Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am submitting my views today about the need to enact a fiscally responsible federal budget for fiscal year 2012.

The April 15 statutory deadline for Congress to complete its annual budget resolution was over a month ago. An annual budget resolution is essential for controlling spending, for guiding the annual appropriations process, and for setting national spending priorities.

For the past 2 years, the Senate has failed to meet this critical deadline. During that time, the U.S. has borrowed an additional $3.2 trillion--more than $100 billion a month until the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling was reached on May 16.

For the first 7 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the budget deficit was a record $871 billion--$71 billion higher than it was at the same point in fiscal year 2010. During the same period, income tax revenues increased by $110 billion, or 9.1 percent.

The problem isn't that Americans are taxed too little; Federal deficits are out-of-control because government is spending too much.

Not passing a budget, not bringing forward even a budget proposal, takes us down a path that ends in Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy, harms our national security, and passes the bill for current fiscal irresponsibility onto our children and grandchildren.

We are just 4\1/2\ months from the beginning of fiscal year 2012. Unless we pass a budget and approve the individual spending measures that are required to fund government operations, we will return to stopgap continuing resolutions and to recurring threat of government shutdowns.

Yesterday, I joined all 46 of my Republican colleagues in a letter to the Senate majority leader that urges him to initiate the steps that must be taken for the Senate to debate, vote, and produce a responsible Federal budget for the next fiscal year.

As the majority leader knows, the procedural votes he has scheduled will not advance us toward that goal. These votes are intended only to score political points.

Today I will be in Dallas to attend my daughter's graduation from lower school to middle school. This will prevent me from being present for votes on the motions to proceed on four budget proposals. My absence for these procedural votes will not affect the outcomes. But I wanted to make known my position in advance of these votes.

A serious attempt to move a fiscal year 2012 budget forward would be a bipartisan effort that would enable us to debate, amend, and move forward a plan for long-term deficit reduction, while funding essential government programs and services. I look forward to a real debate, open amendments, and a vote on a serious budget that will dramatically bring down the outstanding debt our country has accumulated. Unfortunately, that opportunity is not going to be presented to the Senate today.

I would vote in favor of the motions to proceed on the three Republican-originated budget proposals before the Senate: the so-called Ryan budget that has been approved by the House of Representatives, as well as alternative plans put forward by Senator Toomey and Senator Paul.

Each of these proposals would put the Federal Government on a multiyear glide path to a balanced Federal budget. Each proposal would go about achieving this crucial goal by reducing Federal spending, not by raising taxes, and could be a constructive starting point for Senate debate and consideration of amendments. I do not agree with parts of each proposal. But if we had an open amendment process we could attempt to improve each proposal, while preserving the best parts.

I could not vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. Unlike the Republican proposals, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to add $8.7 trillion in new spending and $1.26 trillion in net new taxes over the next decade, while only projecting $1.1 trillion in savings over 10 years.

Rather than balancing the Federal budget, the President's budget plan would add several trillion dollars more to the national debt. That would be a catastrophe by any standard. But the reality of the President's budget would be much worse. In the President's budget a $1.1 trillion deficit was projected for the current fiscal year. But we are instead headed for a $1.4 trillion shortfall.

The President subsequently signaled understanding that his proposed budget falls short by releasing a new deficit reduction proposal on April 13. The President's new plan targets $4 trillion in deficit reduction in 12 years--through tax increases and a new ``debt failsafe'' trigger that would include cuts to spending through the tax code--a new euphemism for tax increases.

It is our responsibility to the country to act on establishing constraints on federal spending and producing a budget blueprint. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to prepare nor advance a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution forward, except to say repeatedly that higher taxes are essential. In my estimation, raising taxes in a struggling economy will stifle job creation and further delay recovery from a devastating, long-lasting recession.

We must make bold cuts in spending where we can. We should also take steps to assure the long-term safety and soundness of Social Security and Medicare, for current retirees and for today's workers who will need to depend on benefits later. We must also carefully prioritize investment and research in areas of strategic national importance.

Just as American families and small businesses across the Nation set their spending priorities so Congress is expected to do the same. As a nation, we have reached a serious, fiscal crisis. It is time to start making the necessary and difficult decisions for the future of our country.

H. Con. Res. 34

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator McConnell's production bill. The bill might be too much for some, too little for some, and maybe it is not perfect, but we must take a step in the direction of adding production of our Nation's natural resources if we are going

to bring down the cost of gasoline, bring down the cost of fuel, bring down the cost of all the elements we have that are providing for our electricity, natural gas, and other forms of energy.

I hope we can pass Senator McConnell's bill. Oil is, today, slightly under $100 per barrel, and with the summer driving season approaching, we know the price could go up. It is graduation season and people are driving to their graduation ceremonies, and they are having to pay these enormous prices at the pump. It is over $4 in many places. I recently read a story about a constituent who was going to College Station for a Texas A&M graduation, and he complained, rightfully, that he had a diesel truck and it cost him $74.41 to get his truck half full. That is a lot for a half tank of fuel. I think we can do something about it.

Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has put up barriers to increasing our domestic energy potential. We must stop that policy and go in the other direction and open our natural resources and use our natural resources, so we can bring down the cost of fuel and try to help our small businesses and families by providing opportunities to lower fuel.

The McConnell legislation gets the ball rolling. Supporters of the bill agree that long-term energy solutions involve removing the anti- energy barriers to safely produce energy for Americans by Americans. On March 30, the President stated that producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security. But what is happening is our regulatory agencies are going in the opposite direction. They are stopping the production of oil and gas in our country.

Let me read excerpts from a FOX News article, by Dan Springer, in April of this year:

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to

drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the

northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a

ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold

critical air permits. . . .

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans

to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The

leases alone cost $2.2 billion. . . .

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is

Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the

United States. According to the latest census, the population

is 245, and nearly all of them are Alaska natives. The

village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores

of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed offshore

drill site.

The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into

consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when

calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the

project. . . .

At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's

how much the U.S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S.

portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents

two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans

Alaska Pipeline throughout its 30-year history. The pipeline

is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day,

it's carrying only one-third of its capacity.

So we hear what the President is saying, but his own agencies are going in the opposite direction.

Here is another example: We are approaching June. The Department of the Interior has not conducted an offshore lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. Lease sales usually occur twice a year. If a lease sale doesn't occur by the end of the year, 2011 would be the first year since 1958 which we have not conducted an offshore lease sale.

Because of the President's moratorium and lack of permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13 percent in 2011. Senator McConnell's bill addresses the need for increased domestic production by reinstating the oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Atlantic, which President Obama canceled.

This legislation also tackles the permitting delays companies in the gulf have experienced. Since October, the Department of the Interior has only issued 53 shallow water permits and 14 deepwater permits. The monthly approval rate before the moratorium was approximately 10 shallow water and 8 deepwater permits.

This legislation eliminates the bureaucratic delays which have burdened operators and have taken away their ability to raise capital to do the exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. In the bill, it says the Department of the Interior will approve or reject permit applications within 30 days. It doesn't require approval of every application, but it puts a limit of 30 days on the approval process, so people will not be hung out, as they have been since last October. They are still paying the costs, but they cannot explore. So they are sitting idle. This has caused the bankruptcy of at least one company I know in Texas, Seahawk Drilling. This is not good policy when we are talking, as the President is, about increasing production in our country and then doing the opposite by enacting proposals that do not make sense, such as a moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

On March 9 of this year, Senator Landrieu and I introduced S. 516, the Lease Extension and Security Act, known as the LEASE Act. All this does is simply extend for 1 year the leases that have had a moratorium, but the people are still paying the costs of those leases when they have been prohibited from using them. The leaseholder continues to pay the Treasury for all expenses associated with maintaining a lease, but they have been prohibited from exploring the lands the lease is on.

It is very important that we pass this legislation. In the bill before us, the McConnell bill, we have a variation of the LEASE Act. It extends the leases for those that are going to come to an end at the end of this year. If they come to an end at the end of this year, they will get a 1-year lease. That is a right step in the right direction.

Senator Landrieu and I believe every leaseholder--even if their lease does not run out this year--should have the full opportunity for their lease exploration capabilities in order to make it fair for the price they have paid in the open bidding process for those leases.

The President has said he approves the extension of some leases. We agree. Why not all of them? They have been paid for. In many instances, the companies are still paying the employees, even though the employees are not able to do the work. This year alone, over 350 leases will expire and many of them are in moratorium.

