Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the short time I am asking for as in morning business not be taken from either side in this agreement.

Mr. President, let me say, as far as the subject is concerned right now, I am very proud to have one of the first signatures on this effort. It is good for every reason the Senator from Texas mentioned. On top of that, we have allies we are dealing with. We have the employment situation. I know this is going to be successful. I appreciate all the effort that has gone forth.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Specialist Christopher David Horton

Today, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Army SPC Christopher David Horton from Owasso, OK. That is home of the Rams in case people did not know. Chris was born in Tulsa on October 1, 1984. He was deployed to Afghanistan with over 2,000 Oklahoma National Guard soldiers from the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. There were actually 3,000 initially in this deployment. Some of them actually went to Kuwait at the last minute.

He was deployed to Afghanistan. This combat team, the 45th, has probably had more deployments than anyone else, although this was Chris's first deployment. His unit was attacked by enemy forces in Paktia Province on September 9, 2011. Chris and two of his fellow soldiers, SGT Bret Isenhower and PFC Tony Potter, died of injuries sustained from that firefight.

He would have turned 27 next week, on October 1. Chris attended the Missouri Military Academy in Mexico, MO, and graduated in 2003. He excelled both militarily and academically during his 6 years at Missouri Military Academy. He was the 2nd platoon leader his senior year, captain of the rifle team, on the honor roll, earning him the Academic Fourragere Award.

Chris lived a remarkable life, driven by service and excellence. He often spoke of his desire for America to excel. He was a business owner and a volunteer police officer. He was extremely patriotic and very passionate in his love for America and for its freedoms, knowing they have to be protected.

Chris was an accomplished recreational shooter and a professional sponsored shooter through the U.S. Shooting Academy of Owasso, OK. Some of his marksmen awards include the Gus Hadwiger Award of 2009. He received first place in novice pistol in the Oklahoma National Guard, first place in novice pistol in the Governor's Twenty Match. This guy was very good. He excelled and was among the very best. That was something he enjoyed.

But in addition to shooting--this is kind of interesting because things bond us together. I came so close to meeting him, but I never actually did. But one of the things we had in common is we

are both avid fishermen. He loved fishing. That is one of the things he enjoyed very much. Every opportunity he had, he would fish both ocean and freshwater.

His younger brother Nick said:

He was the best big brother I could ever have asked for. He

taught me how to drive a car and how to fish.

That pretty much tells it all. Chris's mother Cherie Horton said:

My son's passion his whole life was to be a part of the

military.

He wanted to be part of the military.

He loved his country, and he really wanted to serve his

country. He was absolutely made to be a solder.

This is a mother speaking. Chris enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 2008, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 279th Infantry Regiment of the 45th Brigade of the Army National Guard.

He attended basic training at Fort Benning, GA, became a sniper- qualified infantryman, and to no one's surprise, graduated at the top of his class. Chris leaves behind his parents, Cherie and David Horton, his brother Nicholas, sister Tenley, and his wife Jane Horton. Chris met Jane while attending the Kings College in New York City. Jane said it was Chris's fiery passion and their mutual love for politics that brought them together.

He was the most honorable man I'd ever met in my life.

That's why I snagged him and we were engaged within 2 months.

We were married very fast.

She knew what she was out after. I know this is true because my staff and I got to know Chris through his wife Jane. She was an intern for me. She worked in my office, and we had these exchanges all the time. As could be expected, Jane took a personal interest in operations in Afghanistan. She worked with my legislative staff, responsible for military and veterans affairs.

During her time in Washington, she coordinated a campaign that resulted in over 20 care packages being sent to the Oklahoma National Guard Infantry Combat Brigade. I can tell everyone this, having been over there at a time when a lot of these care packages come in, we know, as we go across this country in helicopters, a lot of these packages, even though the people at home do not know it, are dropped to kids on the ground who love what we are doing there.

So I think Jane represents the best asset our military has at its disposal; that is, the military spouses. Her zeal and dedication are not uncommon attributes for military spouses who ``hold down the fort'' while their loved ones are deployed.

I had looked forward to meeting Chris during my upcoming trip to Afghanistan another week from now. I had a meeting during the break, the recess, in Collinsville, OK, and Jane was there. We talked about how we were going to meet up with Chris in my upcoming trip to Afghanistan. I had looked forward to meeting him during that trip.

While this personal conversation will not happen, I am committed to making Chris's desire that our Nation be led down the right path a reality. Chris lived a life of love for his family, friends, and country. He will be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our Nation.

Here are some of the comments posted online in honor of his life. I think it is kind of neat to read a lot of these. They come from assorted different people. Some are members of the family, some are not. Here is one of them:

God's got a good warrior up there with him now.

Another one:

I want to thank the families of this wonderful young man

who was willing to give his life for our freedom. May no one

in America take this act lightly. Love and prayers to all of

the family and friends.

Here is another:

Christopher David Horton was the kind of young man who

would do anything for anybody.

Another one:

He is a hero--each and every servicemen/women are--they

protect our freedoms and without them we cannot. Thank you

Specialist Christopher Horton--may you rest in peace. Prayers

being said for your family.

But here is my favorite one. It is actually by his brother Nick. He said:

You will be missed more than anything brother, especially

on the range, you always gave me a run for my money. Till we

meet again in heaven!

That is kind of great. This tough fight took place and took the life of Chris. But make no mistake, Chris's sacrifice made a difference and will continue to make a difference not just in Afghanistan but here in the United States.

We are safe and our country is secure because of Chris and all the service men and women. We have to continue in our unwavering support for them. Although each servicemember we lose hurts, it is because of our connection to Jane that my staff and I are particularly affected by the loss of SPC Chris Horton.

I extend the deepest gratitude and condolences to Chris's family. I will say something I will be criticized for--I always am. I have always been a Jesus guy. I find out, of course, that so is Chris. So when something such as this happens, even though we did not personally meet, we are brothers. So, in a case such as this, we do not say: Goodbye, Chris. We say: We will see you later.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Blunt pertaining to the introduction of S. 1583 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, being from Oklahoma, I can remember back in the days when they called Oklahoma, southern Kansas, northern Texas, and southwestern Missouri tornado alley. I say to my good friend from Oregon that I have been in aviation for many years. I know people who won't even fly airplanes through what we call tornado alley. But by now I think we know that tornadoes are a daily threat to Americans each spring as severe weather rolls across the country. In the past 30 years, over 34,000 tornadoes have touched down somewhere in the country, which means that one touches down, on average, every 8 hours of each day. This chart right here shows that each one of these little green dots represents a tornado.

As we all witnessed once again this spring, many of these tornadoes grow into very voracious and dangerous storms that bring significant harm to property and life. This year, 57 such tornadoes struck 14 States and claimed 550 lives. Alabama was the hardest hit. I can remember when Oklahoma was ranked as the hardest hit. They had over 240 killed. Missouri also suffered heavily with the loss of 157 people in Joplin. I say to my friend from Missouri, who is on the floor, I was up in Joplin right after that happened, down close to the Oklahoma border. It is something you have to witness before you understand it. In my State of Oklahoma where we have more than our fair share of violent tornadoes, this spring's storms resulted in the death of 14 people and the injury of many others. Until you have this happen, and you go on site, which I always make it a point to do--after each tornado in Oklahoma, you go down and talk to the people. You think of little kids looking for their toys and this type of thing, but they are gone and gone for good.

While this year has seen a large number of fatal tornadoes, they are a nationwide threat each spring. Since 1980, 734 tornadoes have claimed 2,462 lives in at least 37 different States, including 126 in my State of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, many of these lost lives

could have been avoided had storm shelters been more widely used.

In the past few months, a number of Oklahomans have asked me if there is a Federal program that promotes the installation of tornado storm shelters. They observed that those individuals who have these storm shelters live through it. They may lose their property, but they live through it. So they think, Well, government gets involved in all of these programs; what are they going to do to help us encourage people to build storm shelters? When I looked into it, I came up emptyhanded despite the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are obligated each year to mitigate the effects of natural disasters.

Since death is one of the worst effects of natural disasters, one would think tornado storm shelters, which are the safest way to ride out tornadoes, would be a high priority, but only limited funds have been made available in the past, and it has been sporadic and poorly allocated. Most of the funds have been made available through FEMA's Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program, which is a mandatory program that allocates funds to States to help them better prepare for future disasters. States are able to direct some of this money to residential storm shelter construction, but to do this they have to go through a lot of hoops--through a lengthy process of coordinating a program with FEMA. Needless to say, it is a bureaucratic nightmare and hugely expensive.

