Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support

for GEN David Petraeus to be confirmed as our Nation's top military commander in Afghanistan. I want to say I have had a great experience with General Petraeus and also watching him from afar. When he introduced the concept of the counterinsurgency in Iraq, and embedding our troops with Iraqi troops to try to train the Iraqi troops to do the security for Iraq as we were leaving, I had grave concerns about embedding our troops and the counterinsurgency, because I feared for the safety of our troops and troop protection. I did not want to publicly ask questions of his judgment or disagree with him, but I did ask him to come see me and explain this to me so I would feel more comfortable, which he did. He came to my office. He walked me through it. He gave me confidence that it could work.

Then later, when he was in Iraq, and I was taking one of the trips I have made to Iraq, the first place that General Petraeus sent me to see was the Iraqi police station with our embedded troops. He never said a word to me about my questioning of how it would work, but he sent me in.

Later that night I was able to have dinner with him and Ambassador Crocker. I said: I know why you sent me to the police station, because I had questioned how you were going to protect our troops. I became a complete believer in General Petraeus and certainly how they do protect our troops as we are also teaching the foreign forces to take on their own security.

So I do have complete confidence in this man. What I do not have confidence in is the mission he is being given, because I sense a mixed message. I sense a mixed message from the President, and a division in what our Members of the Senate are saying, even as they questioned General Petraeus yesterday.

Here is my concern. We know you cannot set a hard and fast deadline and say, our troops are leaving no matter what the conditions are, and gain the confidence of the people on the ground that you are going to see the mission through.

It seems our mission should be clear, that we are going to prepare the Afghans for the security of their country, and also assure that the Taliban and al-Qaida cannot get a stronghold that would allow the export of terrorism to America and other freedom-loving countries in the world. That should be the clear mission.

I believe that is the mission General Petraeus understands, and I think that is what President Obama is saying. But my concern is this questioning of General Petraeus by members of the Armed Services Committee about the withdrawal date.

The President has said firmly the withdrawal is going to be July of next year. General Petraeus is very careful in every answer that he makes to say, conditions on the ground will dictate when we withdraw. July is the date. We acknowledge that, he says. But it will also depend on conditions on the ground.

I hope we will have a united view in the Senate, a united view in the House of Representatives, and the President acknowledging that we must have the confidence of the people on the ground in Afghanistan and also the confidence of the enemy, the Taliban, and al-Qaida, that we are not going to leave in July if there are not conditions on the ground for the Afghans to repel the evil forces of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As we vote today on the confirmation of General Petraeus, I am voting for this general because I believe in him. I believe in his creativity. I believe in his judgment. I want to make sure he has everything he needs to do the job we are asking him to do. He has proven he can do the tough jobs.

He changed the atmosphere in Iraq and he did it the right way. He protected our forces as he was doing it. So we must assure that we give him the same level of confidence and support in Afghanistan to do the job there, because it is clear that the place where al-Qaida and the Taliban are operating from is that area of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we cannot allow them to strengthen their efforts to be able to export terrorism to our country again.

At the same time, we have got to make sure there is not a bull's-eye on the back of our troops in Afghanistan because the enemy thinks we are leaving no matter what. Conditions on the ground are the prerequisite. I hope the President has given General Petraeus the level of confidence that I feel in him, and that I think our Senate will show to him today to do the job as he sees fit, because he is going to have the boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

I have been to Afghanistan, as have most of my colleagues. I know how tough it is, the terrain, the type of government they have had throughout their centuries, and it is not adaptable easily to our concept of governance. So we have to work within a framework that is very difficult both geographically as well as in the governance structure.

I am voting for General Petraeus today because I know this man can do the job. I hope the President will give him the free rein to do the job we are asking him to do, and, in the process, protect our troops and protect him as they are doing this very tough job with everything he asks us to provide to him to finish this job and make the Afghan people say--give them the ability to create their governance in a way that works for them and to protect the people of the United States from any further terrorist attack.