The bill before us would help those people to use the next year for determining if it is worth drilling for more of the oil on the leases they have purchased.

I think it is very important that we pass this legislation that we will vote on very shortly today if we are serious about increasing the production of our own natural resources for the benefit of our people. It seems to me we need to back up the words of the President with actions that will be positive, proactive, and productive in getting the price of gasoline down at the pump. If we can start now, I hope the President would take some of the steps, for instance, to allow Shell, with the investment it has made, to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. That is a place where there are vast reserves that have not been tapped. The people of Alaska support it.

If we would use our natural resources, we could put people in America to work. We could stop the heavy importation of foreign oil, which is what we depend on now for over 50 percent of our fuel, and certainly we would like to add to our economy in this precarious economic time. We can do it with our own natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the McConnell bill, and maybe then we can open it for amendments and get started in doing the right thing for our country.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Menendez proposal which would raise taxes on a handful of our Nation's energy producers. This bill makes the assumption that raising taxes on the five

major oil companies will somehow reduce the deficit and lower the price at the pump. This is misguided and it will also have the opposite effect. Raising taxes on our domestic oil industry will drive up gasoline prices and who in America driving a truck or a car doesn't realize that gasoline prices are already very high? Second, it will threaten the jobs, 9 million jobs dependent on drilling, exploration, and operating in America. If we drive these companies overseas, it will increase foreign imports and it will stop jobs being created in America.

Those who threaten to repeal these deductions fail to recognize the tremendous costs and risks that go into exploring for the energy needed to drive our country forward. Our oil and gas industry is a business or industry that creates jobs like any other business or industry in our country. Why would we single out one sector of our economy and say you can't deduct your expenses? Every other business in America can deduct expenses. Other manufacturing businesses in America can get the tax credits for manufacturing jobs because we want to keep jobs in America and it offsets the very high corporate tax rate that we have in our country, that the President has recognized as being too high. Because we want to keep manufacturing jobs, there is a credit for manufacturing. But we are going to take that away if the Menendez bill passes, and send those jobs overseas.

We are making it so hard to create our own natural resources from our own people working in this country, instead sending jobs overseas. At a time when we ought to be helping to create jobs, when we ought to give every possible fair break to companies that will hire in America, now we are going to take one sector of our industry and tax it differently from every other sector.

Since business started in our country we have had tax deductions for expenses. Yet here we are trying to say we are going to take one sector of our industry--maybe they are doing too well right now--and we are going to tax them more. Look out, other industries that happen to be successful right now; whether you are making Kleenex or computers, you are going to be taxed if you earn too much. Is that what America wants to change to, as our business policy, which has a foundation of fairness and equity?

We have a corporate tax rate that is so high it encourages businesses to go overseas. Now we are going to single out one industry that wants to do work in America, that wants to bring our natural resources out of the ground and bring down the price at the pump. But, no, we are going to add taxes so we will not see any lowering of gasoline prices at the pump. Instead, we are going to increase it. If we increase the cost of doing business and we force these companies to go overseas to get fair and stable regulatory environment, then we are going to pay more at the pump. There is no doubt about it.

Senator Landrieu and I introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year called S. 516, the Lease Extension and Secure Energy Act of 2011, known as LEASE. It restores time lost as a result of the offshore moratoria by extending the impacted leases by 1 year. It is fair and it is simple.

Over the weekend, the President stated he would be extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico that were affected by the moratorium, but he was not clear about which ones. He didn't say I will extend every lease that went through the processes to get the environmental and the safety restrictions in place.

They got the lease. Then they had a moratorium. So they are paying people, they are continuing to have all of the expenses of the lease but they do not get to do the exploration. We are saying whether you were in the exploration phase or in the drilling phase it doesn't matter. If you are impacted by a moratorium on a lease that you are still paying for and you are still paying people to try to keep people on the payroll, your lease will be extended for 1 year. That is all the bill Senator Landrieu and I submitted will do.

The Secretary of the Interior, at a hearing this morning in the Senate, said they were looking into extending Gulf of Mexico ``wells'' directly impacted by the moratorium--meaning only those leaseholders who have already performed all seismic tests and were conducting exploration drilling. This will only cover 33 leases out of thousands that are still affected by the moratorium, because they are in the exploratory phase, not the exploratory drilling phase.

This year alone, over 350 leases are due to expire. Many of them have not had the opportunity to be developed because of the moratorium. The development of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico is an extremely expensive and technical process. It takes about 3 years of tests, surveys, and appraisals before even drilling for the exploration well. Regardless of which stage all of the exploration leaseholders are in, the administration ordered all leaseholders to halt exploration activities when its moratorium was enacted. Every one of those leases is still being paid for but they are not able to be explored. We need to restore at least 1 year of the moratorium so they get fairness for the money they have spent and also for the people they have kept hired, not sending them away--which has been a hardship on many companies, including some having to go bankrupt because they could not afford to be idle while they also were meeting a payroll.

The exploration and development of oil and gas must follow a meticulous process, and any delay such as a moratorium can derail an exploration plan causing companies to have to give up on their leases. The length of deepwater offshore leases is usually about 10 years because that is what it takes to get all the way through the exploration and the exploration drilling phase to determine if it is worth actually drilling. Many times when you drill, you get a dry well.

Our commonsense legislation has bipartisan support. Recently, the Office of Management and Budget stated, ``The administration fully supports suspensions for Gulf of Mexico leaseholders directly impacted by the drilling moratorium,'' but the administration fails to recognize that all leaseholders in the Gulf of Mexico were ``directly impacted by the drilling moratorium.''

James Noe, the executive director of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, wrote me to express his support for the LEASE Act. In the letter, he said:

Without the LEASE Act, vast quantities of proven, present

and producible oil and gas in these expiring leases will be

trapped.

Leaving the resources trapped will hurt our domestic production and delay when these resources can come online.

I received another letter from Stephen Heitzman, the president and CEO of Phoenix Exploration, a small Houston-based exploration company. Mr. Heitzman wrote that the LEASE Act is vital to Phoenix Exploration and other small offshore companies because they have been prevented by the administration from drilling in the moratorium and have not been able to even evaluate many of their Gulf of Mexico leases which have been fully paid for through the competitive bidding process. He goes on to say the time lost from the moratorium makes it very difficult for shallow water independent operators to put together the partnerships and attract sufficient capital resources needed to develop leases.

The LEASE Act is needed to give offshore energy producers the certainty they need to obtain proper financing to produce domestic oil and gas.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters I have read excerpts from be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me close by saying I hope we will not do something so wrongheaded and counterintuitive as to take one section of an industry and say you are bigger than all the others, so we are going to tax you differently. We are not going to give you the manufacturing tax credits we give to every other manufacturer in the world, including the big ones that manufacture in the United States, and we are also going to tax you differently from the smaller oil and gas companies because you are big and they are small. Is that America? Is that the country that wrote a Constitution that said we would guarantee due process of law, that we wouldn't single out one company that is bigger than the others and tax it differently? That is not what our country was founded on.

We should have a fair process. We should have fair taxation. We should be encouraging manufacturing in our country because these companies have a trust with their shareholders. We expect them to do well for their shareholders, and they have millions of shareholders who depend on them to do the right thing with their business and with the investment these shareholders have made. I might add that many pensions are dependent on these kinds of stocks, and it is expected the CEOs will run the companies in a way that will keep our economy going, keep jobs in America, and keep their stockholders in a position where retirees can live on the income. We are singling out an industry and saying: No, you are too big, so you are going to be taxed differently from other industries, and you don't get the manufacturing incentives that even other big manufacturers get. Why wouldn't they move overseas to create jobs overseas where they have a stable regulatory environment, a lower tax base, a lower tax rate, and where they can bring up oil from the ground and import it right back into America, even though it will be at a higher price because we are going to have to pay for the people to go overseas and haul the oil back.

Does that make sense? It doesn't make good business sense, and it certainly doesn't make good economic sense. It is not good for our country, and it is certainly not good for the job market we are trying to build.

I hope we will not make the mistake of going forward on the Menendez bill. I hope we will realize we are a country that has vast natural resources and we should be using those resources so our businesses can thrive, so prices stay low, so people will not be strained to put gasoline in their trucks to go to work or to do their farming or ranching to contribute back to the economy. I hope we will defeat the Menendez bill, and I hope we will adopt a policy that will come through the McConnell bill tomorrow which will increase exploration, increase production, and lower the price of gasoline through our own natural resources, not by importing our own--the jobs that ought to be in America, exporting the jobs and importing the product. That doesn't make sense. Let's keep the jobs in America and let's keep our natural resources working for us. That would be the prudent thing to do and that will be the McConnell bill.

