Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to say I think the President of the United States and our Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, have done a great job. As I hear the talking heads and the pundits and others talk about this compromise, this way forward, I am sure of it because no one is completely happy with it. People who think we should have a death tax are not happy with this bill. People who think, as I do, the unemployment provision goes too far, is not paid for and should have been are on the other side.

But we are now faced with a choice. Are we going to allow the taxes for every single individual in our country who pays taxes to go up on January 1? We could talk all day about how we should have addressed this much earlier. Yes, that is true. But we are where we are. It is now mid-December, and it is long past time when we should have told the American people--every family, every business in this country--what the tax policy is going to be for 2 years.

I come here with a business background. I wish more of my colleagues had real business experience because sometimes when I hear the academics and the talking heads talk about what we ought to do--some say: Let's just wait. We can do this better next year. Are you kidding me? Have you ever been in the real world trying to make a decision about whether you can add one more piece of machinery to your factory floor and hire people to run it? You are not going to make the decision if you do not know what your commitments are going to be in taxes and in the health care bill that is looming before every business in this country.

Not only did I come from a business background, but I talk to business people throughout my State. They are not hiring. Two-thirds of the jobs in this country are created by small business. That is exactly what we should all hope for. We don't want jobs to be created in the government sector. That is a cost you cannot recoup. We need to cut down on government sector jobs and make sure people in the private sector are working because this is how to build a strong and vibrant economy.

As I mentioned, two-thirds of private-sector jobs are in small business, and small businesspeople are operating,

generally, at low margins. They are not hiring people when they are seeing estimates on the cost to them of the health care bill enacted this year, including estimates that their taxes are going to go up next year. At every level, taxes will go up if we do not pass this tax bill this year.

Capital gains and dividends are going to go up. Seniors have saved their lifetimes to be able to retire, and they know they cannot live on Social Security. Social Security was never meant to be a complete retirement plan. It was meant to be a cushion, a help with savings that would allow people to maintain a standard of living.

Talk to seniors today who have saved, and they are not earning one penny on their savings. They certainly are not going to do well if we raise the tax on capital gains and dividends. What are we thinking? To raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, that is the level that allows many seniors to live at a decent standard.

What about the tax rate? Every person who pays taxes faces an increase on January 1 if we do not pass this bill because they would go into a higher bracket, and face a higher rate at each level.

Let's go back to small business. NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, which is the largest small business organization in America, says 75 percent of the small businesses in this country are taxed at individual rates. If their taxes go up it will present a barrier to their being able to plan for the future and hire.

People in business want predictability and stability. That is why having at least 2 years is so very important. Doing it now so they can plan for next year is so very important because they are looking for predictability.

If I had written this bill with nobody else's opinions, I would have made them permanent because I know small business would much rather have certainty for 10 years of what is going to happen, or at least 5 years. But I did not get to write it by myself--neither did Senator McConnell, or the President.

We have all sponsored bills to make the tax cuts permanent because we want jobs to be created in the private sector knowing these are the good jobs of the future that can be sustained and grow our economy. If we allow these tax cuts to expire, the marriage penalty is going to come back. The marriage penalty is my amendment that was put into the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. My amendment was to relieve the marriage tax. A policeman and a schoolteacher who marry go into a higher bracket just because they got married, not because they increased their incomes. That is wrong. Two schoolteachers who marry would go into a higher bracket, but the marriage penalty relief bill I sponsored relieves them to the greatest extent. It doubles the standard deduction instead of paring it back, and that is what we need to have.

What about the AMT? The AMT relief in this bill goes to the very lowest income earners in this country.

If we do not pass this bill, 21 million American taxpayers will have to pay an alternative minimum tax because the government says they are not paying enough. Now, I think it is a fair question--at what point does the AMT kick in? Today, the AMT kicks in for a single person who makes $33,000 and a married couple who makes $45,000. If we don't pass this bill through this Congress and let the President sign it, a married couple making $45,000 will have to pay the alternative minimum tax.

Our bill gives relief. The bill that is on the floor gives relief so that the exemption from the AMT would go up to $72,000 for a married couple before the alternative minimum tax kicks in and to $47,000 for a single payer.

So the bottom line is, if you think a single person making $33,000 ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax, then I cannot explain it to you. I do not think a single person making $33,000 should be subject to an alternative minimum tax because they are not paying enough tax. The AMT relief in the bill will push it up to a level that is more reasonable--$47,000 for a single person and $72,000 for a married couple.

The estate tax relief--I think this is a significant advance for the real world. Again, for small businesspeople, farmers, and ranchers, a $1 million exemption will force farmers and small businesspeople whose equipment is valued at more than it can produce to sell--what happens is that the heirs to that estate will have to sell the equipment or the business or part of the farm or all of the farm to pay taxes to the government. And the irony is that the money in an inheritance tax is money that has been taxed and taxed and taxed again. People pay taxes on their earnings, people pay taxes on their profits in a business, they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings.

The death tax does not make sense in the American dream because we have always said this is a country where you can work hard and give your children the fruits of your labor. But because of the death tax, family businesses are cut by 50 percent in this country because heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. That does not affect just the family; it affects the people who work for the family business.

I want to keep the American dream alive. I think the inheritance tax should be done away with completely because it is money that has already been taxed; it has been taxed in the system again and again and again. Every time something is earned, you pay a tax. So there is no policy reason for a death tax.

I did not get to write the bill by myself, and neither did Senator McConnell. We would have made estate tax relief permanent. But it is not going to be permanent, and it is not going away. It is going to be a 2-year extension, with a $5 million exemption and a 35-percent rate after that.

I believe this bill provides some relief and helps people to plan for their estates. I hope we can make it permanent so people will be able to plan into the far future so that their small business, their farm, their ranch can be held by their heirs and keep the jobs those family- owned businesses have produced.

So I think it is important, when we get down to the bottom line--do we pass this bill or not?--that there are alternatives. We could say: You know what, I want to write it differently. Let's wait until next year.

First of all, if we do that and we open up what I think is a very balanced approach, then we are going to talk about this a whole lot longer. It is going to take a while, and in the meantime people are not going to be hired because small businesses will not know what their tax liabilities are going to be, and we will not have this settled, these concerns for at least 2 years.