Oklahoma did this after the devastating tornadoes of May 3, 1999. Fifty people died and many others were injured that day. As the recovery effort took hold, it became clear to public leaders that staggeringly few Oklahomans had storm shelters accessible for their homes. Because of this, Oklahoma's Department of Emergency Management worked with FEMA to create a temporary rebate program to encourage individuals to install storm shelters in their homes. The rebate was worth $2,000, and the funding cap was set at $6 million.

Unfortunately, the program didn't perform as well as they would have liked. It was a popular program and funding depleted quickly. But because of the rebate amount, only 3,000 homeowners were able to take advantage of the program, despite its $6 million funding level. We are talking about in the State of Oklahoma.

Furthermore, because this program was run through FEMA, it had a lot of paperwork requirements and was time consuming for the State to actually formalize. The ultimate decision of who received the rebate rested with FEMA and the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management and they decided who received the rebate and who did not. If you ask me, that is a pretty expensive, poorly designed program, but that is generally the way FEMA structures these programs when States go to the trouble of requesting them. All told, FEMA's sporadic Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for residential storm shelters has supported the construction of only 15,000 storm shelters at a staggering cost of $35 million. That is $2,000 for each storm shelter.

A different approach is needed to encourage a wider group of people to install tornado storm shelters. This would help mitigate the loss of life during tornadoes. To give people the opportunity--I have 20 kids and grandkids. My first concern every time I hear of a tornado coming is for them. That is why we have introduced this bill called the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. It provides a tax deduction of up to $2,500 to any individual who installs a qualified storm shelter. The cost of this deduction is fully offset, which I will explain in a minute, where it is coming from, and there are reductions in other areas of spending.

First, the deduction can be claimed by any taxpayer. If someone in Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Tennessee decides they need a storm shelter at their house, they can pay to have one installed and then claim the incentive by deducting up to $2,500 from their income when they file their taxes. Claiming this incentive would not require dealing with a big bureaucracy. One doesn't have to fill out the forms. One does not have to go through all the redtape. That is one of the reasons people don't do it under the existing programs. As I said before, previous programs that have been administered through FEMA place the power of the shelter incentive into the hands of an agency and not a family, not individuals. The agency then decides who does and does not receive the incentive. I think it is best when this middleman can be avoided, and a tax deduction does that. The Tax Code is blind and provides the incentive to anyone who decides in their best judgment that they need a storm shelter.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the tax deduction is a better allocation of scarce taxpayer resources. A rebate that covers a large portion of a shelter's cost, as the Oklahoma program did, can foster moral hazard. What I mean is that when free money is on the table, people generally take it. In this case, people may take the rebate to buy a storm shelter because it is free, not because it is what they need. A tax deduction doesn't allow this because the actual incentive is much lower in value. No one is going to go out and spend $2,000 or more on a storm shelter because they get to write that amount off of their taxable income. Nobody does that. A rational individual would only go out to buy a shelter if they know they need one and then it has the added benefit of being deducted from their income, so it is a much better way of approaching it. On the aggregate level, this allows a lot more people to get the incentive at the same cost compared to the rebate programs that have been used in the past. A tax deduction provides a nudge to taxpayers to take practical steps to stay safe in areas where tornadoes are common. It is a commonsense approach and a better way to use taxpayer resources.

Further, this proposal's $41 million cost is fully paid for by rescinding funds authorized for storm shelter construction grants through the programs administered through HUD. In other words, we are doing this program and providing countless more shelters at a cost that would merely mean a tax deduction, and it is going to have a lot more people participating in the program. This means that existing unspent HUD funds that are duplicative of other FEMA spending will be redirected to a more effective policy in order to accomplish the same goal: Encourage the installation of more storm shelters to save lives from deadly tornadoes.

Many may wonder why this is something the Federal Government should be doing. In reality, this falls squarely within the purpose of the hazard mitigation priorities of the Federal Government. FEMA defines hazardous mitigation as ``any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event.'' HMGP regulations state that projects ``retrofitting structures . . . to minimize damages from high winds, earthquake, flood, wildfire, or other natural hazards'' are eligible for the expenditure of program dollars. The main goal of all this spending is to reduce the likelihood of losses of life and property, and retrofitting buildings to lesson the likelihood of damage caused by tornadoes is an eligible expense. That is what this tax deduction does.

Furthermore, the threat of deadly and dangerous tornadoes stretches far across the Nation. We saw the first map, but this map shows it is not just the tornado alley I referred to right here. With the exception of mountainous areas here, the danger zone is all across America. Not surprisingly, Oklahoma is right in the center. When we look at where deadly tornadoes have occurred during the past 30 years, it is spread across the entire eastern half of the country. All the States in red have had at least one deadly tornado every other year since 1980, and most of them have had even more. This may be surprising, but the threat is real. It needs to be addressed. More tornado storm shelters need to be constructed around the country and Federal policies encouraging this need to be changed. That is why we are introducing the Storm Shelter Tax Relief Act. The number of this bill, I say to my colleagues, is S. 1583. It was introduced today. I think those of us who have lived in these tornado-prone areas--I can tell stories about tornadoes picking up a horse and replacing it, dropping it someplace. In my personal experience, my wife was after me about 50 years ago when we had a place up in the country--we still have the same place--and I had a red Jeep. That

red Jeep was one we had for a long time. She said, How come you don't have that insured? I said, What could happen to a red Jeep in the middle of the country in Oklahoma? Well, a tornado came along, picked up a tree and dropped it right on top of my red Jeep. It cut it in half. So they are totally unpredictable.

I can tell more stories about Moore, OK, when we had our 1999 tornado where everything was devastated on one side of the street and nothing was touched on the other side of the street.

It is an art to understanding where these are coming from. We now have developed that art. There is not a person who could be in the path of a tornado who doesn't have the facilities and the resources to see what is out there and where it is coming. What they don't have is a way, if it is unavoidable, to protect themselves if it hits them. The obvious answer is a storm shelter.

I appreciate the Senator from Missouri, who is going to speak next, cosponsoring this bill. We would like to have more cosponsors. We have every intention of getting this passed.

With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

Point of inquiry, Mr. President. At some point I want 30 seconds, if we can figure out how to do that.

We have two amendments we are talking about now in a short period of time. First, I will support the FAA amendment. I think Senator Paul has a good idea.

I would only say this: I want my Republican conservatives to listen carefully. This is totally different than any other bill because what this is--there is adequate money right now in the highway trust fund to carry out the existing spending until 2013. So I would only say that money is dedicated for that purpose, and it is going to be spent for that purpose. Anything that came from a source other than a gas tax was merely paid back from money borrowed out of the trust fund. So from a moral standpoint, this should be spent on infrastructure on the highway bill--on the extension. Then we will be able to talk about something more important, which is the bill coming up, and that will be the permanent one.

So I think it is not going to make any difference. I will oppose it on concept because that money is dedicated for a purpose and paid for by people who believe we are going to improve our highways.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Agriculture is one of the key forces driving Oklahoma's economy. In 2008 alone, Oklahoma's agriculture industry directly supported 188,000 jobs and contributed more than $8.5 billion to the States's economy. The importance of agriculture to the Nation's economy is also difficult to understate, and the industry's products rank among the top exports each year. This year, USDA estimates that U.S. farmers and livestock producers will export nearly $140 billion in goods to nearly every country on Earth.

Knowing that strength, it is not surprising that the industry is a hotbed of innovation. The agriculture community has long been involved in the research and development of better crops and farming methods. This work has produced crops that are resistant to drought and certain farming chemicals, are packed with more and better nutrients, and ultimately provide higher yields for every acre farmed. This research will only grow in importance as the global population continues to grow and demand more food. Fortunately, the United States is leading the world in this effort.

Oklahoma is also a key agriculture R&D player in the United States. This is in large part due to the work of the Samuel R. Noble Foundation. Headquartered in Ardmore, OK, the Noble Foundation is one of the top 50 private foundations in the United States, and the foundation employs hundreds of scientists, agriculture consultants, and research personnel who are actively researching better agriculture products and practices. Between 2009 and 2010, the foundation spent nearly $80 million on agriculture research activities, and this work has recently resulted in development of Texoma MaxQ II, a cool-weather fescue grass that will reduce the reliance of livestock producers upon costly hay and feed for their livestock during the winter months. I congratulate the Noble Foundation on this breakthrough and look forward to hearing about the future benefits of this research.

The Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food productivity will need to expand by 70 percent over the next 40 years to meet rising global demand. This underscores the need for continued funding for agriculture research and development so that more breakthroughs like those at the Noble Foundation occur. Today, a substantial amount of agriculture research funding is provided by the Federal Government; however, the government's share is declining. Since fiscal year 2010, Federal funding for agriculture research has decreased by nearly $200 million, and further cuts are likely as we try to tackle the national debt. Because government is scaling down its role, Congress should do what it can to encourage the private sector to fill the gap.