I hope we can defeat the Menendez bill, and maybe we can come together in the Senate and give the President a bill that will ask that we have more production and give the level playing field to all the companies that would hire more people and create jobs in America. They will do it if there is a level and fair and stable regulatory and tax environment in America.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the steady efforts of our Armed Forces and our intelligence community to eliminate the leader of al-Qaida and to help bring some peace and relief to our Nation and to those who lost loved ones in the tragedy on 9/11.

I have heard some people say justice has been done because the leader of this terrorist organization has finally been killed. I am not one who is going to say justice has been done. I do not consider taking out the leader of a terrorist organization who killed thousands of Americans who just went to work one day to do their jobs, to add to their quality of life and the lives of their families, an even trade. I do not consider it is enough. However, it is a first step to righting the wrong that was done by not only the leader of al-Qaida but all of those he trained through the years to give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people. He ruined the lives of so many Americans, and he also ruined the lives of so many young Muslim followers who gave up a productive life for one of terrorism and murder.

I thank President George W. Bush for his relentless efforts to put this accomplishment in motion. He is the President who received the shock on 9/11, who had to deal with the immediate aftermath, and he put in place the organizations, the military control, and the intelligence gathering that have brought us to this point today.

I commend President Obama for carrying these principles through to completion. As things are unfolding more and more we know President Obama made a very tough and very decisive and correct decision. I think both President Bush and President Obama deserve praise today.

I also especially say I am proud of the Navy SEALs who knowingly went into harm's way to take down Osama bin Laden. Those are the troops who probably thought there was a chance they might not come back home, but they are among the most highly trained forces in the world. They operate in sea, air, and on land. Each and every day they volunteer for some of the most dangerous missions under the most difficult circumstances, and without recognition. Normally, it is something we never hear about that takes us one step closer to wiping out the terrorism we know in the world today. They are truly our Nation's heroes.

While much praise, deservedly, goes to the two dozen Navy SEALs who raided the terrorist stronghold using surprise and lethal speed, we should not think that they went there alone because they did not. Shortly after the world saw the brutality of Osama bin Laden's savage plan unfold on American soil nearly 10 years ago, President Bush took the decisive steps to launch an aggressive campaign to hunt down those responsible, including Osama bin Laden.

One such step occurred on October 26, 2001, when President Bush signed into law the PATRIOT Act. It provided the law enforcement and the intelligence community greater authority to track and intercept communications among suspected terrorists. This law has proven to be immeasurably valuable to the intelligence community. It has enhanced our ability to find and capture terrorists. I hope we will be able to reach a bipartisan agreement to extend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of this month.

As we have seen from various media reports--and I look forward to getting more details--the ability to monitor communications was a crucial lead used by analysts to determine the eventual location of Osama bin Laden. As my colleagues are aware, the provisions that are set to expire include the authorization for the FBI to use roving wiretaps on surveillance targets because at the time we took up the PATRIOT Act, we were still having to get permission from authorities to wiretap a telephone number--not keeping up with the technology advances that allow you to have a cell phone and never have a landline and throw away a cell phone every 15 minutes if you think you are in danger of being under surveillance.

It also has a ``lone wolf'' provision that allows for the investigation of individuals who are acting alone but who have been radicalized and are sympathetic to terrorist organizations and pose a significant national security threat.

These are just two of the provisions that have enhanced our capabilities to obtain information that has been crucial in capturing not only terrorists we know have already plotted against us but also to uncover their plots before they are able to do harm.

We must not allow the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to expire, especially at a time when al-Qaida is reeling from the death of their leader and could be plotting revenge. Stepping back our intelligence efforts now could allow al-Qaida to regroup and launch additional attacks against our Nation.

Another very important step was taken when President George W. Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004. This act created the National Counterterrorism Center. This center is the primary organization in the U.S. Government for integrating, analyzing, and sharing all intelligence from the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and others which pertains to counterterrorism. This is a very important tool for compiling the various information that was being gathered by many of the intelligence organizations and putting it through one grid and analysis. It was

that painstaking analysis through the last 10 years that allowed actionable intelligence to be the instigator of the effort to take out Osama bin Laden.

Within our military, we have a small group of Tier 1 units that are specially selected and highly trained for this exact type of mission. They have gained fame in the last few decades through books and movies. But these heroes are real.

I wish to point out that the commander of these elite warriors, VADM William McRaven, is a proud Texan from San Antonio, who is also an alumni of the University of Texas. Admiral McRaven is a highly decorated Navy SEAL who lives by the SEAL code and ``earns his trident every day.'' Vice Admiral McRaven has been nominated by the President to receive his fourth star and, if confirmed, will lead U.S. Special Operations Command. I can think of no one better qualified to lead our special operations than he is. I look forward to supporting his confirmation on the Senate floor.

While these highly skilled commandos deserve every accolade that is bestowed upon them, we cannot forget those who guided them to the target: the direct and indirect support personnel, the technicians, the analysts, the pilots and crews, and all those who have worked meticulously and attentively for years to finally put together all the pieces to get the SEALs to the right place at the right time.

We have seen many changes in the past 10 years. Departments and agencies have been consolidated or created, military commanders have retired, and administrations have changed hands. Most of the soldiers who conducted that first raid in Afghanistan in October of 2001 are no longer wearing uniforms, just as most of those in the military today were still in school in September of 2001. Many of those signed up to go into the military after 9/11 because they felt so much loyalty to our country.

I wish to acknowledge those who devoted so many years to pursuing Osama bin Laden. To those who have retired or moved on to other professions, I want you to know we appreciate you and your work was not in vain.

Our leaders said from the beginning, after September 11--that fateful day--that we would get Osama bin Laden. Through the efforts of thousands, we did. We have the most professional, the best trained, the best equipped military and intelligence agencies in the world.

While there are sighs of relief now from the public, our work is clearly not done. Al-Qaida is still plotting against our freedom. Other groups are just as zealously dedicated to the mission of destroying our way of life. So while taking down the head of al-Qaida was a victory, it is also a stark reminder that we must remain vigilant.

As we speak right now, our intelligence experts are employing, analyzing, and disseminating the information gleaned from the bin Laden raid, and our special operators are preparing for their next mission, whatever it may be. I believe our country is united in the commitment to protecting what makes America great: our freedom and our way of life.

I look forward to a day when we will not have to walk through a body scan or put our shoes on an x-ray machine to get on an airplane. I look forward to a day when we will not have to fight against an enemy who is living among us, an enemy who is plotting against us in our own country, an enemy who is willing to kill itself in order to kill innocent people and destroy our way of life. I look forward to a day when we never see a casket at Dover, DE--one of our military elite coming home having made the ultimate sacrifice.

That day will only come if we as a nation remain willing to fight to protect the ideals of America--the foundation that was laid by our Founding Fathers and has been protected by every generation since that time. Today is a day we reflect on those principles. It is a day we renew our commitment to uphold them at all costs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jesse Boettcher be granted floor privileges. He is currently my military fellow.

Mr. President, as Jesse Boettcher is coming to the floor--and before I speak--I want to say he has served in the Army Special Operations Command for the past 16 years. Jesse, a special forces sergeant major, has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan numerous times over the past decade, and he has added tremendously to our office's military and overall productivity.

Madam President, we are today making a small downpayment toward getting runaway Federal spending under control. The spending bill we will vote on today represents a $78 billion spending cut from that proposed by President Obama for this year. It will be $38 billion from what the Federal Government spent last year. We must address the spending binge our country has been on for the last 2, 4, 6 years.

Spending cuts have been actually ignored. We have increased spending in the name of stimulus. The problem is, that kind of spending didn't stimulate the economy in the private sector where the jobs are permanent.

At the beginning of this year, the President proposed a budget that would spend $3.7 trillion next year, with a $1.6 trillion deficit. The national debt is now $14.29 trillion. Under President Obama's budget plan, the national debt would double since he took office and triple by 2020. We then embarked on a vigorous negotiation on this year's budget. Republicans insisted on cuts beginning now, which is the middle of a fiscal year, which makes it very difficult because the spending levels are already in place for half a year. But we said: No, we need to start right now, even if it is hard, even if it is in the middle of the fiscal year.