Next, we can work on long-term tax reform. I thought the fiscal commission that just reported had some very good ideas for tax reform where everyone would pay more of a flat tax. It would be slightly higher at the higher levels, bring in more revenue at the higher levels and lower the tax on everyone. It would bring in more because it would be simpler and more fair. I think we ought to look at that. We may need to make changes in one way or another, but it was a good starting place. But if we wait until next year to pass a bill, we are going to throw this economy into upheaval, and we will certainly not create the jobs that are the motivation behind this agreement.

The President and the Republicans agreed on one thing; that is, the goal should be to spur the economy and create jobs. How we get there, we have differences, but at least there are some parts on both ends that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of the jobs so that they can start hiring. That should be the dispositive part of the decision we all need to make to vote for this bill.

You would have written it differently, Madam President, I would have written it differently, the President would have written it differently, and so would Senator McConnell, if we were the king and queen of America. Fortunately, we are in a democracy, not a monarchy, so we cannot have everything exactly the way we want it. This is a good start.

Let me end by suggesting that once we make this decision--and I hope we will make the decision to move forward, and I hope the House will join us--then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for 2 years. People will know what they are going to owe for 2 years, and they will be able to start making plans on that.

But the argument that is being made--that this is going to add more in the deficit--does need to be addressed, and once this bill is passed, we must get about the business of cutting overall spending by this government. And that is not just the discretionary part, which is a minor part of our budget, it is also the entitlements. What can we do to make the entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to pay for them in a reasonable economy? We must get the debt down, we must get the deficit down, and we have to concentrate on that if we put the tax cuts to bed.

One of the things we need to address is the implementation of this health care bill, which is the other factor in jobs not being created right now. I hope we can repeal what we have passed and start all over so that the businesspeople know that what we passed is not going to work. It is going to be in the courts for a long time because of the constitutional issues.

Let's go about planning for a health care reform that doesn't put the fines and the penalties on businesses and individuals. Let's give them options so that affordable health care is there for them. We don't have to do that with a hammer; we can do it with options that are incentives for people to get health insurance because it will be affordable. Let them make choices for what fits their family, not a big, government- prescribed one-size-fits-all.

Let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cut the spending and cut the debt and cut the deficit.

Let's set some parameters around extending unemployment so that more people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable for people to start giving back to the community if they are able-bodied and have been unemployed for 2 years and more.

If we are creative and we work together, we can do this. But tearing this package apart and saying: Well, I want it all my way, means we are not going to have the stability and predictability that will create jobs starting next year. That is our stated goal on both sides. I hope the Members of the House will realize that anything we do next year is going to have to be with a Democratically controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, and that means everything is not going to be our way.

I would not have written this agreement exactly this way, and neither would Senator McConnell. I am sure the President would not either. But Senator McConnell and the President have done what leaders need to do: they have come together on a bill that will move this country forward, and it will not increase taxes on anyone who is paying taxes today. How can anyone believe it will be good for the economy of our country to raise taxes in a recession?

I am sure we are going to hear a lot of debate on this floor about what individual Senators would have done differently, but the bottom line is, this Senate will overwhelmingly pass this package.

I hope that when all of the debate is finished, this bill will be signed by the President and we will move forward in a joint effort to reduce the debt of this country, as adult leaders should do. That should be our goal for the next 2 years, as we now have settled the tax cut issue. Hopefully, we will go with a vengeance against the debt and some reform in the entitlement programs. We can do it. It will not be easy, but it can be done. That is why we ran for these offices--to be the leaders when our country needs leadership.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, today the House passed legislation that would extend the tax cuts for those middle-class taxpayers who make under $200,000 a year. That is a good thing, and I support that. But why on Earth would we extend the tax cuts for a certain segment of the population and not extend the tax cuts for everyone? Why would we do that? Who are the job creators in our country? What is the problem our country has right now? It is jobs. We have an unemployment rate that is hovering around 10 percent. So what should we be doing in Congress to try to alleviate that situation? We should be doing everything in our power to create jobs in the private sector. The private sector is where jobs will be a created, where it will be something that will support a family.

Of course, we are going to support tax cuts for everyone in this country because we are in an economic recession. The idea of increasing taxes on the people who would create jobs is something that could only come out of Washington. All of us have been home for the last few weeks. Last week was Thanksgiving, and we were in grocery stores talking to our constituents. Time and time again I heard people in the real world, people who are creating jobs, saying: Why don't you all address the issues of this country? Don't you know what is happening?

Well, do you know something? They have a point. They have a point because, of course, many of us have been saying this for a long time. But here we are in December, the last month of the year. The IRS can't even print the tax forms because they don't know what the tax rates are going to be because Congress left in September and didn't finish its job. Now here we are in December and we are going to have a train wreck.

That is why those on our side signed a letter saying that we are not going to address any issue until we settle the tax issue and the issue of funding government. After that, there are many things that could be on the agenda. But those are two things that are essential. So knowing the way things work around here, and knowing that we could end up talking for 2 more weeks before we do anything, we are going to set the priority to say that it is tax cuts and it is funding the government, and if we can do other things, fine, but if we can't, then we go home.

I think the START Treaty is very important, and we are all looking at that. But we have to make sure the small businesspeople of our country know what to expect. And if they can hire people on even in this holiday season, it will make a difference.

President Reagan and President Kennedy and President Bush 43 all did something that had the same effect on our revenue in this country; they cut taxes and revenue increased. Cutting taxes is what increases and spurs the

economy, and it works every time. So now we are talking about deciding who is going to get their tax cuts and who isn't.

We should be saying clearly and simply to the American people--and especially the small businesspeople who are waiting to see what their budgets are going to be next year--we are not going to raise taxes on anybody because we want you to hire; we want you to give jobs to the people of this country. If we can extend unemployment for those who have been out of work and can't find something, and they are really trying, and we can do it in a responsible way and pay for it, hopefully--I believe if we cut taxes, that will spur the economy and pay for it.