One way that we can do this is with the Charitable Agriculture Research Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, introduced today by Senators Stabenow and Thune, will allow the creation of Agricultural Research Organization, ARO, which would extend public charity tax status to entities conducting continuous agriculture R&D in collaboration with land-grant universities and agriculture colleges.

Currently, several organizations conducting research focused on agriculture are structured as private foundations. This is one of the two main types of charities that are provided with beneficial tax treatment under U.S. law. Public charities--the other type--are given full tax exempt status, but because private foundations are often very large and supported by a small group of donors, they are not completely tax free and must pay taxes on the investment income earned by their endowments. Donors are also prevented from collecting their full deduction on gifts relative to those made to public charities. Because of these restrictions, the United States is not reaching its full potential when it comes to attracting private dollars for agriculture research.

The Charitable Agriculture Research Act seeks to encourage individuals and families of wealth to contribute more of their assets to public agricultural research by working in conjunction with the Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. This legislation will provide donors with an additional option

of where to direct their agriculture research and development donations.

This beneficial tax treatment does not come without restrictions. To maintain its tax exempt status, an ARO must conduct research and development on agriculture issues in conjunction with a land-grant university or an agriculture college. An ARO must either commit more than 50 percent of its assets to the continuous active conduct of agriculture research or it must expend at least 3.5 percent of its endowment for the same in each calendar year. These restrictions are put in place to ensure that the ARO structure is not being abused as a tax shelter for the accumulated personal wealth of an ARO's benefactors.

Over the past decade many families with a passion for agricultural research have expressed their desire to do for their geographies and their crops of interest what the Noble Foundation has done for Oklahoma, forages, and beef cattle operations. However, the tax code is not conducive to such efforts and discourages them from maximizing their contributions to agricultural research.

The ARO tax structure is modeled after the extremely successful Medical Research Organization model. Similar to AROs, these charities must do their medical research in conjunction with a non-profit or government hospital. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research are prime examples of MROs. The MRO structure has made these organizations more effective and productive, and I expect no less from the ARO tax structure.

This bill will directly benefit Oklahoma by building on its legacy as a leader in agriculture R&D. As better agricultural methods and crop yields are produced in Oklahoma, the State will continue to serve as a global leader in agriculture. Oklahoma is home to 86,000 farms that occupy 80 percent of the State's land area. The State has the land, the natural resources, and the facilities necessary to enhance agricultural research. The creation of AROs will help attract the necessary private capital to build on this success and boost research at our Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture.

AROs will not be provided with a new tax incentive or a benefit greater than existing charitable organizations. They will, however, offer individuals an additional choice of where to send their charitable dollars. When individuals donate to AROs they will have certainty that their money will contribute directly to agriculture research rather than to other causes, which are guarantees not provided by most other charitable organizations. As we face deeper budget cuts on everything from education to agriculture research, we need to take the steps to encourage the private sector to step into the void left by Washington. AROs will help do this in the agriculture R&D community, so I urge its swift passage.

Mr. President, Agriculture is one of the key forces driving Oklahoma's economy. In 2008 alone, Oklahoma's agriculture industry directly supported 188,000 jobs and contributed more than $8.5 billion to the States's economy. The importance of agriculture to the Nation's economy is also difficult to understate, and the industry's products rank among the top exports each year. This year, USDA estimates that U.S. farmers and livestock producers will export nearly $140 billion in goods to nearly every country on Earth.

Knowing that strength, it is not surprising that the industry is a hotbed of innovation. The agriculture community has long been involved in the research and development of better crops and farming methods. This work has produced crops that are resistant to drought and certain farming chemicals, are packed with more and better nutrients, and ultimately provide higher yields for every acre farmed. This research will only grow in importance as the global population continues to grow and demand more food. Fortunately, the United States is leading the world in this effort.

Oklahoma is also a key agriculture R&D player in the United States. This is in large part due to the work of the Samuel R. Noble Foundation. Headquartered in Ardmore, OK, the Noble Foundation is one of the top 50 private foundations in the United States, and the foundation employs hundreds of scientists, agriculture consultants, and research personnel who are actively researching better agriculture products and practices. Between 2009 and 2010, the foundation spent nearly $80 million on agriculture research activities, and this work has recently resulted in development of Texoma MaxQ II, a cool-weather fescue grass that will reduce the reliance of livestock producers upon costly hay and feed for their livestock during the winter months. I congratulate the Noble Foundation on this breakthrough and look forward to hearing about the future benefits of this research.

The Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food productivity will need to expand by 70 percent over the next 40 years to meet rising global demand. This underscores the need for continued funding for agriculture research and development so that more breakthroughs like those at the Noble Foundation occur. Today, a substantial amount of agriculture research funding is provided by the Federal Government; however, the government's share is declining. Since fiscal year 2010, Federal funding for agriculture research has decreased by nearly $200 million, and further cuts are likely as we try to tackle the national debt. Because government is scaling down its role, Congress should do what it can to encourage the private sector to fill the gap.

One way that we can do this is with the Charitable Agriculture Research Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, introduced today by Senators Stabenow and Thune, will allow the creation of Agricultural Research Organization, ARO, which would extend public charity tax status to entities conducting continuous agriculture R&D in collaboration with land-grant universities and agriculture colleges.

Currently, several organizations conducting research focused on agriculture are structured as private foundations. This is one of the two main types of charities that are provided with beneficial tax treatment under U.S. law. Public charities--the other type--are given full tax exempt status, but because private foundations are often very large and supported by a small group of donors, they are not completely tax free and must pay taxes on the investment income earned by their endowments. Donors are also prevented from collecting their full deduction on gifts relative to those made to public charities. Because of these restrictions, the United States is not reaching its full potential when it comes to attracting private dollars for agriculture research.

The Charitable Agriculture Research Act seeks to encourage individuals and families of wealth to contribute more of their assets to public agricultural research by working in conjunction with the Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture. This legislation will provide donors with an additional option

of where to direct their agriculture research and development donations.

This beneficial tax treatment does not come without restrictions. To maintain its tax exempt status, an ARO must conduct research and development on agriculture issues in conjunction with a land-grant university or an agriculture college. An ARO must either commit more than 50 percent of its assets to the continuous active conduct of agriculture research or it must expend at least 3.5 percent of its endowment for the same in each calendar year. These restrictions are put in place to ensure that the ARO structure is not being abused as a tax shelter for the accumulated personal wealth of an ARO's benefactors.

Over the past decade many families with a passion for agricultural research have expressed their desire to do for their geographies and their crops of interest what the Noble Foundation has done for Oklahoma, forages, and beef cattle operations. However, the tax code is not conducive to such efforts and discourages them from maximizing their contributions to agricultural research.

The ARO tax structure is modeled after the extremely successful Medical Research Organization model. Similar to AROs, these charities must do their medical research in conjunction with a non-profit or government hospital. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research are prime examples of MROs. The MRO structure has made these organizations more effective and productive, and I expect no less from the ARO tax structure.

This bill will directly benefit Oklahoma by building on its legacy as a leader in agriculture R&D. As better agricultural methods and crop yields are produced in Oklahoma, the State will continue to serve as a global leader in agriculture. Oklahoma is home to 86,000 farms that occupy 80 percent of the State's land area. The State has the land, the natural resources, and the facilities necessary to enhance agricultural research. The creation of AROs will help attract the necessary private capital to build on this success and boost research at our Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of agriculture.

AROs will not be provided with a new tax incentive or a benefit greater than existing charitable organizations. They will, however, offer individuals an additional choice of where to send their charitable dollars. When individuals donate to AROs they will have certainty that their money will contribute directly to agriculture research rather than to other causes, which are guarantees not provided by most other charitable organizations. As we face deeper budget cuts on everything from education to agriculture research, we need to take the steps to encourage the private sector to step into the void left by Washington. AROs will help do this in the agriculture R&D community, so I urge its swift passage.

Mr. President, I would like to inform the Chamber that I support the nomination of Wendy Sherman to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I had previously voted against her nomination earlier this week when it was brought before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I have received information since that leads me to change my vote.

My good friend Senator Isakson of Georgia spoke to me about his 30- plus-year relationship with the Sherman family. Ms. Sherman's mother, Miriam ``Mimi'' Sherman, started working for Northside Realty, Senator Isakson's business based in Marietta, GA, in the late seventies and eighties. Mimi Sherman, who passed away in 2005, was a terrific person, and Senator Isakson was very happy to call her a close friend and fellow coworker. He also has known Wendy during this entire time and knows that she embodies the same qualities that her mother did. He is confident that she is qualified for the position and will do a great job at the State Department as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

I have great respect for the wisdom and good judgment of my friend from Georgia. We both serve on the Africa Subcommittee, and as its ranking member, Senator Isakson always ensures that the views of his fellow Republican members are fully represented, even to the point of sharing his own speaking time at hearings with members like me who are passionate about bringing relief to the people on the African Continent. And when he expresses confidence in a particular person like Wendy Sherman, whom he has known personally for over three decades, that is good enough for me.