There was a hard negotiation. We know that because we had a series of

1-, 2-, and 3-week continuing resolutions that allowed the government to go forward but did not make the final decisions on finishing the fiscal year, September 30, with cuts that were necessary.

Part of the negotiation was to avoid a government shutdown. I did not want a government shutdown. In the end, that costs more. It costs more to do all the changes that are necessary to shut down the government and then to make the changes necessary to come back and put it back online. We did the right thing by making those cuts, by taking that first step, and by not shutting down government so that so many people would have been left in the lurch: Federal employees--most certainly we were going to take care of our military, but they should not have had to worry about it--all of the people who had vacations planned, who had bought airline tickets and who wanted to go to national museums and parks. All people would have experienced some kind of disruption. It wasn't necessary if we did the amount of cutting, and we did.

We cannot rest because the real battle is going to be for cutting trillions, not billions. It is the trillions that are going to start getting the deficits down and bring our debt back into line.

To do as the President suggested earlier this year and freeze spending at this year's levels would have been like someone who was on a diet saying: I am just going to eat what I eat now and no more. But that doesn't mean that person would lose weight. We all know that.

Today the Federal Government is spending $4 billion every day that we don't act. We add $4 billion every day that we don't have, that is debt borrowed from somewhere else. We are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend. Much of that is from the Chinese. And what are we doing? We are giving a bill to our children that is unsupportable. That is not just a problem for our grandchildren in the future; it is a problem for today.

This year our interest payments on this mountain of debt have already cost us $190 billion. By 2020, if we go at this rate, annual interest payments on the national debt will more than double to approximately $778 billion a year. Now we are going to $\3/4\ trillion just for interest payments. We cannot allow that to happen.

The President made a speech yesterday. It was a call for action. Unfortunately, I believe the President called for the wrong action. The President said we have to have taxes go up and we have to have spending that goes down together. He proposed raising $1 trillion in tax increases. That is $1 trillion in higher taxes for small business, $1 trillion in higher taxes for family farmers. That is not going to help the economy come out of the doldrums. Who is going to be able to hire people if they are going to have a tax burden and a regulatory burden that is going to keep them from being able to expand their operations?

Washington has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

We wasted $1 trillion in failed stimulus spending in the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency. Now he is raising taxes by $1 trillion in the second half of his Presidency to pay for a stimulus package that didn't work? That does not make sense.

The President also believes that a stronger Federal Government, a more powerful Federal Government is the answer to our problems. He proposed yesterday to address Medicare and Medicaid costs by expanding upon the health care reform bill that was pushed through on a completely partisan vote and that already is going to increase government. It is going to increase costs, and cuts to Medicare are going to pay for part of that increase. The President would give more power to the unelected bureaucrats on his new independent payment advisory board that is there to cut Medicare payments and reimbursements to doctors. We do not need a bigger, more powerful Federal Government to address the issues of this mounting debt.

We are going to have a vigorous debate on what is the right answer: more powerful Federal Government and more taxes versus a smaller, more restrained Federal Government that promotes growth in the private sector to make our economy go. We are approaching the limit on the Federal debt ceiling. That is where we must take a stand. That is where we have to draw the line in the sand and say: No more. We cannot raise the limit on the Federal debt without reforms taking place that will show that over the next 10 years we have a plan, and the plan is to cut back on the deficit every year.

I think a total of around $6 trillion in cuts over a 10-year period is a responsible approach. We will debate some of the things in the proposals that have been put forward: what are the priorities in spending, what will promote growth, what will promote jobs. But we must have a plan before we raise the debt ceiling.

Republicans and Democrats can agree on one thing: We do need a combination of spending cuts with revenue increases to get to the trillions that are needed to cut this debt. But the way we define revenue is the answer. The Democrats say revenue means tax increases. The tax increases are on people who would do the hiring to grow the jobs. So we are putting a damper on the ability to reinvigorate the economy.

Republicans are going to argue that the revenue comes from creating jobs, from having more people employed, so they can help with our economy and try to help bring revenue in by being employed in the private sector.

Republicans believe the way to create revenue is by building a vigorous

economy, to have people working so they are contributing to the economy, not having people who are forced to take benefits because they cannot find a job in this stagnant economy that we all have acknowledged is here.

Today, I hope all of us will agree to take the first steps on the responsible spending cuts that will get us through the end of this fiscal year. I hope we will come together on next year's budget. The 2012 budget is what we are having hearings on. I had a hearing this morning with the Secretary of Commerce--the FBI Director earlier this week--to assure that we are spending for 2012 in a limited, responsible way and covering the needs of our country and also making the investments that will spur growth in our economy.

But the big debate we are going to have is on increasing the debt limit. At $14.29 trillion, we must do it with reforms that show the world that is buying our debt that we are going to have a responsible way to pay them back. I do not want the Chinese to raise the interest rates because they are worried about whether we have the political will to pay them back.

We will have the political will to do it if we cut spending, if we increase revenue through job growth, not taxes. We will show the world the debt is good and that interest rates should stay low and that we should work to have good trade agreements so we can build up our jobs and buy things from outside, and those economies will flourish so they can buy our products. That is what would be a win for everyone, and that is what we will be promoting in the next few months in Washington.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think that everyone--or virtually everyone in the Senate--does not believe we should shut down the government. The question is, What are the negotiations? I am not privy to them and neither is anyone on this floor about what are still the sticking points.

We all believe it is our responsibility to assure that government does not shut down and to come to an agreement because this is a 6- month bill--this is to the end of the fiscal year--that we are trying to negotiate. It is a very small part of the big picture, which is, we must get the deficit down, which is projected to be, under the current budget that has been put forward, $1.5 trillion.

That is wrong. That is what we ought to be addressing. We ought to be looking at the numbers we can bring down so we start getting this budget deficit down so our debt starts coming down and we can see an economy that is thriving through private sector job creation.

That is what we ought to be doing. But because there is so much debate and because there is such disagreement about what is holding up the agreement for that 6-month plan, there is something that is gaining momentum in this country that I want to assure everyone knows about.

I was notified of it this morning through an e-mail into my Web site. It was from a woman I do not know. She said: My husband is Active Duty in the Navy, and I just wanted to let you know there is a Facebook campaign supporting S. 724. Please click the link below because there are 437,000 people who have signed on that they agree with us. This is what Americans think about military pay being cut.

Because S. 724, that was put forward by myself and Senator Casey who came on board, which now has 58 sponsors, is about making sure no matter what happens in the next 12 hours, no matter what happens with the government shutdown, is that there be no question in the minds of our military and their families that they will be paid on time because there is no question they are going to come to work. I do not want 1 day or 1 hour of delay in the payment for our military. We have about 100,000 people in Afghanistan today putting their lives on the line, wherever they are in that country, and we have 47,000 in Iraq.

For the people back home--and I have already heard from one wife who has a 1-year-old child whose husband is in Afghanistan, who says: Thank you for remembering that we have mortgages to pay, and our husbands are not here to help us or do anything about it.

So I wish to say we have now, in the hour since we got this note, we went on the Web site. The Web site is called Ensure Pay for Our Military Act of 2011, which is also the name of our bill. It now has 639,212 people who have signed on in support of this Web site.

The people of our country know there is one option we do not have; that is, to pass a freestanding bill that will assure whatever the other disagreements are, that our military pay will be on time for the work that is being performed. America understands that. I am asking the Senate to join.

I ask unanimous consent for cosponsors to be added to my bill: Senator Pryor, Senator Boozman, Senator Bennet, Senator Baucus, Senator Isakson, Senator Kirk, and Senator Johnson.

That brings the total to 58. Senator Casey has been a wonderful supporter in this. He is the lead cosponsor.

Mr. President, 58 Senators have stepped to the plate and said: This is not an option, for us to equivocate for 1 minute.

I am waiting to get two more cosponsors, which will show that we have 60 and that we want to act as a Senate. I am hoping that Senator Casey and I can get the ability to bring up our bill and pass it. It is very simple, very clear. Military pay for those who are serving our military in civilian capacities will not be delayed. They are going to report to work, and they need to have peace of mind because the mortgages they have may be on direct

lines to the mortgage companies, that they are going to be covered. That is the very least we can do as we are arguing about whose fault it is going to be if we have a shutdown. We need to say: It is our first priority not to have a shutdown, and we need to be able to come to agreement, and we need to take further action--I hope we can do it very quickly--of saying we are going to assure, with this simple bill, that our military will be paid.