Tomorrow, apparently, in the Senate we are going to get the House bill that passed today that cuts taxes for some but not all. So what will happen if we do what the House has suggested? Households will lose, on average, $20,000 in total disposable personal income between 2011 and 2020. Total individual income taxes will increase by $37 million between 2011 and 2020. Jobs will be lost and small businesses are not going to hire. I can tell you that anecdotally because I have been talking to the small business owners in my State. I was a small business owner, and I know what it takes to increase employment.

Without action by us, the death tax will return with a vengeance. A lot of people think: Oh, a death tax, that is just going to affect the heirs of rich people. I think we have to remember that estates over $1 million will be taxed at the 55-percent rate. So many small businesses in this country are either farms or ranches, where the valuation at death on the property is going to be so much higher than the productivity on that land, and the heirs are going to be faced with selling the property to pay the taxes, which means it will no longer have any capacity for hiring people or productivity.

The same is true for small manufacturing companies. I was a small manufacturer. I can tell you my equipment was worth a whole lot more than the productivity of that equipment. You can pay for it over time, so you own the equipment. But then if you die and your heirs have to pay a huge estate tax on the value of equipment, then they are going to have to sell the equipment and, therefore, you have lost the business.

The statistics in this country of family businesses that are passed to the second generation and the third generation are abysmal. It is about 50 percent that goes to the second generation. To the third generation, it is 20 to 30 percent. Who does that hurt? Of course, it hurts the families. It also hurts the employees of those family-owned businesses. They are the ones who will be put out of work. So the estate tax going to 55 percent over $1 million is not good public policy. It would be outrageous for us to leave this year and go into that kind of estate tax, which is confiscatory.

I have to tell you, I think it walks away from the American dream. The American dream is that you can start from nothing in this country and you can build something and you can give the fruits of your labor to your children. That is the American dream. That is what people come here and work for 7 days a week in restaurants, to try to build something to give to their children. Who are we to take that away? That is the American dream. But it will be gone at the end of this year if we don't address that issue in Congress.

Capital gains and dividends: How many of our seniors are living on capital gains and dividends? I guarantee you, anybody who has a bank account knows you are not earning anything from that. You are not earning from cash because the interest rates are so low that many of our seniors are struggling. If they have a nest egg of stocks that is paying some dividends, then that is what many of them are living on. So we are going to raise the tax on dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent at a time when so many seniors are struggling. That is what is going to happen if we don't address the tax cuts by the end of this year.

The marriage penalty: That is my bill. I introduced relief from the marriage penalty. Why should two people working get married and go into a higher tax bracket in this country? We addressed that issue. For most people, we have eliminated the marriage penalty, but not at the end of this year, if we don't act, the marriage penalty comes back. So a policeman and a schoolteacher who marry are going to have to pay about $1,400 more in taxes just because they want to get married--a schoolteacher and a policeman. It is an absolute fact. Is that what we want in this country?

Small business owners pay at the individual rates--a subchapter S small business. Many small businesses are created to be able to pay at the individual tax rate. Over 50 percent of the small businesses in our country pay at the individual tax rate. So now we are going to say individuals' tax rates are going to go up if they make over $250,000, which is many of the small businesses in our country, so they are going to be paying at the higher rate. These are the things that are going to happen if we don't act.

The House passed legislation that is going to be devastating for the people who are unemployed in this country. How could we even think of doing something so drastic? I hope tomorrow when the Senate takes up the House bill that we send it back to the House and say: This is not going to go.

I will say to the President of the United States: I thought, Mr. President, that you said you were open to working on extending the taxes for everyone, and yet here we are, with the leadership of the House who just talked to the President this week, and we have the same thing they have been talking about for all these months--no give, nothing has changed.

So here we are, it is December, and the people of America expect the leaders of Congress to address the issues that are on people's minds. We are 3 weeks from Christmas, we are 4 weeks from the end of the year. How could we leave without taking responsible action to let everyone in this country who is paying taxes know how to plan for--I would hope for 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years?

Lastly, Mr. President, I want to say the one thing that seems to be missing in the Halls of Congress is the importance--to a family, but also to a small business especially that is thinking of expanding and hiring people--of stability and predictability. You can't say we are going to extend the tax cuts for 1 year or 2 years and do the right thing for the economy of our country. We ought to do it permanently, to be honest. But if you are not going to do it permanently, at least do it for 5 years, or, at a minimum, 2 or 3 years.

It is not going to cost the government to give these tax cuts. We are keeping it the way it is now. We are trying to spur jobs being created in our country. So when people talk about this is going to cost the government X billion dollars to let people keep the money they have earned, they are going right over the heads of the American people.

So predictability is the most important thing we can do for small businesses so they can plan, so they can say we are going to expand our product line, we are going to expand our service area. These are the things they can do if they know what their tax commitments are going to be, and if they know what their health care costs are going to be. That is what is freezing the economy right now because people don't know what to expect.

So I hope the President is listening. I hope the leadership of the Senate is listening. Most certainly, I hope the House of Representatives will come to the table and see we can do better than this, and we ought to do it before we leave this week or next week so people know what to expect; so small businesses can sit down at the end of the year and plan their businesses and create jobs in this country. That is the Christmas present people would like. They want jobs. They want to work to support their families. They do not want to live on unemployment. They do not want to live on food stamps. That is not a life. It is not a future. It is not hope. That is what they want--a future and hope for their families.

So I hope, myself, that we, the leaders of America, will give the American people what they deserve and what clearly is in the long-term best interests of their families.

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

I wish to thank the Senator from Nebraska for offering this amendment. Obviously, it has been offered before, but every time I go home it renews my energy to try to stop this from taking effect.

Small businesspeople are approaching me and saying: This is crazy. Do we have to report every trip to the Office Depot? Do we have to report every travel voucher for $600 because I am going to a meeting in California? This defies description, except to say it is one more overbearing government intrusion on free enterprise in our country.

So I hope very much that because of the message of the elections in November more people will see this is not necessary. It is certainly not a part of health care reform. In fact, when I saw this come out-- this little provision tucked in the enormous health care reform bill-- my thinking was twofold: One, they are paying for this enormous cost of the government takeover of health care on the backs of small businesspeople in our country. That would be one interpretation. The other would be that all the talk coming out of Washington about new taxes and possibly a value-added tax means they are starting to want to get the reports that would be the basis of a new tax system. Neither of those things should be part of health care reform in this country. So I am hopeful we can put a stop to this right now.