I support Ms. Sherman's nomination to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Mr. President, I spoke about the situation in Cote d'Ivoire just last Friday and pointed out that the person responsible for the chaos and killing--a rebel named Alassane Ouattara--met last Friday with President Obama in our Nation's White House. I said then and say now again that this was an unwise and grossly misguided decision by Obama. It is in fact an outrage that our President would welcome, with open arms, a potential war criminal who is responsible for the death of at least 3,000 people and displacement of half a million refugees in the African country of Cote d'Ivoire. Ouattara is an illegitimate usurper who has scandalized Cote d'Ivoire's electoral system, and unlawfully ousted the democratically elected incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo.

Now the Associated Press reports just yesterday that the violence in Cote d'Ivoire remains uncontrolled. The title of the AP story says is all. It reads: ``Warlords in Ivory Coast continue to reign, national reconciliation difficult 3 months later.''

The AP story highlights the just released Amnesty International report that I spoke about last week that pointed out that ``Ouattara's rebel Army continues to carry out violence and intimidation against ethnicities perceived as having supported President Gbagbo, and that almost 700,000 people remain in refugee camps for displaced people in the country's remote far west.''

The AP highlights the fact that although Ouattara is telling the world that he is seeking reconciliation; in fact Ouattara is allowing ``a pervading culture of criminality to continue.''

For example, in the financial capital of Abidjan, warlords have taken over parts of the city and death squads roam the streets looking for Gbagbo supporters. In addition, they are committing ``armed robberies, kidnapping and killings almost daily'' without any sign of ceasing. At the very least rebel leader Ouattara has no control over his rebel troops, which in the recent past committed atrocities and massacres on their march to Abidjan, and at the worst he is tacitly approving their actions by not intervening.

AP also reports that ``even the French Embassy sent a security message to its citizens warning that `incidents of unequal gravity are still being reported.' '' And this is 3 months after the French themselves militarily overthrew President Gbagbo and installed Ouattara! The French are indeed now reaping what they have sown.

I point out again that Amnesty International alleges that these forces under Ouattara's command are continuing to engage in ``documented crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses, including extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, rape and other sexual violence, torture, other ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention; as well as the consequences of high levels of displacement, pervasive insecurity, and intentional destruction of homes and other buildings not justified by military necessity.''

The AP story summarizes the current situation by quoting the conclusion of the Amnesty International report which states that ``if [this situation is] not addressed quickly, the very serious consequences of the recent wave of insecurity and displacement will have further repercussions during the coming years and may fuel growing discontent and unrest, undermining efforts to promote reconciliation in a country torn apart by a decade of ethnic strife and violent conflict.''

This is my ninth time speaking on the Senate floor about the ongoing bloodbath of unspeakable acts of violence that are occurring in the once beautiful and prosperous country of Cote d'Ivoire. I again call for the intervention of the African Union--and not the French--to bring an end to the violence there, and call for new elections that will this time prevent the electoral fraud by Ouattara that allowed him to claim victory. I also call for the release of President Gbagbo and his wife Simone who are being held incommunicado by Ouattara, and either allow President Gbagbo to seek reelection for President or be allowed to go into exile. I have been in communication with a sub-Saharan African country which has agreed to grant asylum to the Gbagbos, and I call upon our State Department to facilitate such a move as it did for former Haitian President Duvalier in 1986.

The killing must stop. My recommendations are a path to stop the killing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for whatever time I shall consume as in morning business.

Mr. President, there is a simple reason we are all talking about the debt limit increase. It is the fact that this President has spent more money than I ever believed would be possible. So far, he has spent over $10 trillion in 3 years, and next year, if he has his way, he will spend another $3.5 trillion.

I remember so well back during the Clinton administration--I think it was 1995--I was outraged. I came down to this podium. I said: Can you believe a President has a budget of $1.5 trillion? And this President has spent $10 trillion in this short period. If he had not spent all of this money, then we would not be here talking about a debt limit increase right now. I hate to sound so partisan about it, but it is truly a partisan issue.

The Democrats have supported his spending, and the Republicans have not. The Boehner plan we are going to vote on--they are going to vote in the House today, and I think we may have an opportunity to vote here later on tonight--may not be perfect. None of the stuff around here is perfect. But it is good. It has dramatically improved over the last 12 hours. It allows the debt limit increase but only after we significantly cut spending. Never before have we tied--in the history of this country--a debt limit increase to spending cuts, but it is something we have to do now that we are so far into this mess.

The first step to this plan cuts spending by over $900 billion in exchange for a $900 billion increase in the debt limit. That will last the President until around February. I think it is a fair deal. I would like to cut the spending more, but we can only do so much when we only control the House.

The second step of this plan is also good. It establishes a mechanism to quickly consider $1.8 trillion in additional spending cuts between now and the end of the year.

It also requires Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send to it the States for ratification. This is something that just happened in the last 12 hours. People were talking about, well, do we really want to do something? A balanced budget amendment is the only way it is going to be good for now and for the future.

We have been talking about this for many years. I remember so well, way back in the 1970s, I was in the State Senate in Oklahoma when Carl Curtis, a very wonderful gentleman from Nebraska--he was a Senator, had been a Senator for quite some time. He was the perennial author of the balanced budget amendment, but he never could get it through. He had an idea. He came to me in the State of Oklahoma and he said: You know, Inhofe, we have been trying to get this balanced budget amendment for a long time, and they excuse they use is, you are never going to get the required number of States to ratify it.

He said: I have come up with an idea. We will get three-fourths of the States to preratify a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Well, that is kind of ingenious.

He said: Why don't you be the first State?

So I did. We passed, by resolution in my State of Oklahoma, in 1975 I believe it was, a ratification of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that did not exist. That is kind of neat. We actually got up to almost three-fourths of the States, and some of the other forces knocked it down. But that is how long we have been doing this.

But in the intervening years, there hasn't been 1 year where we have talked about a balanced budget amendment that it has not come up for discussion. Well, this is probably the first time it is a possibility because we have never been in the spending situation we are in right now--as I said, $10 trillion just 3 years.

So right now, we have added that in the last 12 hours. If that legislation passes, the President will get an additional debt limit increase. So we are tying it to behavioral patterns in spending and austerity. That is a smart way to do it.

This proposal would keep the debt limit and the spending debate at the forefront of the national conversation. We must have this conversation. If we do not, we will be worrying about things a lot worse than an increase in the debt limit. The President wants nothing to do with it. He just wants a blank check to increase the debt so he can continue to raise the deficit. Why do I think this? Well, if we undid all of his policies today, the policies that so rapidly increased spending and are killing our economy, then we would not need a debt limit increase.

The President's spending addiction is the only reason we are here talking about a debt limit increase. This is unilateral. This is the President--his budget. It is not a group of people, it is him. A lot of people are asking: Does anyone in Washington really care? One guy doesn't--the President of the United States. His actions are what we are talking about today. We are looking at failed policies.

Referring to the chart, first is ObamaCare. We are talking right now about trying to get something like $800 billion in these negotiations so we can increase the debt limit. In one fell swoop, ObamaCare was $1.5 trillion. This plan costs over the current decade, when fully implemented--the 10-year cost nearly doubles to $2.5 trillion. This law dramatically expands government's influence in the health care sector, and together with Medicare and Medicaid, it will result in the financial ruin of this great country.

Second, we have the failed stimulus plan. We all know it didn't meet any of

President Obama's expectations. It met all of mine because I didn't expect much. It didn't help the economy. It expanded the size of government. Even though we were opposed to it--I am among the most conservative Members, and Senator Boxer is a very proud liberal. She and I together tried to have an amendment to take some of the $800 billion and put a large amount into infrastructure.

Right now, we have to have roads and highways and bridges. We are supposed to do that here. Of course, they didn't do it. Only 3 percent of the $800 billion went for that type of infrastructure. Over $1 trillion of this amount, once you add in the costs, that is how we get up to $1 trillion, the cost of interest we have to pay for extra spending. That is a total of $2.5 trillion.

So we have the stimulus of $1 trillion and ObamaCare of $1.5 trillion. Then there is the President's relentless pursuit for regulation. Whatever the President hasn't been able to do legislatively, he is attempting to do through regulation--most of it through the EPA. Cap and trade is a good example. We have debated that since the Kyoto Treaty was up. Clearly, the votes are not there. Right now, in this Chamber, we would not get 25 votes for cap and trade. Yet everybody is talking about how it is important to have cap and trade. Now he is trying to do it through regulation. That alone would cost the American people $300 trillion to $400 trillion a year--not just one shot; that is a year.