If we send this to the House of Representatives, my guess is they, too, will pass it.

I yield.

Mr. President, that makes 59.

I yield.

Mr. President, Senator Warner is 60. We now have the ability to pass this piece of legislation. Whatever happens on this floor, we have 60 votes that commit us to supporting our troops and assuring them that there is no equivocation in this Senate for having their pay on time. They will be doing their duty in Iraq, and they will be doing their duty in Afghanistan. It is my great hope that we also will have the ability to assure their families so there is not 1 minute of stress added to what they already have in their lives.

I thank those who started this Facebook and the grassroots movement that has brought us to over a half million people in a few hours. This is a true grassroots movement. I thank those who started it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise because obviously we are talking a lot today about--and really the eyes of our Nation are looking at what Congress is doing because there is so much negotiating going on. I am one who wants to have a long-term continuing resolution to the end of our fiscal year that makes the responsible budget cuts, that funds our troops and gets us on to the next item of business, which is the one we really must address; that is, the huge debt that is facing our country. That is what we should be doing.

We are now in the throes--and I am told there are serious negotiations going on that we hope still will have a result before the midnight deadline. But if everything breaks down, I have a bill that now has 74 cosponsors in the Senate out of 100. That bill is very simple. It says that if everything else falls through, even though everyone I am talking to wants us to have that agreement that will not shut down the government, that does fund our Army, our Navy, our Air Force, our Marines, our Coast Guard, all of those in the Transportation Security Administration, all of those personnel who are waiting to see if their financial lives are going to be disrupted--I want to make the deadline so it will not be.

However, I do have a simple bill because there are some people who are

not in the United States right now, who are overseas protecting our freedom. They are serving in Iraq. They are serving in Afghanistan. Their loved ones are mostly at home watching what is going on.

I have been looking at the comments of the wives of the personnel, who are worried about what effect this is going to have on them because they have actually gotten notices that their pay is going to be cut, that it is going to be less than their full pay on the 15th because they are accommodating a potential government shutdown. We cannot let that happen.

I have introduced S. 724. I have 74 cosponsors. Senator Inhofe and Senator Casey stepped up right from the beginning, and now we have 74 Senators ready to ensure that if things break down, we will fix this problem.

I am very moved by a Web site that was created by one individual today--early this morning, I think--and her name is Hope Gwen Bradley. I did not know her name earlier today when I spoke. She said: I am going to do something. I am one person, and I am going to do something.

I do not know Ms. Bradley. I do not know if she has a connection to the military, but she opened a Facebook with the name of my bill, ``Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011.'' As of when I left the office to come to the floor, there were 906,412 people on this Web site who agreed with her that we must at all costs alleviate any fears of our military families when they are doing so much for our country and fighting for what we are trying to do right here.

I commend Hope Gwen Bradley--and I surely hope I can meet her some day--for this kind of grassroots groundswell to support our troops with a simple bill that says if there is a government shutdown, our troops will be paid on time, full pay. That is what the bill does. It has 74 cosponsors.

I will say that Senator Rockefeller, my esteemed colleague, the chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is on the floor, and I am going to stop in just a minute because I am sure he is here for his time in morning business.

We now have the support of the Military Officers Association, which has 377,000 members who sent me a letter supporting S. 724. We have the letter from the National Association for Uniformed Services, with 180,000 members and supporters, signed by Richard Jones, their legislative director, in support of this bill. We have just received the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America letter saying they strongly support S. 724.

Here is what they say in the letter:

This bill ensures that all members of the Armed Forces will

continue to receive the pay and allowances they have earned

despite any lack of interim or full-year appropriations. Our

men and women in uniform protect our Nation and continue to

do so despite budget disagreements in Washington. The members

of our Armed Forces are essential to the defense of our

Nation and must be treated as such. Many young servicemembers

and their families--

Remember, so many of those over there are young. They are in their twenties. So they are not in the high levels of compensation. Continuing with what this letter says, and this is the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, so they know what they are talking about; they have been there--

Many young servicemembers and their families are dealing

with multiple deployments and often live paycheck to

paycheck. Military families should not be asked to bear

further financial stress in addition to fighting the war on

terrorism. This legislation protects the men and women who

protect us.

The letter is signed by Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. They are the ones who have most recently come back, and they are too coming forward and saying we must do this.

I am for the bills that would come through. I think the House bill is a good bill. The 1-week continuing resolution does take care of the military. But the chances of it passing here are probably nil. I think if the other body was to have a clean continuing resolution, I would support that too. But I don't think that is going to have a chance either. So the only thing that is going to have a chance is if we get a real agreement between Senator Reid, Speaker Boehner, and the White House that we can do a long-term continuing resolution that will truly fund our troops and that will have the necessary cuts to show we are serious about this budget deficit and we are going to correct the course of our country financially. That is what we all hope for.

But if we don't get that, my bill, 724, has 73 cosponsors, our Members speaking in large numbers, saying this is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass this bill as soon as it is clear we are not going to have a real agreement. We can do no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Feinstein to our bill as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Leahy, Merkley, and Boxer as cosponsors to S. 724.

Mr. President, this brings to 77, out of 100 Senators, who are now sponsoring this bill. Our bill, S. 724, is very simple. It just says if there is a government shutdown, our military will be paid their full pay on time.

This bill is the very least we can do to assure every military family that they do not have to worry for one minute whether their mortgage is going to be paid, whether their car payments will be paid, or whether they will be able to get over this hump without thinking that there might be a halving of their pay, or that it might be delayed.

I am especially concerned, of course, about those who are overseas, but their families are at home, because if the mom or dad is overseas and there is a glitch somewhere, they are not here to help. I think it would be unthinkable that we would go to midnight and not have taken care of these families and assured them that everything is going to be fine.

I want to say that I hope there is an agreement, and I have heard the rumor that there is an agreement. If there is one, I know that it will include military pay. I believe that. If, for any reason, that agreement does not happen in the next 3 hours, or if the agreement doesn't include military pay--which I don't think will happen--I think both Houses of Congress want to serve our soldiers and their families, but I will be here until midnight, and I am going to make sure that whatever happens, either S. 724, with 77 sponsors in the Senate, is passed, or that we have an agreement that both Houses have before them that will assure that the military pay is handled in that other agreement.

So we are going to be here for 3 more hours and make sure that the will of the Senate, which is very clear with 77 sponsors, is met.

I want to just mention again that there was a Web site put up early this morning by just one woman who was very concerned about this issue and heard about my bill in the news. Her name is Hope Guinn Bradley. She is from Hawaii. I do not know her. She has started a social media network like I have never witnessed in my life. We now have over 1 million support hits on her Web site, called Ensuring Pay for our Military Act of 2011. In one day, she has accumulated 1 million support sentences, or messages, for what she is doing.

If you would go to that Web site and do nothing else but read those comments by people who are supporting our military and who are clearly in the support of our military--you know, I would like for the military people to see it just so they understand how much America appreciates them and what they do because they are saying to the people here in Washington, DC: You take care of our young men and women who are fighting for us. You better do it or there will be consequences.

Are they right? Absolutely. I have spoken a couple of times today. I want to make sure that we have the letters from the military organizations that have been written in support of S. 724. There is one from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America that wrote a wonderful letter. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record along with two other letters to which I will refer.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America understand better than anybody what it is like to serve there and to not have any other stresses that would add to what they are already doing for our country. They say pass S. 724.

The National Association for Uniformed Services, with more than 180,000 members, sent a letter in support.

The Military Officers Association of America has also added its support with 377,000 members.

We have the grassroots support. Everyone understands this. I will read a couple of the messages that have been on this wonderful Web site, but, first, here is one that came to my Web site:

Dear Senator Hutchison: My husband serves as a Captain in

the United States Army. As the wife of a currently deployed

soldier and mother to our two-year-old son, I find it

outrageous that our government is debating whether or not to

continue to pay our troops.

While my husband and I are very fiscally responsible, many

of his junior soldiers simply cannot handle the implication

of what it would mean to not receive their paychecks. We

worry for these soldiers' families. How will they afford

groceries? How will they afford diapers for their babies?

Will they be able to pay their rent or mortgages? These are

not questions that we should have to ask. Money should not be

a worry on these soldiers' minds. My husband and the soldiers

in his unit do incredibly dangerous missions and quite

frankly it frightens me that this could split their focus in

a very negative way.