I think the people of America well understand the burdens of this health care reform bill, passed on Christmas Eve of last year, over our objections on this side of the aisle. So maybe we can start peeling away some of the most onerous provisions--particularly this one, which takes effect in 2012--and begin to let people know we are going to try to mitigate the damage the health care bill has done, and we are going to do it a little bit at a time until we can repeal the whole thing and start all over.

It is not that our system doesn't need reform. We all have said we need health care reform. But having to report a trip to the Office Depot to buy stationery or a fax machine is not the way to a better health care system. It is a non sequitur. So I hope Senator Johanns' amendment to this bill passes. It is a freestanding bill, but it is a great amendment to this bill. If we can stop this now, that would be one thing we could take off the table as we are addressing the major issues that actually do deal with health care reform. Maybe we can bring it down to a level where we would be able to address it in a more responsible way.

I might add that even the National Taxpayer Advocate Division of the IRS has said they would have significant challenges in processing and analyzing the enormous volume if this piece of the Health Care Reform Act goes through. Even the IRS is asking: How could we do it, which then would lead to: What, more employees at the IRS? Well, that should scare the people of America. The last thing we need is a bigger government created to try to go into the small businesses and see if they are complying with a $600 requirement for every transaction they would make.

So I commend the Senator from Nebraska for offering this amendment. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and I hope we will have enough votes to stop this provision in its tracks, take it off the table, and then deal with health care reform on issues that actually affect health care reform, not issues such as this, which just burden small business in our country at a time when we want them to hire people. We want them to open their doors to hiring more workers. But the more restrictions and the more burdensome paperwork we put on them, the less chance there is they are going to hire people. That is what I am hearing from my constituents, and I know it is the same for all of us who have been home listening to what the people are saying.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to engage my colleague Senator Rockefeller in a colloquy. There have been some questions raised about how S. 3386, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, affects a company that sells its business entirely or enters into a deal with another company to ``step into the first company's shoes'' and provide the products or services to consumers that were previously provided by the first company. I would ask the chairman to explain the intent of the legislation.

I thank the Senator. Questions have also been raised about how this bill would affect an online company that bills its customers monthly for an ongoing service and decides to enter into a deal with another company to provide the backend billing and other services to those same customers. What is the intent of the legislation?

I thank the Senator for those clarifications.

Madam President, I have been waiting now to speak on Ted Stevens, which was, I thought, the time allotted here. I am happy to give the Senator another 2 minutes on top of the extra 15 if that is necessary, but we have several Members wishing to speak on Senator Stevens. If he would hold it to another 2 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to salute my former colleague Ted Stevens who will be laid to rest in Arlington today. He earned the right to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, having served in World War II. That is one of the things that hasn't been talked about as much regarding Ted Stevens because he was a remarkable Senator and has a remarkable history with his State of Alaska as well as in the Senate.

Ted Stevens served here for 40 years. From the very beginning, Ted was Alaska's greatest champion. He helped found his State. He pushed through Alaska statehood and worked tirelessly to serve its unique needs for his entire life and continued to be its greatest advocate.

Nine years after he helped establish Alaska's statehood, he was elected to serve in the Senate. He spent the next 40 years building his State from an undeveloped territory, which Alaska was, to one of our Nation's most important energy producers, along with the other things Alaska gives to our great Nation. It is a testament to Ted Stevens' mighty efforts and his love for his native land.

Alaska and every other State was helped by Ted Stevens. Everyone knows he took care of Alaska because he fought ferociously, but he also helped every other Senator represent their States and the priorities of their States, and that was one of the great things about this man.

In particular, when he went on the Appropriations Committee and later was its chairman as well as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he devoted himself to protecting our troops, to making sure they had the right equipment to do the jobs we ask them to do. Of course, he was a man of the military. He was so proud of his air service. He was a man who had flown in World War II. I visited the World War II Memorial to Americans in Great Britain with Ted Stevens, and he walked around all of the old airplanes and talked about the airplanes that were there and the ones he had flown and the ones that were new. There was an excitement about that, in his 80s--all the memories of his World War II time.

When someone would say to me, How do you get along with Ted Stevens, I would always say Ted Stevens is a man who is all bark and no bite. This was a man who had this Incredible Hulk tie and he would frown and he would look ferocious. He was so tender underneath. He wanted to help people. He wanted to make sure people did the right thing. He had a passion, he did, but he was so good underneath.

Back in 1993, when I first entered the Senate, I was one of seven women Senators. I would say there was not another woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--my colleague Barbara Mikulski was on the committee--but I wanted to be on the Defense Subcommittee and I told Ted Stevens, We have more Army retirees in Texas than any other State. We have great Army bases as well as Air Force bases in Texas. I want to be on the Defense Subcommittee. He helped me get there. It made a difference in my capability to serve my State and my Nation.

I traveled once with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye to Saudi Arabia for our work on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I was told later that Ted Stevens was actually discouraged by our Saudi host from bringing me with the delegation because I was a woman. Ted Stevens never told me this until later. He said, No way am I going to keep a member of my subcommittee and my committee off this trip she deserves to go on, and that was it. I was part of the delegation. I visited our air base there with all of the other Members. I participated in every meeting and every event during that trip. Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye together would have it no other way.

Let me mention the relationship between Danny Inouye and Ted Stevens.

Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye were the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, but they never referred to each other as ranking member. They were always chairman and vice chairman. It went back and forth. When Democrats were in charge, Danny Inouye would be the chairman of a committee and Ted would be the vice chairman. If Republicans were in the majority, it would be Ted who was the chairman and the vice chairman would be Danny Inouye, because they were World War II soulmates. Danny Inouye--who is now the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and another great patriot for our country, hailing from Hawaii, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his great service in World War II--and Ted were inseparable friends and called each other soul brothers.

Another Ted story: One day during the markup in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted grew very animated, as he did on issues, and when another Senator said, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for you to lose your temper, Ted glared back and said, I never lose my temper. I know exactly where it is. Those who knew him best knew his compassionate heart.