There is the boiler MACT legislation, which is maximum attainable controlled technology. In other words, what can we do? What do we have the technology to do to stop emissions? We don't have it. But he has that, and that was billions of dollars a year.

Ozone regulations: He was going to announce this week a tightening of the ozone regulations that would put 608 of our counties in America out of attainment. I am from Oklahoma, and it would put 15 of our counties out of attainment. They cannot recruit industry in those counties, and they cannot hire people, and many will have to go out of business because of the ozone regulations. It is not, in my opinion, legal the way he is doing it because he is supposed to address it every 5 years. It was done in 2008 on new technology, which is a requirement. Today, he is trying to do it using the same 2008 technology. Again, it is extremely expensive. That casts a tremendous cloud of uncertainty over the business sector, and that is a key reason they announced today that the economy is growing at 1.3 percent a year. That is terrible, especially when we consider the recession we are in.

As a general rule, economies recover rapidly when coming off of a financial recession. It is not unusual for countries to grow at 4, 5, 6 percent for the years following a recession. But we can't even get around 2 percent. That has a huge negative effect on the economy and the government. The President's regulatory agenda is the reason our unemployment rate is above 9 percent, and it is the reason our economy is growing so slowly. Because of this, our tax receipts are way off their historic levels. If we can get the economy to grow faster at a sustained period of time, the effect on tax revenues is unbelievable. This is pretty well accepted. I always said that every 1 percent increase in the economy equals about $50 million in new revenue. That is the way to grow revenue.

Certainly, President Kennedy knew it, President Reagan knew it, and so the best way to increase revenue and get the economy moving again is, of course, to increase growth. If the economy grows at a rate that is 1 percent faster than presently forecast for the next decade, Federal tax revenues will grow by $3 trillion.

I conservatively estimate that the cost to Federal revenues of the President's regulatory agenda has been $1 trillion. So we have, through his regulatory behavior, another $1 trillion. That brings our total to $3.5 trillion.

Then in there is an increase in nonsecurity discretionary spending, which has added up to $500 billion in spending.

There is the expanded and increased spending on unemployment benefits, which is also a consequence of his regulatory policies that have killed the economic recovery, and the cost of that is another $500 billion.

Together, all these failed policies add up to a $4.5 trillion contribution to the Federal deficit.

Since Inauguration Day, the debt has increased by $3.7 trillion. It is on pace to increase by more than $5 trillion by the end of the President's first term. If we undid all of these failed policies, we would not find ourselves in the situation we are in today. We would not be debating this because it would not be necessary. It is because of the President that we are even talking about raising the debt ceiling. If we could undo the President's policies, we would not need to raise the debt ceiling at all.

Where is the President? He has been totally absent from this entire debt conversation. Today, he is meeting with terrorists from Cote d'Ivoire, and he is probably going to play golf in the afternoon--I don't know. But he is not participating. He doesn't seem to care about debating the debt ceiling. He wants to raise the deficit. If he did care, he would see the need for the Boehner plan, endorse it, and sign it into law. I guess that is too much to ask.

We are going to have a chance to do that tonight. They are going to have a vote in the House around 6 o'clock on the Boehner plan, and it will come over here, and we will have an opportunity to do that. If the Democrats support us--a handful of them--we will be able to get that passed. We will wait until tonight to see what happens.

Mr. President, there is a terrorist visiting with the President right now. I will elaborate. So many people are looking the other way and don't know what is going on in Africa. I have been on this floor nine different times talking about the atrocities that have been committed in Cote d'Ivoire.

They had a President there named Laurent Gbagbo. He and his wife are great people, friends of this country. An election took place, and I stood here and showed how it was fraudulent, and the guy who won is named Alassane Ouattara.

Right now, as we speak, at this very moment, President Obama is meeting with the rebel leader and potential war criminal Alassane Ouattara in our Nation's Oval Office. This is an unwise and grossly misguided decision on behalf of President Obama. It is, in fact, an outrage that our President would welcome with open arms a man who is responsible for the deaths of at least 3,000 people and the displacement of a half million refugees in Cote d'Ivoire.

Ouattara is an illegitimate usurper who has scandalized Cote d'Ivoire's electoral system and wrongfully ousted democratic incumbent Laurent Gbagbo.

Beginning late last year, Ouattara fraudulently won Cote d'Ivoire's Presidential election, and after Gbagbo revealed the fraud he led a rebel army that violently overthrew the Gbagbo government, with the support of the French military, which wrongly intervened in this former French colony.

This is a picture that depicts one of Ouattara's death squads murdering, maiming, raping. This is happening as we speak.

Who is in the President's office? Alassane Ouattara. As a result, Amnesty International reported on July 28 that half a million Ivorians are displaced in postelection violence and are prevented from returning home because of a ``climate of fear'' that continues to reign in this country. Amnesty International specifically singles out Ouattara's security forces and his state-sponsored militia composed of Dozos--they are called--who continue to target pro-Gbagbo ethnic groups.

Dozos, traditional hunters, are a mercenary group that both Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross blame for carrying out a massacre in April of at least 220 people in the western town of Duekoue.

Here they are in this photo. You can see the charred bodies of those murdered by Ouattara, who is in the President's office right now. There are executions going on. There is a photo of a person who was burned and beaten on the back--from the political opposition. That is what is happening today.

Amnesty International alleges that these forces under Ouattara's command are continuing to engage in ``documented crimes under international law and human rights violations and

abuses, including extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, rape, and other sexual violence, torture, other ill treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as the consequences of a high level of displacement, pervasive insecurity, and intentional destruction of homes and other buildings not justified by military success.''

They are talking about this. We can see that this person was being tortured. This photo is of someone from the cabinet--the Gbagbo cabinet. He tried to make a statement--Ouattara said he is trying to keep some of those people, but here he is in the middle of killing him. He died after this. Here they are executing another person they found as a Gbagbo supporter.

This is happening today as we speak. Ouattara's bloodletting seems unabated, and he doesn't seem to be interested in restraining his forces from eliminating perceived pro-Gbagbo supporters. He does not deserve an invitation to our White House or an audience with the President in the Oval Office.

Instead of participating in our Nation's debt crisis, President Obama is meeting with this killer and human rights abuser. Even today, while Ouattara is in the President's office, his death squads are roaming the streets of Abijan. It is an outrage, and maybe now we understand where some of the priorities are.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, first of all, let me make a comment on something totally unrelated to the subject of the day, which is that we have a significant bill coming up that the occupant of the chair and I have put together. It is called the pilots' bill of rights. The reason I want to say something about it is it is getting toward the end of the week. It happens a week from today--the largest gathering anyplace in the world of pilots who will get together in Oshkosh for the big event. I have been going to that for 32 consecutive years. We have probably the most significant piece of legislation we have ever introduced at Oshkosh. We are going to have literally thousands--I am talking about 200,000 pilots who are single-issue people.

I have been a pilot for 50 years. I know how these people think. The pilots' bill of rights is going to offer an opportunity to these people, who might be accused of something by the FAA, to have access to the evidence against them. It is something that everybody is for. As a matter of fact, it is something that--I haven't said yet, but I just heard that the air traffic controllers are supporting this effort. So we are going to have a lot of people. We already have 34 cosponsors.

The reason I want to say this, I know not many Members are listening, but a lot of staffers are. Pilots are single-issue people. They are going to want to know who is cosponsor of the bill. We will be talking for a period of 2 hours in two different settings. We will have literally thousands of pilots there.

I encourage very strongly people who may be listening to us right now to have their Members look at this carefully. As I say, pilots are single-issue people, and this is their issue. I did this twice--once in 1994, when we were able to use the population at Oshkosh to push over the top the first product liability bill that changed our manufacturing of aircraft from a major importer to a major exporter. That all happened at Oshkosh.

Another time it happened was with Bob Hoover, whom I think would be considered to be the best pilot in America today. He is up in years, but this guy had a problem that we helped him with, an emergency revocation. We did it in Oshkosh.

I hope we get a lot more people who are interested in general aviation, and

particularly if you are on the general aviation caucus and you are not on this bill. There are going to be an awful lot of questions.

Cut, Cap, and Balance

Let me make a few comments about the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. I can remember coming to the floor standing at this podium about 15 years ago, and this was during the Clinton administration. I came here because the Clinton budget for the entire country at that time was $1.5 trillion. I came down and stood here and said: How is it possible to sustain a level like $1.5 trillion? That was to run the United States for the entire year of 1996.

Now I think the outrage this year is that in President Obama's current budget, the deficit alone was $1.65 trillion. In other words, the deficit alone, right now, is greater than what it took to run the entire country for a period of a year in 1996.