My husband and his fellow soldiers risk their lives on a

daily basis. They miss holidays and their children's

birthdays. They deserve to know that the same government that

sent them over to fight is looking out for them. They deserve

to know that our government would not send them over to a war

zone and then deny them their pay. My husband does not have

the luxury to ``walk off the job.'' He stays there until the

mission is complete, and the Senate has a mission as well: to

pass the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 724.

Here is another hit that was found on the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011 Web site:

As a military wife who is expecting our first child in

June, my husband and I recently PCS'd overseas and are

already on a tight budget to pay our new bills in Euros and

our bills stateside in dollars. Now we have to worry that we

will not have enough money to pay our bills and our credit

might be harmed, there is no safety net to help catch us when

we fall behind, no interest on the back pay that we will be

missing, or the late fees waived when we can't pay all of our

bills. We would have to tell our German landlords that we

cannot afford to give them money, how are they supposed to

understand? They are not in this situation, we as Americans

are. I am not complaining of being a military spouse; I chose

this life. I knew of the hardships of deployments (my husband

has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), and I love what my

family does. I hope and pray that this issue will be resolved

soon.

Mr. President, really--I mean really, we have 3 hours until midnight. Can we tell these people that they might get half their paycheck on April 15? We can't.

Here is another letter. I am obviously not reading the names, although they are on here. I don't want to in any way harm them:

As a veteran of OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom), I stand

behind you 100 percent and so do many others. This will tear

morale from the troops and their families, which can be a

dangerous thing. The mental and financial balance soldiers

and their families are on, as it is, is a delicate one. They

live month to month. Most are enlisted and make scratch as it

is. Cutting more pay will put these families on the chopping

block, and when a soldier's family is put in that position,

that soldier is no longer fighting for his country but is now

fighting for his family against his country. This would

destroy the basic foundation of all our forces from the

core.

There are 1 million hits on this Web site. So many of them are touching, many are pleading, some are angry. I just want to say I do have faith that in the next 3 hours, we will ensure that these people are taken care of. I do have that faith. But we only have 3 more hours. I want to ensure that we are going to be here. If it starts getting to 11 o'clock and we have 1 more hour to ensure that not 1 more hour passes after midnight that this cannot be taken care of, I am going to be here, and we are going to do it. And I am so proud that so far we have 77 cosponsors of this bill. I think we will have unanimous support for it. I do. But 77 people have made sure they called to be a cosponsor of this bill. I am proud we have something very bipartisan in a very partisan atmosphere. That is maybe a ray of hope that this is going to be done in the right way.

I want the people of this country to know and I want it to be in the Congressional Record the overwhelming support that has now come because of the debate, what people are seeing and their support for the military.

The Presiding Officer is a cosponsor of the bill. The Senator who is taking his place right now is also a supporter of this bill--Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Durbin, Senator Kerry. We have very strong bipartisan support. It is my faith that we are going to do what is right for our military because we can do no less.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate very much what the leader has said. I know this has been arduous, and I know the negotiations have been arduous. That is why I believe that in the next 3 hours, we will do the right thing on this issue. I hope we do the right thing for all of our country.

We have not talked about the other Federal employees who are essential and those who are going to be furloughed. There are so many people in this country who are going to be affected in so many ways if there is a government shutdown. I am focusing on the ones who cannot help themselves right now because they are overseas protecting our freedom, but there are many people who are going to have hardships that are unnecessary.

I do appreciate what Senator Durbin has said.

There is one other person I want to mention; that is, Congressman Louie Gohmert. He started on the House side with the same bill I have introduced on the Senate side. He has gained large support on the House side for this legislation. I commend Congressman Gohmert for assuring, as we were watching this week the very spirited debate that has gone on about the possibility of having a government shutdown--Louie Gohmert stepped up first. I give him credit for saying there is one group we cannot leave behind no matter what happens. Our bills are virtually the same. Whichever House can pass it first is fine with me because whatever we do, we have to do it together and we have to do it before midnight.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Landrieu as a cosponsor of Senate bill 724.

Mr. President, that makes 78 Members of the Senate who are now sponsoring this bill for our military.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I rise to speak to an amendment I believe addresses three underlying issues in S. 493, the Small Business Innovation Research Program, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, STTR, Reauthorization Act.

First, this amendment reduces the reauthorization of these programs from 8 years down to 3 years. This reauthorization bill, S. 493, makes substantial changes to the SBIR and STTR programs, and it is important for the reauthorization timeline to reflect that. The changes could dramatically improve the program, but in case there are additional changes that need to be to ensure they remain successful and effective, it is in the best interest of the participating agencies and the participants in the programs that there is an opportunity to make adjustments after a few years.

Second, my amendment strikes the mandatory increase agencies must set aside from their budgets to fund both the SBIR and STTR programs. Currently, these programs are funded through the participating agencies setting aside 2.5 percent of their total research budgets for the SBIR program and 0.3 percent for the STTR program. S. 493 would require this set aside be increased to 3.5 percent and 0.6 percent over a period of time for the SBIR and STTR programs, respectively.

In this current budget environment, when all agency budgets are feeling the pinch, increasing this mandatory set aside will mean fewer dollars are available for other research. These programs focus on commercialization of cutting edge innovation, which is critical to our country's global competitiveness. However, this mandatory increase would mean funding cuts to other life saving research. For the National Institutes of Health this 1 percent increase to fund the SBIR program would mean there would be about $300 million less for other NIH research, research focused on finding new cures. For example, NIH spends about $300 million per year on prostate cancer, a little less than that on lymphoma research and spends only half of that on autism research every year.

There is no evidence that agencies must turn away high-quality applicants or underfund them because there is a lack of funding. In fact, agencies that participate in these programs currently have the discretion to spend more on the SBIR or STTR programs if they deem it appropriate. The current set aside is a floor, not a ceiling. This amendment does nothing to change that. However, I believe mandating the increase, especially in this current budget environment, especially for 8 years, could greatly disrupt Federal funding for other critical research.

The third provision of my amendment addresses the reality that bringing an idea to market is a complex process that often requires several rounds of financing. This amendment ensures that all small businesses are given an opportunity to compete for these grants regardless of their financial makeup, as long as they are a small business. Years ago there was an administrative change made to the eligibility criteria for these programs that has severely restricted the ability of quality applicants to compete for funding. That change has unilaterally excluded companies solely due to their financial structure and not due to the size of their company. Small businesses are small businesses because of the number of people they employ, not because they have received their start up money through a venture capitalist, or an angel investor or from winning the lottery. This sentiment was echoed by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, in a letter sent to Chairman Landrieu in 2009. Mr. Holdren stated that ``it is critical for the U.S. economy and global competitiveness that the very best companies are sustained and the most promising small companies are not arbitrarily restricted or excluded because of their capital structure.''

Arbitrary exclusion from these programs has affected small businesses all over the country. Too many times it has become a defining part of the story of too many promising small businesses. One such story is that of ActaCell, Inc. It is a company started with leading research in the lithium ion materials field from the University of Texas in 2007. When ActaCell applied for an SBIR grant through the Department of Defense, it met the new eligibility standards required by the program; both in its size and its financial structure. However, as the application was pending, ActaCell needed to secure additional financing in order to continue its operations and therefore fell

outside of these new arbitrary guidelines. The result was the Federal Government missed out on an opportunity to fund promising research, solely due to this arbitrary financial restriction.

The Austin Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to my office with their many concerns regarding this provision. They stated that the problem is compounded by the fact that the majority venture capitalist-funded companies can house multiple unfunded ideas that are ultimately all excluded from the program. This occurs, even though research shows great promise, only because a business's overall financial structure offends this financial restriction. Their letter states that ``Small businesses should not be forced to choose between the SBIR program and venture capital funding. To accelerate American technological innovation, Federal efforts must promote the importance of both public and private sector sources of capital and partnerships.''

Yesterday, in front of the House Small Business Committee, another Texan told his story of how these restrictions have hurt innovation. Mr. Glenn Norem cofounded Totus Lighting Solutions, a company that manufactures and markets products that integrate surveillance with sensor monitoring on intelligent lighting platforms. Because of these arbitrary financial restrictions in the SBIR program, Mr. Norem had to chose between venture capital funding and Federal grants. When asked what impact that decision has had on his company and other companies similarly situated, he stated, that it delayed commercialization. Allowing companies to partner with all available options enables innovation, which grows companies and creates jobs.