There is a wonderful article this morning in Politico, one of the newspapers on Capitol Hill, and it talks about his time. Again, another Ted story, World War II: He was very close to the Chinese, because he flew missions into China. One of the things he did was fly supplies to GEN Claire Chennault's Flying Tiger air bases in China. He escorted Anna Chennault on her first trip back to China in 1981 when Stevens himself had just remarried and was on his honeymoon with Catherine. ``We went on our honeymoon there with Anna Chennault'', said Catherine Stevens, laughing. ``Everybody kept sending tips that Ted Stevens is on his honeymoon with Anna Chennault.'' Then Catherine said, ``And that was technically true.''

This is another side of this wonderful man that we are going to bury today with all of the tributes and accolades he deserves at Arlington National Cemetery. We will miss this great man, this great patriot, this great Alaskan, this great American, and this great friend to every one of us here.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business about the military construction issue I spoke about in July. I raised concerns then about the Pentagon's overseas military construction program, particularly in Germany, Korea, and Guam, because, as the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, I am seeing that we are changing a strategy. Yet we have not had the strategy explained to us. This is the beginning of a huge taxpayer-funded influx of rebuilding overseas in a way that I think is perhaps duplicative and even against the interests that have been shown in our previous strategy. I think it is time to take a pause.

I rise to speak because the GAO has just released a study this week that says we should take a pause. The Military Construction Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Johnson--and I respect and appreciate his leadership in this so much--asked the GAO to do a study because we were seeing the Army coming in and asking for what is going to be a commitment for $1 to $2 billion to change their headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden and to add more BCTs than were originally intended to stay in Germany. We looked at this and said: Wait a minute. We are getting ready to duplicate a lot of effort that we have made in bases in America and at a great taxpayer expense. Yet we are not seeing the backup and the strategy proposed to support this kind of taxpayer expense.

Let me start back in the beginning. Prior to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Army planned to return the four brigade combat teams stationed in Europe to the United States in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. It would save millions annually in overseas stationing costs. This was in response to the Overseas Basing Commission--that was passed by Congress--to adopt a force projection strategy. The Pentagon is reversing the recent efforts to transform the military and restation tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil. That is what the Overseas Basing Commission recommended, passed by Congress, supported by Congress, and now we seem to see a change in that strategy but without a projection of what the strategy would be.

What the Overseas Basing Commission found, and the Pentagon originally agreed with, is that training and deployment of forces was determined to be superior in the U.S. bases and certainly more cost efficient. We learned that there were constraints on transferring the members of our military into Iraq because we could not use the airspace of certain European countries, and we could not go on the train through certain European countries. It was costly to get our troops from Germany into Iraq, more costly than it should have been.

In addition, there are training constraints. The Overseas Basing Commission saw this. Many of us who have looked at bases overseas see that there are training constraints. There are constraints for live artillery training. There are constraints for use of the airspace. In looking at this, it was determined we should bring them home from Germany to train in America to accommodate our families in America and to deploy from America, where we would control the capability to deploy quickly and cost efficiently.

On that basis, we have invested $14 billion in U.S. bases to accommodate the military and the families who were projected to come to American bases and have the training capabilities they need. Now we are seeing requests for military construction, and it triggered our committee to say: Wait a minute. We are supposed to be pulling out of Germany, but now we are seeing the Army get ready to put $1 billion to $4 billion into military construction, to change their headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden, and duplicate what we have already done in the United States for construction projects in Europe, Korea, and Guam, without demonstrating the cost efficiencies or projected future costs.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Now we are seeing an expensive and duplicative strategy--well, there is not a strategy but request for spending. I am asking for a strategy.

The Government Accountability Office did issue a report this week that says the Army's justification for keeping the forces in Europe was based on a flawed analysis, and it would cost taxpayers up to $2 billion, from 2012 to 2021, to pay for it. Let me reference a couple things from the report. The GAO found the decision to retain brigades in Europe to require the Army to seek roughly $176 million annually to support the Bamberg and Swineford communities, again in fiscal year 2013. Those are the communities that would have had Army facilities.

The Army now estimates that not returning two of the four BCTs, brigade combat teams, in Europe to the United States could potentially cost between $1 billion and $2 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. It will cost an average of 360 million American dollars per year to retain those units in Europe that were scheduled to be moved to America.

Closing the Heidelberg facility and moving the headquarters to Wiesbaden--the Army estimated that move from Heidelberg to go to Wiesbaden would save hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013. But the GAO found the Army now admits they will need $150 million annually to support the continuing operation in Heidelberg because of delays.

The GAO goes on to say that the Army has not documented the savings, nor why the move is necessary at that cost. The GAO concludes that with over $1.3 billion invested since 2004 and another $1.4 billion in infrastructure investments planned for the Wiesbaden consolidation and the recapitalization of medical facilities and the potential to increase costs, it would cost up to $2 billion over the next 10 years if all four BCTs were kept in the Europe. The financial stakes are high.

The GAO is recommending in its report that the Secretary of Defense take advantage of a pause before final decisions are made on the Army's European force structure, conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives, and have a process that is credible in determining what the costs are and whether those units should be kept in Europe or, as originally planned and as invested in our military bases in America, what it is going to cost.

The GAO has concluded that we need a comprehensive analysis.

It conducted important cost-benefit analyses at the urging of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Johnson. The GAO report findings are instructive. I hope the Pentagon will pause and take a fresh look at this military construction program to determine, does it serve our Nation not to move those troops back? We prepared the bases for them. The families, the medical units, are in the United States now. So, please, I am asking the Pentagon to determine if it does serve our best military strategy and our taxpayers to keep those troops in Europe rather than moving them back.

I want to thank Senator Johnson for including a provision in the military construction/VA appropriations bill that would restrict the level of spending in overseas construction. Our bill would restrict the use of MILCON funds for Germany until the Department of Defense completes the following: an evaluation of the NATO strategy concept review, the U.S. assessment of its defense posture in Europe, a front- end assessment of DOD's global posture from fiscal year 2012 to 2016 in the program budget review cycle.