That is something we can't continue doing. I believe the spending has gone so out of line that it is not believable. It is not possible for people to think this could be happening. President Obama has managed to increase Federal spending by over 30 percent, to an average of $3.6 trillion a year--$3.6 trillion. I was complaining about $1.5 trillion, and this is just 15 years later.

Is anybody listening out there? Does anybody really care? Maybe since I have 20 kids and grandkids I am a little more sensitive to the fiscal destruction of this country. This has caused our national debt to increase by 35 percent. Today, we have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. It just happened. This is something that we have to address.

I think we are so wrapped up now in saying how are we going to get this done by this deadline of August 2. I remind everybody of something that most people don't know, and it is a shock. They think this is the first time in the Obama administration that we have talked about increasing the debt limit. It is the fourth time. He keeps coming up with trillions of dollars of deficit each time--$5 trillion in three budgets. Believe me, it is not anybody else in this Chamber. It is not in the other Chamber, the House. It is one person--the President--who has come out with his budget. He signs it and sends it to us.

Well, that is a total of $5 trillion over the last three budgets. Some may think it is just not possible that this could be happening. This is the fourth time he wants to increase the debt limit.

This is the strategy: Go out and spend all this money like drunken sailors, and then come right up to the last minute and say the world is going to come to an end unless you increase the debt limit. You have to stop someplace, and I decided the last time he did this that I was going to stop unless we had some type of discipline.

The only discipline out there is the cut, cap, and balance budget amendment. I think we need to look at this carefully because if you stop and put this down--what I normally do on something like this is say: How does this affect the average person? This increase in debt just in this period of time would be $11,000 for every man, woman, and child--an increase from the time this President took office. That is an increase, and the total amount of debt they would owe would be $46,000. That is the day they are born. Happy Birthday.

Well, over the past several weeks, we have talked about what to do about the debt limit. I have looked at the three major plans out there. Looking carefully, the problem I have with the plan that has come up-- called the Gang of 6, or the Gang of 7 depending on which group you are looking at--is that it has some intangibles in there.

For example, the military cuts--it doesn't say where they are, but we are talking about it--almost $1 trillion over a period of 10 years.

I am on the Armed Services Committee. I can tell you that I don't know where that will come from until they come up with more specifics-- and they might do it, and it might be plausible. As it is right now, the cut, cap, and balance legislation is the only one I have seen that would really work. I haven't been involved in all these discussions. A lot of people are certainly working to try to come up with answers, the ones going to the White House every other day talking with the President. I don't happen to be one of those. My major concern right now--and I will at least mention this, because I have done several shows today to try make people understand--is, yes, the deficit and the spending, all that is terrible, but what is equally as bad--and that nobody knows about--is what is happening in terms of the regulations. We have all these programs this administration has tried to pass. I would say the main one that people are familiar with is cap and trade. Remember the old thing that has been going on for 10 years now--the cap and trade? That would cost the American people somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is a huge thing. Bringing that figure down to every taxpaying family in my State of Oklahoma, it would be a little over $3,000 a year, and you get nothing for it.

According to the President's own Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, when I asked her on the record if we were to pass any of these cap and trade bills, would it reduce CO2 emissions--assuming you want to reduce CO2 emissions--she said no, because this is only applying to the United States. Let me carry it one step farther. As we run out of ways to create energy in America, we will have a job flight from our manufacturing base, which would have to go to places such as China, India, and Mexico, where they do not have any emission restrictions. So, if anything, it would increase emissions.

I am very proud of the Senate, because now we have perhaps, at the very most, 24 votes to pass cap and trade. So what does the President do? He says: Fine, we will do it through regulations. So, through regulations, he is attempting to do that. And we will hear next week of another example. In fact, there are six major areas where regulations are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Another one he is going to announce next week is going to be a tightening in the standards on MACTs, and it is one that is going to cost in the neighborhood of $90 billion each year. So in just two of these regulations you have $400 billion a year in costs to the American people. People just aren't aware of that.

Some smart guy in my office went back and said: You know, you are not the first person to be concerned about the cost of these regulations. Politicians don't talk about it because no one understands it. But Ronald Reagan, back in 1981, said this:

Overregulation causes small and independent businessmen and

women, as well as large businesses, to defer or terminate

plans for expansion.

That is what he said. And then he said:

I have asked Vice President Bush to head a cabinet-level

task force on regulatory relief.

That was the first Bush he was referring to there. So they realized it back then, the cost of overregulation. But it has gotten to the point now where it is every bit as important as the spending problem.

But we are talking about the spending problem right now, and there is nothing complicated about it. When you spend more than you take in, you go into debt, and we can't keep doing that forever. We keep getting these budgets from the President each year--three budgets now totaling a greater increase in debt than all Presidents since George Washington combined. Nobody seems to understand and no one seems to care that we can't keep doing that. We are going to have to do something about it for future generations. I think we are going to do it. I hope when this vote comes up--and I think it has been set for tomorrow--on the cut, cap, and balance legislation, it will be something that will be seriously considered, particularly by people who are coming up for reelection in 2012. They need to be thinking about this, because this will be a huge issue. To stand here on the floor and not vote for a balanced budget amendment--during this crisis we are facing now--is something everyone will have to answer to.

So while the caps we talk about in the cut, cap, and balance legislation would be over a period of time, it is no good unless you have some kind of enforcing mechanism. This bill we will be voting on tomorrow, I understand, does have that enforcement mechanism. It has sequestration. These are automatic cuts, so that if Congress decides it is going to spend above the caps that are

allowed, then automatic sequestration goes into effect. It works. It is enforceable.

We have watched spending go up. I am reminiscing here that this has been going on for a long time. People are saying: Well, we are not going to be able to pass a cut, cap, and balanced budget bill because they have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for some 40 years or so and they haven't been able to do it. I think this is a unique time that is different than the past 40 years. This is the first time I have seen where the average person knows we can't sustain this thing. We can't go from a budget running the United States of America from $1.5 trillion and then all of a sudden it is $3.5 trillion under just one President. You can't continue to do that.

I remember way back many years ago, when I was in the State legislature, there was a great Senator named Carl Curtis from Nebraska. Carl Curtis was quite elderly at that time, and he had been trying to do a balanced budget amendment for probably 20 years at that time. This was back in the 1970s. He came to me in the State legislature in Oklahoma and said: I have an idea. The argument they use against a balanced budget amendment is that three-fourths of the States would never ratify it. So, he said: Let's preratify a budget balancing amendment.

He was kind of a genius. I happened to be the first State legislator he approached, and he asked me to take it on as a project. So the State of Oklahoma was the first State in history to preratify a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was kind of fun. Then it was so popular that others started doing it, and we got right up to the three-fourths but couldn't quite get over that. But that is something that took place many years ago.

This is something we know is not easy, it is something that is difficult to do, but we now have another chance. It is the first time we have had a chance where the majority of the people, by polling, are expressing their outrage and stating that we are going to have to do something. Even though we have raised the debt limit countless times, this is the one time it is getting all this attention, and it is getting this attention because we all know we have something that is no longer sustainable. So we have another chance at the balanced budget amendment provision in the cut, cap, and balance bill, and it would prevent the debt limit from being raised until Congress sends one of the three balanced budget amendment proposals to the States for ratification. In other words, the amendment would have to pass both Chambers by two-thirds majority before the debt limit is allowed to increase. This makes sense. It is a permanent solution to our problem.

Within 5 years of ratification, the amendment would require Congress to pass a balanced budget every year, and it would cap total spending at 18 percent of GDP. Right now it is above 20 percent of GDP, so it is even lower than the caps we have had before. It would also require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. We all know conditions could change--we could be in a war--so this does have a deficit provision which I think is very responsible. The balanced budget amendment is the only reform that will put our Nation on a true path for permanent fiscal stability. It will force comprehensive and real changes to the Federal Government and its spending priorities. If it is ratified, it would avert the risk of a debt crisis. In short, it would put our Nation on a path to limited government it has not seen in years. So I think this is the opportunity.

We have three different opportunities coming up. We have heard about the proposal by the Republican leader and by, I think, the majority leader. That might be some kind of last effort, and maybe that is what we will be considering. But the first and the best and the easiest--and the most fiscally responsible--is the cut, cap, and balance bill. So we will have that opportunity tomorrow. It is very significant we take advantage of that opportunity. I am not the pessimist most people are. I think we have a shot at this thing. If the American people are watching carefully, we could pass this thing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I stand in total agreement with everything my good friend from Indiana has said, particularly the emphasis on the time is right; it is now. We have been talking about a balanced budget amendment. We have been talking about this problem for many years. To me, I feel great frustration that I am even in the Chamber right now.