This amendment is supported by the University of Texas, Austin Chamber of Commerce, Rice University, the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

I will be proud to offer this amendment that will improve the underlying legislation and help ensure that absolute best research gets funded by American tax dollars, so that innovation can lead to commercialization as quickly as possible. Our country's job creators need us to do our jobs so they can do theirs.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors to S. 724: Senator Manchin, Senator Udall of Colorado, and Senator Rockefeller.

Madam President, that brings to 43 the number of bipartisan Senators, including the Presiding Officer, who are supporting the bill that will assure that our military personnel are paid even if there is a government shutdown.

We all realize the stress that a military person and a family are under if that military person, especially, is deployed overseas. We have troops in Afghanistan. I was talking to my staff a minute ago, and he heard from one of his friends in Afghanistan, on his ninth deployment, who had heard about our bill and he thanked us for realizing there might be a delay in the military pay and for trying to address it if, in fact, the government is shut down. His ninth deployment, and he is worried about whether he is going to be paid on time so his family, with a 1-year-old child, will be able to make sure and pay the mortgage on the first of the month. Oh, my gosh, what are we thinking here?

I think there are certainly legitimate disagreements about the spending and the budget. I am one who believes we should be cutting the spending. I think the ways to get there are certainly legitimate areas of disagreement. There should be one matter on which we do not disagree and that we would unanimously pass in this Senate; that is, in the event the government does shut down because the sides are still apart when the deadline comes Friday night, that our military get their paychecks, and those who are serving our military overseas or wherever with food service and the things that are done by civilian employees serving the military, that they, too, would show up for work and they would be paid.

We cannot have somebody thinking: Oh, golly, now, I wonder if I am supposed to show up to serve the military meals in Afghanistan or in the base in Iraq or the police station where our troops are embedded. Are we going to ask those questions? I hope not. I hope that if there is one thing this Congress and this President can agree on, it is that there should be no question that the mother at home with the 1- year-old child whose husband is on his ninth deployment in Afghanistan will not worry that she will have that, hopefully, direct deposit so she can pay her mortgage on time.

S. 724 is very simple and very clear: that our military will be required to come to work, which will be no doubt for them, and they will be paid on time. The same goes for anybody serving the military where it is essential for the service of the military. We have almost 100,000 people in Afghanistan today. We have 47,000 in Iraq. There are a lot of people who are serving under great stress and doing a great job under very trying circumstances. I hope this Senate, if, in fact, the government shuts down, can speak very clearly.

I don't think we can wait until 11 o'clock Friday night to make that determination. The processing of the bills and the direct deposits and all that is right now because the paychecks are imminent. It is about 1 week until the paychecks come, but we have a process and we need to ensure the process is going forward.

We know the House, as we speak, is debating the 1-week continuing resolution. It does have the funding for the

Department of Defense until the end of the fiscal year. The President has said he will veto that because of the riders in the bill, which means we could be facing a government shutdown. I don't want the government to shut down because I don't think we even know the real consequences to the thousands of people who are affected, to the veterans who get benefits and live benefit to benefit or the military personnel, of course, and those in the Department of Defense.

Many of us are trying to make the decisions as to who is essential in our offices. It is very hard to do the constituent services when we are involved in a government shutdown. I can't tell my colleagues the number of emergencies I get: people who have loved ones overseas who can't get visas, can't get back, who lost passports. We have so many calls where people need services. So we have to select what are the essential services. These are all things people are not aware of that will happen when there is a shutdown of government.

So I hope we can come to an agreement. If, in fact, we have an agreement--and some people are saying we do for the top-line spending; I haven't heard it yet, so I don't know if that is the case--but if the leaders have made a decision that there is now an agreement on that, I hope we will be able to act and not have a government shutdown.

I also hope we will be able to pass a long-term continuing resolution. It is high time people know what they can contract for, what government services are going to be ongoing and at what price, at what funding level. Nobody would run a small business this way. Nobody would run a corporation this way: Well, we can't agree, so we will just have a week-to-week continuing resolution in a business. Nobody would do that.

I think we have to be focused on the big picture. We have 6 more months in this fiscal year, until October 1. We need to make sure we get this out of the way so we can focus on what is truly going to make a difference in terms of whether we can get this deficit down and get the debt off the plates of our children in the future, and those will be the reforms that will be tied to the debt ceiling. If we don't have reforms, that is when we should draw the line in the sand and say we are not going to have the debt ceiling lifted without the reforms in place that will allow us to not hit that $14 trillion number in the future. I hope we will have a 10-year plan that would start lowering the deficit every year over 10 years so eventually we would have it down to a reasonable amount as compared to our gross domestic product. That would provide the credibility to the rest of the world that we are going to meet our obligations, that we will not default, and that we would be taking hold of our financial situation in this country. That would be the prudent thing to do. I hope we will all be able to work together to do it.

As of now, I think the important thing for this Senate to do is to pass S. 724 that now has 43 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill that says the military should not have to worry about a government shutdown. That should be the last thing on their minds. They should be protecting themselves from harm in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families should be able to do the best they can to support their families while their loved ones are overseas. I hope there will be a time going forward when we can pass this bill in short order--not at 11 o'clock Friday night but in the next day or so--if, in fact, we are not able to see our way to passing the 1-week continuing resolution that would prepare us, hopefully, for the long-term continuing resolution to get this fiscal year out of the way and let us focus on next year's budget, which starts October 1, and the long-term reform that is going to be necessary to start cutting our deficit significantly.

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

Mr. President, we have been talking for a long time today about this fiscal crisis. I don't think anyone is looking at the looming deadline tomorrow night as something that we want, to have government shut down. I hope so much that the President and Speaker Boehner and the Democratic leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, can come to terms because we are so close to having an agreement on a continuing resolution until the end of this fiscal year--which is what we need. If anyone would run a business the way this government is being run, in 2- week continuing resolutions and 1-week and 3-week--it is not a way to run anything. It is not organized and you cannot plan. Certainly, we know taxpayer dollars are not being the most efficiently spent if we are going in 1- and 2-week increments.

The stakes are very high. I look back at the year 2000, and we had balanced budgets. We had a balanced budget in the year 2000. We had a balanced budget up until 9/11. That was only 10 years ago, and we ought to be able, as the U.S. Congress, working with the President, to say if we had a balanced budget 10 years ago, we cannot possibly be so far over the line that we cannot bring it back into balance. But to bring it back into balance we are going to have to look long term. We cannot do it on $30 billion of difference from now to the end of the fiscal year's spending. The fiscal year ends October 1. We cannot do it. We have to have a 10-year plan; we have to have clear cuts in spending; and we have to start working toward a balanced budget in a responsible way.

I cannot say I agree with everything in it, but the House Budget Committee chairman, one of the Republicans in the House, has proposed a budget that would do exactly that. It would get us to nearly a balanced budget. Now we need to start talking about the plans he has put forward. The President has not been; Congressman Ryan has. We are going to change some of it, I hope. We should have the same goal; that is, to get to a balanced budget over a period of time, 5 to 10 years. But we certainly are not going to do it in the next 24 hours, talking about $30 billion or $36 billion going for the next 6 months.

I hope we will settle this issue so we can go to the long-term issues. The long-term issue is going to come up in about 1\1/2\ months when we are going to be called on to raise the debt ceiling. The debt is $14 trillion. We are looking at a deficit this year alone of $1.6 trillion. If we go with the budget the President submitted, $3.7 trillion more, over $14 trillion? No wonder the people of this country are up in arms. We need to listen to the people of this country who say stop doing business in Washington the way it has always been done. Stop it now and start cutting back on the appetite for spending so we will be able to have the balanced budget that we can see in our future.

What we are looking at now is the potential of a government shutdown. I hope it does not come to that, but there is one thing we ought to be able to do in this Congress, and that is at least protect our military who is serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and their families who are back home worried enough about them because of where they are and who most certainly should not have another burden put on them of not knowing if their paycheck is going to come at the normal time of the month--the 1st and the 15th.

I have introduced S. 724. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sessions as a cosponsor.

I will say that makes our 46th cosponsor of S. 724. It is a very simple bill. It just says if there is a government shutdown, the military will be paid. The Secretary of Defense will have the discretion to also pay the civilians and those who are serving our military so the food service in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be stopped because we have a government shutdown and the paychecks are not going to come.

I want to alleviate any fear on the part of any member of our military or one whose family is watching the debate on the House and the Senate floor, watching this play out and thinking: Am I going to be able to pay the mortgage on time? I want to alleviate that fear right now.