I have shared my concerns with the Secretary of Defense. I have asked him, as our committee has asked him, to provide to the Congressional defense committees a comprehensive Army basing strategy for Europe based on these assessments and a projected timeline and a cost estimate of what this will be.

In Korea, it is the same. We need a cost estimate for the decision that the Pentagon has apparently made to put more troops and families into Korea without any accommodation for the new facilities that will be needed for the accompanied families' military transfer into Korea.

I thank you for allowing me to have the extra 5 minutes. I thank the Senator from Maryland. This is a serious issue. The Department of Defense says they are trying to cut back on military spending, and this is a place that would be very important, because if we are going to have accompanied service people, more in Korea now, we have got to accommodate those families. There will be a longer duration of mission, and we have got to accommodate them.

There is going to be a cost, and we have not even seen the cost estimates for that yet. We should take a pause on this German MILCON until we know if that is the right thing for our global strategy. I thank the Senator from Maryland for accommodating me on the time. There will be further discussion, I assure you.

I ask unanimous consent that the summary from the GAO report be printed in the Record.

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

I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768. When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill.

The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas, unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year.

Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period. Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself. It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the Federal money that every other State has as an allocation.

The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue. In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed, would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated $830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So Texas has just been turned down.

If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that will just create a level playing field.

We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided Texas should have a different standard.

We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas, every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right. I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America. Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described happens in the bill.

The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in our rightful way.

We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from every other State in America.

Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State. That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine.

Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then, second, that we be able to distribute according to the State requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I think it will be the right thing to do.

Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas.

If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I hope we can right this wrong.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768. When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill.

The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas, unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year.

Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period. Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself. It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the Federal money that every other State has as an allocation.

The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue. In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed, would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated $830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So Texas has just been turned down.

If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that will just create a level playing field.

We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided Texas should have a different standard.

We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas, every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right. I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America. Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described happens in the bill.

The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in our rightful way.

We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from every other State in America.

Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State. That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine.

Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then, second, that we be able to distribute according to the State requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I think it will be the right thing to do.

Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas.

If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I hope we can right this wrong.

Madam President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to our colleague Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He served his beautiful mountain State for a record-setting 57 years in Congress, including 51 years in this Chamber. He cast more rollcall votes and served in more leadership positions than any other Senator in U.S. history, including 12 years as his party's leader. He revered this body so much that he wrote four volumes on Senate history from 1789 to 1989. Over nine terms, he mastered parliamentary procedure in an effort to protect the Senate's rules and to defend the legislative branch's authority. He carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, and he peppered his speeches with frequent references to the intent of our Framers. When asked how many Presidents he had served under, he replied, ``None. I

have served with Presidents, not under them.''

Senator Byrd will enter the history books as one of the Senate's true giants, but his beginnings were humble. His biography is a shining testament to the American dream. He was adopted in infancy and raised in impoverished coal-mining towns. His first job was to collect garbage scraps for his family's hogs. Although he graduated valedictorian of his 1934 high school class, at first he could not afford college. He married his high school sweetheart, Erma Ora James, with whom he enjoyed 68 happy years. The outstanding work ethic and solid values that he learned while growing up in Raleigh County helped him later devote 10 grueling years of his life to studying while simultaneously serving as a Member of Congress. When he finally earned his law degree in 1963, President John F. Kennedy awarded him his diploma.

Senator Byrd served his beloved home State with unprecedented devotion. He wrote in his autobiography that ``it has been my constant desire to improve the lives of the people who have sent me to Washington time and again.'' Virtually every county in West Virginia will long remember his hard work, dedication, and legendary contributions. Like many Americans today, I commend him for his outstanding service to his State, to our Nation, and to the institution of the Senate.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman. He accommodated many of the amendments I had, particularly as it concerns community banks. That was a huge concern in the original

draft of the bill. I thank the chairman for accommodating those concerns. It did make it a better bill.

I wish to return to the aftermath of the financial crisis, when Congress was tasked with the responsibility of modernizing our financial regulatory structure so that we would have proper oversight of today's banking system and financial markets. We were called to fill in gaps in regulations which allowed American home buyers to simply sign on the dotted line to purchase a house that was in many instances beyond their means, to let companies hide trillions of dollars in assets from regulators, and ultimately led our government to lose hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out financial institutions--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and AIG. Thus, were financial regulatory reform to succeed, we needed to enhance mortgage underwriting standards, bring greater transparency to the derivatives markets, and once and for all end too big to fail. The conference report before us takes steps toward these goals.

The legislation puts in place measures to address too big to fail; however, it falls short in fully addressing the risk of future government bailouts by failing to make changes to the Bankruptcy Code. In this legislation, we have also made strides to strengthen mortgage underwriting standards.

I am concerned that a newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take the lead rather than our banking regulators, and this is one of the biggest concerns I have with the bill.

I am pleased that the conference report includes numerous measures for which I fought. I thank Chairman Dodd for his willingness to work with me and his constructive approach to making changes to the bill, including a more level playing field for community banks across the country to compete through my amendment to bring parity to FDIC insurance assessments; my amendment, along with Senator Klobuchar, to allow State-chartered banks and small and medium-size bank holding companies to retain Federal Reserve supervision so that our monetary policy truly reflects economic conditions throughout the country, not just on Wall Street; relief for small and medium-size public companies from the burden of rule 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley; and assurance that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions will not extend to the insurance affiliates of insurance companies with depository institutions. These are positive changes for which I give the chairman great credit. However, these positive changes are greatly outweighed by misplaced priorities to create new layers of bureaucracy while failing to address the root causes of the financial crisis--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Additionally, there are a series of provisions that are troubling to me. No. 1 is this consumer protection bureau. It is using the faults of Wall Street banks and executives to create a cumbersome new bureaucracy which will impose job-killing regulation at the expense of Main Street small businesses and families. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with endless authority over all facets of our economy, is not the answer.

I am particularly concerned about the effect this bureau will have on well-regulated, safe, sound community banks. These banks largely avoided the subprime market, and they didn't engage in the risky speculative trades that contributed to the financial meltdown. However, these community banks are going to have 27 new or expanded types of regulation after this bill is passed. The consumer bureau could ultimately determine what products community banks can offer, on what terms they can offer these products, and under what settings and circumstances. Overall, the consumer bureau will result in fewer products and services for American families and small businesses.