Quite often what I do--I have a very regular schedule. If I am not on a weekend in Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa, someplace having to do with the duties I have as the second ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I am back in Oklahoma. I have been a pilot for 50 years and I get in a little plane and I go out and talk to real people. People shake their heads and say: Why are we still talking about this? Why aren't we doing it? Why is it we are so wrapped up in this thing?

There is not an easy answer. We are supposed to be back here, I guess, talking about a Libya resolution. We all realize that is something that kind of diverts the attention of the American people from the real problem. The real problem of course is the deficit. As I see where we are and look at some of the alternatives they have--the Senator from Indiana said the Democrats want to, I guess tomorrow morning, vote on some kind of a bill that is going to be a tax increase on the millionaires. We are right back again with our class warfare. If we are to rephrase that statement from an economic perspective we would say something like this: It is the sense of the Senate that we should raise taxes on America's job creators and entrepreneurs to prevent the economy from recovering from this recession.

That is exactly what we would be doing. Yesterday, I searched through a database of the IRS, their historical tax data. If we were to tax all the income of those individuals making $1 million or more at a 100- percent tax rate--in other words, take every cent they have, tax them all--the total amount of revenue that would be generated would be $700 billion.

Stop and think about that, $700 billion is way less than half the deficit President Obama gave us just this year, a $1.65 trillion deficit. It is clearly a deceptive thing. The American people, I think they assume they are so dumb they can tax millionaires and get

us out of this mess. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 750,000 Americans in the highest tax bracket report less than half of the total net business income earned in this country. This is income that comes from flow-through entities such as the LLCs and partnerships. In other words, it comes from small businesses. If we were to tax the small businesses as they are going to attempt to do by saying they are taxing the millionaires, who is going to be able to grow their small businesses? I don't know. No one, I guess, has the answer. There is no answer.

There is no question we have a serious problem in Washington. Our debt is at the legal limit of $14.3 trillion, and what caused this problem is spending. In the short 2\1/2\ years since coming to office, President Obama has managed to increase spending by 30 percent. Thirty percent. He incurred a trillion dollar deficit each year and pushed our national debt up by 35 percent. The statistic that no one seems to care about, and we say it over and over, is this President has increased the debt of America more in his 2\1/2\ years than all Presidents throughout the history of America from George Washington to George W. Bush. Let me say this is not the first time this is coming up. Every time you turn around in this administration: Well, we are going to have to increase the debt limit. If not, some great crisis will take place. We did this on February 17, 2009. I voted against it. They increased the debt limit at that time. If you remember, that was the $800 billion stimulus bill. In December of 2009, a stand-alone bill to increase the debt limit of $290 billion passed. We remember so well Tim Geithner saying if we don't do this, it will ruin our credit nationwide. Then again in February of 2010, $1.9 trillion. They increased it again. The same thing. You have to draw the line someplace. There is going to be some point at which you are going to say, no, we are not going to do it unless we get some reductions and some fiscal sanity that is built into it. Right now, since reaching the legal limit, the Treasury has been shuffling money around to pay bills and they will run out of ways to do this on August 2. If an agreement to raise the debt limit has not been reached by then, Treasury will have to decide which bills to pay and which bills not to pay, and nobody wants that.

In order to raise the debt ceiling, we have to lock in the reforms necessary to permanently prevent this income debt crisis. We all know the scary statistics, but, to me, solving the problem is easy. We spent our way into this problem so we need to stop spending to get out of it. Tax revenue has not been our problem. Tax hikes should not be a part of the solution. Regardless, President Obama has made very clear he wants tax increases to be included in any kind of a debt limit deal. Sure, he may say he wants to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. You are going to hear it over and over. All these people out here are supposed to believe this. It is not true.

I said earlier the folks he is targeting are those who own small businesses and ones that are creating jobs. When you target tax hikes on folks such as these, you hurt everybody. This is not what we need to do. Our economy is stalling and our unemployment rate is still above 9 percent. We need to cut spending in the short term. This is a program that many people adhere to now. I don't know how many we have. I think the pledge includes about 30 Members who say we need to cut spending in the short term, cap spending in the medium term, and balance the budget in the long term to put the Nation on a sustainable, limited government path. This is the only way out of this mess.

I have been a leader here. I can remember back when I introduced the HELP Act. That was when this President first came in and he wanted to take the discretionary nondefense spending and freeze it at the new level after he increased it by 20 percent. I said, no, let's go back to 2008 levels. If we had done that, we would not be facing the problems we have.

Decades ago when I was in the State legislature, there was a great Senator from Nebraska named Carl Curtis. He came to me one day and he said, I have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment here in the Senate for decades. The argument they use against it is the States will never ratify it. So he came up with the idea, let's preratify a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Well, that sounded great to me so I introduced a resolution in the Oklahoma State Senate preratifying, which we did, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That was kind of fun. We came within two or three States of doing this. Had it passed, we wouldn't be here today with the problems we are facing. When you look and you say it is going to be difficult, it is not difficult. But I believe the only way to be able to pull this off and to resolve the problem is to do something about a balanced budget amendment. We have proposed one. It is out there. Senator Hatch is active in this. We are all looking at it. During peacetime the amendment would require a two-thirds majority in both Chambers of Congress to authorize the specific deficit funding level for a fiscal year. We all understand emergencies can come up. We have wars in which case we need to do something about it. This allows an escape, but it means two-thirds of the majority of the House and the Senate would have to agree to it.

Importantly, the balanced budget amendment would require a two-thirds majority in both Chambers to pass any kind of a tax increase. Our problem is our tax increases. That is what the President wants more of. The balanced budget amendment is the only reform that will put our Nation on a true path to permanent fiscal stability. This is what we need to do. This balanced budget amendment is the reform we need, and I pledge to oppose any deal to increase the debt limit that does not immediately cut the spending in the short term, cap the spending in the medium term, and include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I urge the Members to seize upon this opportunity. We have not had a serious opportunity at a balanced budget amendment now for decades. The time is here because we have never faced this before. We have never had a President who has proposed and passed $5 trillion of deficit in 2\1/ 2\ years. The people of America are not dumb. They know we cannot sustain that. They are going to say, all right, we all have to bite the bullet and do this thing. We need to do it. The time is right. I agree with the Senator from Indiana who said, there hasn't been a time before that is right, but this time is right. Now that this legislative agenda is dead that we have been talking about, the President has pursued aggressive regulations, especially through the EPA, that seriously harm the economy. I think a lot of people are confined in their thinking about the fact that we are spending too much money. They don't realize there is also a cost to overregulation. Right now almost everything the liberals have tried to pass through here, such as cap and trade, the President and his colleagues in the House and the Senate are trying to do through regulation through the EPA, and that is as expensive as spending money.

I don't think this is rocket science. It is something we can pass, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and put Americans back to work and these are the only things that will resolve our debt problems.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, just one comment on the subject at hand, and then I want to talk about something completely different that is very significant happening today.

I listened to the Senator from New Jersey down here. He kept talking about only in Washington what can happen, only in Washington. Yet never was anything said about cutting spending. It was all about passing tax increases, and that is what we will be faced with tomorrow.

(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 1335 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, just a few minutes ago I did introduce and we have a bill number that is S. 1335. It is the Pilot's Bill of Rights. It is very significant that we get this done today, and I will explain why.

First of all, when Senator John Glenn from Ohio retired, that left me as the last active commercial pilot in the Senate. Consequently, I probably get more complaints than anybody else does about problems and abuses with the FAA.

I have to say this: I was very complimentary yesterday to so many of the people. The vast majority of the inspectors, the controllers, and others at the FAA are so talented. In fact, the first thing I do when I go up to Oshkosh every year, the largest air show in the world, is I go up to where they are all gathered together and I compliment them on the fact that they are taking on the toughest job for a 6-day period in Oshkosh as a volunteer. So I love their virtues. However, we have to keep in mind that any bureaucracy can become abusive.

So I have introduced the Pilot's Bill of Rights. The reason I am speaking right now is because we have 25 cosponsors at this time, which means 25 percent of the Senate has signed on as cosponsors.

The way the rules work around here, any of the Members who might be listening right now--and I know the occupier of the Chair is very concerned about this and he is very active with me on this legislation--any staffers who are watching, they should advise their Members that they have until close of business today, probably 1 more hour, to put their names down as original cosponsors.

Now, the bill simply does four things. First of all, it requires the FAA, for any enforcement action, to make sure the pilot is fully aware of what he is being accused of before any ultimatums are put forth. Consequently, that pilot is able to defend himself.