I hope we will be able to pass this bill that is gaining sponsors about every 15 minutes, as people start looking at the looming shutdown of government that will happen a little later than this tomorrow night if we do not have an agreement. I think all of us should put our military in the front of the line and say: They are going to show up for work. Let's assure them their pay will not be delayed. That is not the message they are getting right now, but I think we can assure they will get it.

I have a letter we just received from the National Association of Uniformed Services, which says:

On behalf of the more than 180,000 members and supporters

of the National Association for Uniformed Services, I offer

our full support for your legislation, S. 724, the Ensuring

Pay for Our Military Act of 2011.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I hope we come to agreement and do not shut down the government. We are so close to getting this temporary fiscal year--which we are already halfway through--finished, and let's take this off the books. What we ought to be doing right now is focusing on the 2012 budget that starts October 1, where we are having our hearings, and we are asking our questions, and we are trying to set our priorities with a lower scale of government. We are going to cut back way below what we spent last year and the year before, but we are going to prioritize our spending.

We had FBI Director Mueller testify before our Commerce-Justice Subcommittee of Appropriations to talk about the law enforcement needs of our FBI. I want to spend my time talking about the needs of the FBI and the other necessary functions of government; certainly, our armed services bill. I do not want to be talking about shutting down government in the middle of the fiscal year because we are not coming together on $6 billion or $3 billion--I don't know exactly where they are now, but it is not very much in the scheme of things. What we need to do is get this behind us, alleviate the fears of our military personnel, alleviate the fears of their families that they might have a hiatus in their paychecks.

We need to start thinking about the big picture, the big picture of what we must focus on, which is cutting spending so we can go toward a balanced budget and agree on a 5- to 10-year trajectory that will put us back in a fiscally responsible position for our country to have the credibility in the world we should have, for our children to be free of the debt for what we have used in government in this country. We don't need to pass that debt to our children if we are responsible stewards of both their lives and our taxpayer dollars.

We need to be the leaders that people expect us to be. The people spoke in very loud terms last November, that they do not want more spending. I hear it everywhere I go. I hear it in the airports, on the streets, when I am talking to people in informal meetings, the grocery store--people are scared to death of a $14 trillion debt. It has never been so high in our country before.

I don't want that to be the legacy of this Congress and our generation. That is not the legacy we should have as leaders of the greatest country in the free world.

I implore the leaders of Congress and the President to get the continuing resolution behind us so we can focus on the big picture; that is, the $14 trillion debt that we are facing right now and doing the responsible cutting that will begin to cut back on the deficits, take down the debt, and address the issues that have not been addressed for all these years, once and for all.

I yield the floor.

I say to the Senator from Michigan, she was one of the first to sign on as a cosponsor of this bill. I think that is the right thing to do. I appreciate her leadership.

I just got a note from my staff, and I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Scott Brown and Senator Amy Klobuchar as cosponsors of S. 724.

I thank the Senator from Michigan. I think we can do this together if we will come together and focus on those great young men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq serving right now and do something that is right for them regardless of whether we have to face a government shutdown for all the rest of us.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to speak about the urgent fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation. We know the Congress right now is in negotiation for a resolution that will take us until the end of the fiscal year, and it is in an atmosphere in which so many people are worried about our overwhelming debt and the deficit that would be in the budget that was submitted by the President. We now are trying to cut that budget responsibly.

The United States is averaging $4 billion a day in debt. A $1.6 trillion deficit is projected by the end of this year. That is just the deficit. That is adding to the debt. Federal spending in 2010 was 23.8 percent of gross domestic product. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts it will be 24.7 percent of GDP in 2011.

As a nation, we must remain competitive by reducing Federal spending and spurring economic growth in the private sector. It is jobs in the private sector that will take our economy out of the doldrums where it is now.

For the sake of the American people, I hope we can come together to stop the reckless Federal spending. Continuing the spending, the borrowing, and the taxing in Washington will halt job creation and triple the debt by the end of this decade. That is what is predicted.

We must make bold cuts where we can by carefully also prioritizing investment in areas of strategic national importance. What we need now is for the President, the Senate majority leader, and the House Speaker to sit in a room and not come out until a deal is made that has the votes to pass.

I do not want a government shutdown. The consequence of a government shutdown will be enormous, and so many people who are talking about that as an option, as if it is not a big deal, just do not realize how many lives it will touch and how hard it is going to make life for so many people--people who have depended on benefits, such as veterans.

We do not know what will happen in a government shutdown. We do not know what will happen to our military because that is not clear. That is what I want to talk about today.

A government shutdown will put people in peril in many areas, but now we have a situation in which our military, our Active-Duty military-- almost 90,000 are in Afghanistan, 47,000 in Iraq--is put in a position today of now also wondering if their spouses at home with children are going to get their paychecks. If we have a government shutdown that will affect their ability to pay their mortgages.

Madam President, let me ask, are there time limits in place?

Thank you, Madam President.

Let me just say that I have introduced legislation. I have cosponsors--Casey, Inhofe, Snowe, Murkowski, Collins, Ayotte, and Hoeven. It is the Ensuring Pay for our Military Act of

2011. It is very simple. It just ensures that in the event of a Federal Government shutdown--which I do not want to happen and do not support-- our military will be paid. It also will allow anyone who is serving our military--civilian defense employees or contractors who do the food services--to also be able to go to work and not have to worry about what is going to be happening back home, especially for those who are serving in harsh conditions overseas.

I so hope we will be able to pass this bill. I do not want 1 more minute of stress on our military. The bill is very simple, and it is very short and very clear: Our military personnel and their support will not be affected by a government shutdown.

I hope I can have more colleagues signing up. We have introduced this bill, S. 724, and I hope we can get a vote on this bill in very short order so this is off the table.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the McConnell amendment that Senator Inhofe has worked so hard to bring up, and also Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. We all know what is happening to gasoline prices in the United States right now. They have gone up now and the average is about $3.60 a gallon. What we are looking at are more increases in those gasoline prices if the EPA is allowed to take an authority it does not have and regulate greenhouse gasses.

Some of the other amendments offered on this subject are well intentioned, but they do fall short of actually making a difference. The amendment before us repeals EPA's effort. It is very simple and very clean. Small businesses are struggling to survive, struggling to keep workers, and trying to make it in very small margins in this economic time.

Families are facing higher energy costs. We are all suffering. I have a pickup truck which I love to drive. I filled it up a couple of weekends ago. It was about $60. That is a pickup truck. That is a basic form of transportation for many Americans. Farmers depend on affordable energy prices. They must put gasoline in their trucks, diesel in their harvesters, use energy-intensive fertilizer.

Higher costs for farmers means higher costs for food. You are talking about now an inflation we cannot afford in this kind of economic environment. During all of this, the EPA now wants to impose a new gas tax on America in the form of greenhouse gas regulation.

Last Congress I issued a report that documented how the Kerry- Lieberman climate legislation would impose a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the American people. Using the data from EPA and the Energy Information Administration, we calculated that climate legislation would impose a $2 trillion gasoline tax, a $1.3 trillion diesel fuel tax, and a $330 billion jet fuel tax.

According to the EPA and the senior Obama administration officials, regulations would be even worse than legislation. That was one of the main arguments they used in support of climate legislation, that the regulations would be even worse than cap-and-trade legislation.

But that is exactly what we are getting with the EPA now trying to regulate what we could not pass in the legislature, for good reason. The Baucus amendment could shield small businesses and farmers from EPA permit requirements, but it codifies the requirements for energy and fuel producers, meaning everyone in America will still pay higher energy prices.

The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendment only delays the higher energy costs and job losses for 2 years. That is not good enough. I hope my colleagues will see that this is our time to tell the EPA we will determine what we want them to regulate. That is the responsibility of the Congress. We are to make the laws, they are to implement them. They are not to reinvent them in their own model of what they have the authority to do, and we have not given them the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The refineries say this added amount of regulation is going to cost so much that they will have to raise their prices in their factories, and that assuredly will raise the price of oil and gasoline through its use in our country.

This is an amendment. There is only one amendment of all the amendments on this subject that will do the job. It is simple and clear. It would eliminate the EPA's ability to make regulations in an area that Congress has not authorized it to do. That is what we need to do. Congress needs to take the reins and halt the overregulation that is hurting our small businesses and hurting our economic recovery.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the McConnell-Inhofe- Murkowski amendment.