The Texas Bankers Association tells me consumer bureau rules could result in the end of free checking accounts, higher fees on all consumer services, and less opportunity to negotiate on loans. It is not the big banks on Wall Street voicing concerns and opposition to this bill. The opposition is coming from community bankers in Texas who are worried they will be unduly penalized for faults they did not commit.

Small businesses are also against this new consumer bureau. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are very concerned about this bureau.

We need community banks to continue extending credit to worthy families looking for a home and to small businesses to invest in and create jobs. I cosponsored an amendment during Senate consideration to ensure that safety and soundness regulators would have a say in the rules and regulations imposed on their institutions. That amendment was rejected, leaving community banks subject to this new bureau's unlimited and unchecked rulemaking authority.

I am also concerned with the treatment of derivatives in this legislation. I am concerned that the lack of transparency that needed reform has been exchanged for a regulation I do not think is going to properly regulate derivatives.

However, we must also protect end users such as airlines, utilities, manufacturers, and oil and gas companies. These companies use derivatives as a cost effective strategy to control price and risk. Many structure derivatives contracts are unique to their business, making it difficult to clear and trade on a market. I share concerns from derivatives end users that this mandate to post margins with cash, rather than collateral, will remove capital from investment and job creation.

While Senator Dodd and Senator Lincoln say that this legislation will not impose margin requirements, I worry that there is not a statutory exemption for end users. End users may even choose market volatility instead of risk-controlling derivatives altogether, exposing Americans to higher prices, slower economic growth, and more job losses.

We should seek transparency through greater reporting requirements, but businesses should not be forced to arbitrarily move money to margin accounts.

I am concerned that this legislation will cost more jobs at a particularly harmful time with national unemployment hovering around 10 percent. The Chamber of Commerce reports that the margin requirement on OTC derivatives could cost 100,000 to 120,000 jobs in S&P 500 companies alone.

This legislation does nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since the government takeover of these two GSEs, taxpayers have paid $145 billion to keep them afloat. The CBO reports that the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion.

These costs contributed to a Federal deficit which has topped $1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2010. They have helped push our national debt to $13 trillion. A couple of weeks ago, the CBO reported that United States debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, the highest since just after World War II. We cannot continue to this dangerous path and mirror the crisis that currently ravages Europe.

We cannot sustain these debts and deficits. We offered solutions to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. During Senate consideration of this legislation, I cosponsored amendments--No. 3839 and No. 4020--which would have re-imposed the cap of Federal assistance to the GSEs at $200 billion each. These amendments would have brought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac onto our budget so that Americans could see their true cost. And they would have brought an end to Fannie and Freddie's government conservatorship in 2 years. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. Furthermore, the conference committee would not even permit amendments to be offered on the GSEs. Instead, this legislation calls for a report, punting the plan for Fannie and Freddie that we need to the future. We need reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now, but this legislation does not even allow for debate of the GSEs.

The American people are frustrated with our government, and this legislation is an example of why. Under the guise of financial regulatory reform, this legislation continues the unprecedented growth in government.

The American people want sensible financial reform. However, this purported financial regulatory reform legislation does not even address the root causes of the crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Instead, it uses the crisis to add layers of Federal bureaucracy,

and threatens to slow down our economic recovery, risking job loss and restricting access to credit.

For these reasons, this legislation is not the reform we need, which is why I must oppose the conference report for H.R. 4173.

We need to fully look at some of the concerns in this bill with the hope that when it passes--I cannot support it, but it will pass--these cautions will be looked at going forward to perhaps, when the problems come to light later, make some changes to the law that will better accommodate the needs of consumers and small businesses and community banks in the country.

There are good parts of this bill. I think the chairman deserves a lot of credit for pushing this financial reform, knowing that we needed to do it. I don't think it fully meets the test of doing what we should be doing, but I do think it is a first step, and the chairman is to be commended for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our military construction program and some concerns I have about an apparent shift in strategy, what this means for our American soldiers and their families and for the growing debt and deficits we are seeing on the taxpayers of this country.

Without question, our military construction program should be fiscally responsible and driven by the future security posture of the U.S. forces. Dating back to the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military determined that our Armed Forces would be best trained and equipped for service when stationed at installations on U.S. soil.

Our military adopted a force projection strategy that allows our U.S.-stationed service men and women to deploy from home rather than being based primarily overseas.

This Congress has been very supportive of the Army's transformation to a more modular and expeditionary force structure, allowing more troops to be stationed in the United States.

In 2005, the Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force projection strategy. It applauded the vision behind the Pentagon's efforts to transform the military and restation tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil.

So the Pentagon's strategy, endorsed by the Overseas Basing Commission, has guided the way Congress directs resources and funding for military construction facilities. We have invested more than $14 billion to build housing, stationing, training, and deployment capabilities at major military installations in the United States. We have proven we can best train and deploy from the United States and do it more cost-effectively.

Despite these taxpayer-backed investments, the Pentagon's current MILCON program is shifting military construction projects, military forces, and taxpayer dollars overseas. Strategically, this would set in motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing that would actually expand our overseas presence, and this at a time when the aid given to American efforts in the war on terror is, with a few exceptions, not impressive.

Fiscally, the Department of Defense is pursuing expensive and, in some cases, duplicative military construction projects in Europe, Korea, and Guam without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies or projected future costs. This shift in global posture fundamentally disconnects with stateside basing capabilities and reverses the Overseas Basing Commission's recommendations.

Europe: In Germany massive plans are underway to move U.S. Army headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden. I question this move because European and African Commands already have substantial infrastructure in Stuttgart where efficiencies would be available. The Government Accountability Office does not believe the Army will achieve any cost savings. Not only would these

huge and costly projects create thousands of foreign jobs, but they would require continuous taxpayer funding to maintain facilities and training capabilities. The United States has averaged spending $278 million per year in Germany in the last 5 years, but the Department of Defense now plans to raise that spending to $750 million per year. It costs nearly 15 percent less to build in the United States than to build in Germany, and while American taxpayers have invested $1.4 billion in German infrastructure from 2006 to 2010, Germany's contribution has averaged $20 million per year, or less than 10 percent.

