently signed free-trade agreements with Canada and the European Union. Nearly 5 years have passed since the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed by the United States and Colombia on November 22, 2006. Last year, U.S. exports to Colombia totaled $12 billion, with many of those subject to the high tariffs. Our exporters have paid nearly $4 billion in duties to Colombia since that agreement was signed 5 years ago. The Colombian Congress approved the free-trade agreement less than 1 year after it was signed. After 5 years, the Congress is only now finally considering this agreement. That is not the way to treat a friend. With passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia will be duty free immediately, with remaining tariffs phased out over 10 years. The U.S. International Trade Commission has estimated that this agreement will increase the U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 billion. On another front regarding Colombia, they once had one of the worst drug cartel problems in our hemisphere. With their determination and integrity and with our help, Colombia's Government and law enforcement systems have substantially cleaned out the Medillin and Cali drug cartels. To acknowledge their sacrifice this should have been the easiest of the free-trade agreements to quickly have confirmed. We have waited 5 years, as Colombia has done so much for itself to clean up the cancer in their system. We should have done this 5 years ago. So I hope there is no hesitancy now and there is overwhelming support in this Senate for this free-trade agreement. In conclusion, with so many American businesses and workers struggling during this prolonged economic slump, it should be the easiest thing we do to enact these three free-trade agreements. Exports support millions of jobs in this country. These agreements will promote American sales in markets where we have been at a disadvantage for too long. It was disheartening that this administration let these agreements languish for many months without taking action. We now have the chance to approve those before us today--these three--which are good for our bilateral relations with these three countries, for working Americans, for farmers and ranchers throughout our system, and for our struggling economy. I am very pleased these votes are being scheduled for today. We know the South Korean President is going to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow and to have these done and, hopefully, signed by the President when the South Korean President comes is the welcome gift he has been looking for, for a long time. I so look forward to having these three free-trade agreements with these countries that have shown they want to do business with America, they want to have free and fair access into their country for our great products and our great workers, and we should let them have it without further delay. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will yield briefly to the Senator from Montana, and I ask that we set an order. I thought I was scheduled to speak, but apparently it is up in the air. I will defer to the Senator from Montana and ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow him.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, are we under a time limit to discuss the Cornyn amendment?