The second thing is it clarifies what they call statutory deference. Right now, statutory deference relates to the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB is the only area of appeal, so that if a pilot is accused of something and he looks at it and thinks it is unfair, he would have to go to the NTSB. Yet because of deference, they merely rubberstamp in almost all cases what the FAA does. As an example, of the emergency determinations that were made last year, only one was actually granted and the rest of them were denied. This bill will allow, in terms of fairness, that if something is going on and they refuse to consider a case, there will be an appellate process where the pilot can go to the Federal District Court and be heard there.

The third thing it does is it has to do with notice. That is notice to airmen. That is very significant. Those of us who are pilots know that when we go into a field, we check and see what the NOTAMs are, so that if there is any work on the runway, any problem there, any taxiways that are closed, they will give the pilot that information. However, the problem is it is the pilot's responsibility to do this and the FAA many times doesn't even post these NOTAMs. So what we are saying with our FARs, or our laws, is we are saying to a pilot, You have to be responsible to know what is going on at the airport, where you are going to be landing. Yet there is no place you can find out. So this requires that they revamp this system so that there is a central location. We specify that in the legislation, so that can be found.

Then the fourth and final thing, there is another problem in terms of medical certification. Those of us who are pilots have to have medicals and we have to have a certification process. This has been a problem for a long period of time. I have had countless people call me and talk about the problems they are having with their medical certification. In fact, of all the requests for assistance to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association--they represent hundreds of thousands of pilots--of all the requests for assistance they receive each year, 28 percent are related to the FAA's medical certification process. So I would say this of this very simple legislation. Two sections actually change the statutes so that it offers protection to pilots, but

the other two are working together to come up with a system where we can have a central location for NOTAMs as well as having a fair process for medical evaluations.

I think it is very obvious that there are a lot of bureaucracies where one or two people can be bad. When I was in Tulsa, I can remember all it took was one or two bad cops and that gave a black eye to everybody else. I remember actually, when I was running--it is the whole reason I ran for office in the first place. When I was out in the private sector, I was doing things that I thought I was supposed to be doing, and I had one old building called the Wrightsman Oil Estate. I was going to take this old eyesore and make it into a building and preserve it as it was originally. Old, in my city of Tulsa, OK, in this case was maybe 1910 or 1912. We weren't even a State until 1907. This is something everybody wanted.

I went to the city engineer and I said, I want to take this eyesore of a fire escape on the second floor and move it from the south to the north end. It is the same thing; it will service the same number of people, but it is an eyesore and this gets it out of the way. No one is against it. He said, You can't do that until this committee meets. So let's see. You have to have notice. That would be 3 more weeks before you can get notice. A month after that, you can get on the agenda. I said, Look, everyone is for it. He said, That is your problem, not mine. I said, I will run for mayor and fire you, and I did, and I fired him. This can happen in any bureaucracy.

So the reason there is a sense of urgency is because we have already told all of the groups--the Experimental Aircraft Association, ALPA, all of these groups that represent these different organizations--that we are going to be getting this bill ready with all of our original cosponsors and then cosponsors so that when we arrive and when I arrive at the end of July, at Oshkosh, WI, I am going to do the same thing I did in 1994 that caused us to be able to pass the first product liability bill on aviation and aviation products that had the effect of changing us from a major importer of aviation products and of airplanes to a major exporter, just by changing that. It was an 18-year repose bill. I did that at Oshkosh with an audience of 200,000 people. These are single issue people. I can assure my colleagues that they will be just as interested in this bill.

So I will be presenting this, and I am going to encourage Members of the Senate who want to get their name in today, they can be cosponsors, original cosponsors, as is the occupier of the chair at the present time, and myself, and 23 other Members of the Senate.

One last reminder. This is S. 1335. This is the last chance. Colleagues have 1 more hour to be an original cosponsor. I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, just a few minutes ago I did introduce and we have a bill number that is S. 1335. It is the Pilot's Bill of Rights. It is very significant that we get this done today, and I will explain why.

First of all, when Senator John Glenn from Ohio retired, that left me as the last active commercial pilot in the Senate. Consequently, I probably get more complaints than anybody else does about problems and abuses with the FAA.

I have to say this: I was very complimentary yesterday to so many of the people. The vast majority of the inspectors, the controllers, and others at the FAA are so talented. In fact, the first thing I do when I go up to Oshkosh every year, the largest air show in the world, is I go up to where they are all gathered together and I compliment them on the fact that they are taking on the toughest job for a 6-day period in Oshkosh as a volunteer. So I love their virtues. However, we have to keep in mind that any bureaucracy can become abusive.

So I have introduced the Pilot's Bill of Rights. The reason I am speaking right now is because we have 25 cosponsors at this time, which means 25 percent of the Senate has signed on as cosponsors.

The way the rules work around here, any of the Members who might be listening right now--and I know the occupier of the Chair is very concerned about this and he is very active with me on this legislation--any staffers who are watching, they should advise their Members that they have until close of business today, probably 1 more hour, to put their names down as original cosponsors.

Now, the bill simply does four things. First of all, it requires the FAA, for any enforcement action, to make sure the pilot is fully aware of what he is being accused of before any ultimatums are put forth. Consequently, that pilot is able to defend himself.

The second thing is it clarifies what they call statutory deference. Right now, statutory deference relates to the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB is the only area of appeal, so that if a pilot is accused of something and he looks at it and thinks it is unfair, he would have to go to the NTSB. Yet because of deference, they merely rubberstamp in almost all cases what the FAA does. As an example, of the emergency determinations that were made last year, only one was actually granted and the rest of them were denied. This bill will allow, in terms of fairness, that if something is going on and they refuse to consider a case, there will be an appellate process where the pilot can go to the Federal District Court and be heard there.

The third thing it does is it has to do with notice. That is notice to airmen. That is very significant. Those of us who are pilots know that when we go into a field, we check and see what the NOTAMs are, so that if there is any work on the runway, any problem there, any taxiways that are closed, they will give the pilot that information. However, the problem is it is the pilot's responsibility to do this and the FAA many times doesn't even post these NOTAMs. So what we are saying with our FARs, or our laws, is we are saying to a pilot, You have to be responsible to know what is going on at the airport, where you are going to be landing. Yet there is no place you can find out. So this requires that they revamp this system so that there is a central location. We specify that in the legislation, so that can be found.

Then the fourth and final thing, there is another problem in terms of medical certification. Those of us who are pilots have to have medicals and we have to have a certification process. This has been a problem for a long period of time. I have had countless people call me and talk about the problems they are having with their medical certification. In fact, of all the requests for assistance to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association--they represent hundreds of thousands of pilots--of all the requests for assistance they receive each year, 28 percent are related to the FAA's medical certification process. So I would say this of this very simple legislation. Two sections actually change the statutes so that it offers protection to pilots, but

the other two are working together to come up with a system where we can have a central location for NOTAMs as well as having a fair process for medical evaluations.

I think it is very obvious that there are a lot of bureaucracies where one or two people can be bad. When I was in Tulsa, I can remember all it took was one or two bad cops and that gave a black eye to everybody else. I remember actually, when I was running--it is the whole reason I ran for office in the first place. When I was out in the private sector, I was doing things that I thought I was supposed to be doing, and I had one old building called the Wrightsman Oil Estate. I was going to take this old eyesore and make it into a building and preserve it as it was originally. Old, in my city of Tulsa, OK, in this case was maybe 1910 or 1912. We weren't even a State until 1907. This is something everybody wanted.

I went to the city engineer and I said, I want to take this eyesore of a fire escape on the second floor and move it from the south to the north end. It is the same thing; it will service the same number of people, but it is an eyesore and this gets it out of the way. No one is against it. He said, You can't do that until this committee meets. So let's see. You have to have notice. That would be 3 more weeks before you can get notice. A month after that, you can get on the agenda. I said, Look, everyone is for it. He said, That is your problem, not mine. I said, I will run for mayor and fire you, and I did, and I fired him. This can happen in any bureaucracy.

So the reason there is a sense of urgency is because we have already told all of the groups--the Experimental Aircraft Association, ALPA, all of these groups that represent these different organizations--that we are going to be getting this bill ready with all of our original cosponsors and then cosponsors so that when we arrive and when I arrive at the end of July, at Oshkosh, WI, I am going to do the same thing I did in 1994 that caused us to be able to pass the first product liability bill on aviation and aviation products that had the effect of changing us from a major importer of aviation products and of airplanes to a major exporter, just by changing that. It was an 18-year repose bill. I did that at Oshkosh with an audience of 200,000 people. These are single issue people. I can assure my colleagues that they will be just as interested in this bill.

So I will be presenting this, and I am going to encourage Members of the Senate who want to get their name in today, they can be cosponsors, original cosponsors, as is the occupier of the chair at the present time, and myself, and 23 other Members of the Senate.

One last reminder. This is S. 1335. This is the last chance. Colleagues have 1 more hour to be an original cosponsor. I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this legislation.