This is a poor taxpayer investment considering the serious limitations to U.S. military training and deployment capabilities overseas. It would also create duplicative headquarters at several locations in Germany. Our troops must have access to training areas where they can maneuver freely, conduct live-fire exercises, and work with night vision devices. Many overseas locations prohibit such intensive training. Others allow only certain aspects of the training to be done under closely monitored circumstances. These limitations hinder the readiness of our troops while taxing our citizens more.

Deployment impediments also exist in Europe. During times of peace and war, our troops face restrictions traveling through many countries. In 2003, deploying American forces from Germany into Iraq was complicated when several European countries denied U.S. troops access to air and ground routes. Merely having our troops forward-deployed is no guarantee they will be available when and where we need them.

Korea: The Department of Defense is also planning to spend millions to build deployment facilities in Korea. The Pentagon is proposing to shift 1-year deployments for troops alone to 3-year tours that include their families. This change would expand U.S. presence in Korea from 30,000 service personnel to approximately 84,000, counting dependents. Substantial taxpayer funding would be required to build adequate housing, schools, hospitals, fitness centers, childcare facilities, commissaries, and more. We have asked for the numbers that would be projected for this. The Department has not given us any numbers nor any projections on the costs of adding 50,000 more people into Korea than we now have. Investing these resources into Korea makes no sense when we are already building up infrastructure and deployment capabilities at U.S. bases where amenities support military families and are well established.

Guam: Plans to shift Marines currently stationed in Japan to the tiny island of Guam are also problematic. There are significant environmental concerns with trying to accommodate such a large number of military personnel in such a small space, and the island lacks sufficient existing infrastructure. In addition to that, the timeline for transitioning marines stationed in Japan is implausible and the costs are staggering. They are now estimated at $16 billion. With these considerable barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored. Again, we have asked the Department to look into this, to give alternatives. We have suggested alternatives, but we have received no feedback from the Department.

The Department of Defense has indicated this new military construction program is intended to build partnership capacity. Some argue that U.S. presence overseas provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has shown this is not always the case. Basing American military personnel at key locations in Europe did not deter the Russians from conducting military operations against Georgia in 2008. Even with our 30,000 troops in Korea, North Korea did not hesitate to attack a South Korean naval vessel in May of this year.

Let's look at what the partnership agreements we are seeking have given us so far. We are in a war on terror in which the United States now has more than 78,000 troops. Germany has 4,350. The United Kingdom has double what Germany has. So the United Kingdom, which has a smaller population, has more troops by double than Germany. Yet we are looking at all of this buildup in Germany for building partnership capacity. Germany contributes 4 percent of NATO troops to Afghanistan, but they have strict rules of engagement that include not going on offense and restrictions on night operations. So if we are going to do so much ourselves, does it make sense for the American taxpayer to be building what would be about a billion and a half more in Germany, in facilities that we already have in the United States? Or if there needs to be more Army building in Germany, at least do it in Stuttgart where the Army already has a headquarters, instead of a whole new operation in Wiesbaden.

If the United States wants to make sure our assure our allies and deter our enemies, we should do it with strong military capabilities and sound policy, not by keeping troops stationed overseas, siphoning funds from equipment and arms, and putting it into duplicative military construction.

Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad and advancing the Department's new goal of building partnership capacity, we should be building American infrastructure. We are carrying the heaviest load by far in the war on terror, and we are carrying it for freedom-loving people throughout the world. We need to build up bases in our country which we have already done to accommodate the strategy since the Cold War. Yet now we appear to be reversing that strategy, and I am asking why. I have asked the Department of Defense. I have asked the Secretary of Defense for answers and have not yet been able to receive anything that would show why we would make such a huge investment in these foreign bases, with training constraints and deployment constraints, when we could do the same thing at home and deploy our troops at will.

Following World War II, the United States constructed bases in Europe to establish a strong presence as nations rebuilt. We stayed in Europe and placed bases in Korea to protect the interests of America and its allies during the Cold War. The world has changed, and with it our Nation's military priorities must also change. Our military construction investment should reflect our strategic principles. It should meet the needs of military families. It should maximize the force flexibility of our modern military, and it should demonstrate the fiscal discipline that taxpayers rightly expect.

Secretary Gates has made fiscal discipline a priority at the Department of Defense. He has said we are going to cut defense spending. So this military construction plan is puzzling. I am not sure the military and the Department heads are on the same wavelength because we are looking at $1 billion of foreign construction we do not need with capacity we have already built in America.

So I am asking the Department of Defense to look at this and to make sure we are in every way having respect for the taxpayers and making sure our military and our families have the security and support they need, and I believe that can be done with bases at home.

I will offer amendments to reduce the level of spending in overseas construction and possibly in administrative costs at the Department of Veterans Affairs that do not affect veterans health care or benefits. There is more at stake for our future, for our economy, and for the American taxpayer.

Out-of-control spending is putting the short- and long-term fiscal health of the United States at risk. The national public debt hit an historic $13 trillion in May. This year, the Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, and it is spending 67 percent more than it brings in. In pursuit of its costly and damaging big government agenda, the Obama administration has increased the total public debt by $2 trillion in less than 2 years, an increase of 23 percent in 16 months. If the spending continues at this rate, at the end of President Obama's first term he will have added an additional $6 trillion to the public debt. If we go along with the requests of the White House, $6 trillion more will be added to our debt in this term. This is irresponsible and unsustainable.

As the appropriations process moves forward, I will offer amendments to bring military construction back down to levels that are consistent with the Secretary of Defense's own stated objective, which is to cut military spending. I am going to offer amendments I

believe will be responsible, will protect our forces, and will be better for our military families, and it will achieve the spending cuts the Secretary has said he believes are necessary.

We need to make the tough decisions. I am offering a way forward. I am offering commonsense cuts that will assure we will be able to meet the needs of our military, the security of our military, the security of the American people, and a respect for this enormous deficit. We can cut back on this deficit with responsible spending.

I have outlined some of these concerns in today's Politico magazine, and I ask unanimous consent that my op-ed be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.