That is when we will be able to say ``mission accomplished.'' And General Petraeus can do this job. We must give him the backup so he can be successful.

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

I would appreciate, Mr. Leader, if I could ask a question.

That is fine.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is the flood insurance bill that was passed by the House that will extend flood insurance for those coastal State people in what the leader just read.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the leader very much.

Mr. President, in the couple minutes before the vote starts, I just want to say this is a huge move for the people of the gulf coast who have been trying to purchase flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program that lapsed June 1. The hardship is that, of course, we are going into hurricane season. Private insurance is not available on the coast for floods right now, so the Federal program is all there is.

People have not been able to close on housing contracts, on purchases of houses, because flood insurance is required and they have not been able to get it.

So Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, I, Senator Cornyn, Senator Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Nelson, Senator LeMieux--everyone has been very concerned about this if we represent a border State--and Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker.

So we have been pressing, and I know there have been a lot of competing interests. But it is very important we are passing the bill that has passed the House already. It will be sent to the President, and the people of the gulf coast will once again be able to purchase that flood insurance, as we see a tropical storm moving toward our gulf coast as we speak. So it is certainly timely. It will certainly be a relief, and the extension will be until September 30. So the people who want to purchase insurance, which, of course, they need and will know they are covered, will be covered.

I thank the Chair. I thank the leader as well.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business about the National Flood Insurance Program and talk about the importance of extending the National Flood Insurance Program as a tropical storm--that could be a hurricane--is growing in the Gulf of Mexico and moving toward my home State of Texas.

We all know the Gulf of Mexico has had a lot of trauma, and the people who live all along the gulf have suffered quite enough. Now we have a situation in which tropical storm Alex is gaining strength off the coast of south Texas. Winds are gusting upwards of 70 miles per hour, and it could reach hurricane strength at any point. Texas communities from Padre Island to Matagorda Bay are under a hurricane warning. The National Weather Service is calling for up to 20 inches of rain in some parts of our State and is warning communities to brace for life-threatening flash floods and mud slides.

However, at this very time, thousands of Texas homeowners are left vulnerable to the damage this storm could wreak on their homes and property. Why? The National Flood Insurance Program lapsed at the end of May, which means homeowners are currently unable to take out new policies. Allowing a lapse in federally backed flood insurance is unacceptable at any time, but the failure to extend it at the outset of hurricane season is unthinkable.

The very purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program is to make sure coastal residents and other flood-prone communities can purchase reliable, federally backed flood insurance. The program allows homeowners to purchase flood insurance policies in areas where private insurance is hard--and in some cases impossible--to get.

Since residents in some areas are required to have it in order to close on home purchases, many gulf coast families cannot close on mortgage contracts. My Houston office received 200 calls yesterday from people who were in the process of closing on homes which required flood insurance protection to be shown before they could close, and they cannot get the flood insurance because it is not available out of the private sector and this program has lapsed. Today, it is the Federal Government that is standing in the way of these people being able to close on a contract.

Because of previous devastating storms, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the National Flood Insurance Program has incurred billions of dollars in claims and is in an economically tenuous position. I have supported legislation to revise and update this program. It needs to meet the demands of today while still providing access to flood insurance coverage to Americans living in floodplains--Americans who are trying to do the responsible thing. They are trying to purchase insurance. It is not available in the private market, and we need to have that kind of opportunity for people to be able to purchase their own insurance for them to be able to close on homes, of course, and to be able to protect themselves from damages. These are people who do not want to have to file claims against the Federal Government. They want to be able to purchase their own insurance and know they have it.

In 2008, I, along with an overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate, supported the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. Unfortunately, despite big support in the Senate and in the House, our two Chambers failed to resolve our differences. Therefore, it has operated in limbo ever since, surviving only in short-term extensions.

Now there is a bill to extend the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30. It has been approved in the House and was sent to the Senate. It is currently being held up.

My colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, offered a unanimous consent request this morning to bring up this House bill, pass it in the Senate, and send it to the President. It would have extended the flood insurance program until September 30 so that people could buy insurance, know they would be covered, be able to close on their homes, and be able to get coverage while we continue to hammer out the differences in a long-term extension of the program.

Unfortunately, there was an objection raised to the House bill going through the Senate. It is so important that we do this. I asked the reason for the objection. I asked one of my colleagues on the other side: Why was this objected to?

The answer was: Is it more important than the tax extenders bill?

I cannot say it is more important because we do need to extend unemployment insurance, but they are not mutually exclusive. We can do one or the other; we can do both. There is no objection to the substance of the bill. No one on the other side of the aisle objects to the bill. They just want to pass the extenders package. We want to pass the extenders package too. We want it to be paid for.

We can do this. It is so important and so timely. It is timely because people are not able to close on contracts. Mortgage companies are saying: Our hands are tied. You have to show that you have this flood insurance to close, and there is no flood insurance available on the private market. The National Flood Insurance Program has not been extended.

This is one that Congress can resolve. We are going to be here for a few more days this week. We can do this. I implore my colleagues: Please, let's unanimously consent to letting this bill go through. The House has passed it unanimously.

A hurricane is headed right now for the Gulf of Mexico. It is time to allow our responsible citizens who want to purchase flood insurance to be able to do so in a responsible way.

We certainly need to modernize the National Flood Insurance Program, and I will work tirelessly to make that happen. But with a storm approaching right now, we need to extend this program until the end of the hurricane season. We do not want people to have

to flood into the government after the fact when they are desperate, not knowing if they are going to get coverage. We do not want them to have to come to the Federal Government and ask for claims to be processed. Let them cover themselves so they can deal with the issue, knowing exactly what their coverage is. That is not too much to ask for the residents of the gulf coast.

I hope the majority leader and the majority will work with us to begin to address this issue in a timely way. The House has passed this bill unanimously. I urge my colleagues in the next 2 days to please allow the National Flood Insurance Program to be extended until September 30, a bill that has unanimously passed the House and surely should be able to go through the Senate since there is no substantive objection to this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I think the remarks that were given by my colleague from Montana about Senator Byrd were certainly appropriate, and I know anytime we lose one of our Members who has been sitting with us for so long, there is a void to fill.

What I appreciated about Senator Byrd is how much he respected the Senate itself and protected the rights of the Senate against anyone who he believed overstepped the rights of the Senate and the decorum and protocol of the Senate. He was truly a defender of this body. He loved it, and I think we all respected him for that.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the many historic gems Texas has to offer.

I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership

and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman Rodriguez introduced earlier this year.

During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s.

Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San Antonio Missions.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. This legislation will preserve and enhance one of Texas' most historic regions. Additionally, it will provide for a new education center so folks from around the nation can learn more about one of the many historic gems Texas has to offer.

I would like to commend Congressman Ciro Rodriguez for his leadership

and dedication to the San Antonio Missions. The legislation I have introduced today is a Senate companion to legislation that Congressman Rodriguez introduced earlier this year.

During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As Spanish explorers travelled through modern-day Texas, Catholic missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves the 18th century missions on site and offers visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that the area played in vocational and educational training during the 1700s.

Furthermore, the park exemplifies the diverse cultural influences we enjoy in Texas. The park's cultural influences can be seen through the formation of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, the largest concentration of historical Catholic missions in North America. The park also has some of the most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United States. The rich history of the San Antonio Missions Historic Park must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. I am pleased to join Congressman Rodriguez in supporting the San Antonio Missions.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the oilspill that is absorbing so much of the time and attention of our country. There is a minor point, one that I think needs to be addressed right now, and that is the Jones Act.

The Jones Act was put in place in 1920 to ensure that the United States was able to maintain a fleet of merchant ships. It was really for protection of U.S.-flagged carriers against competition from foreign carriers that might undercut our ability to have profitable merchant ships.

The Jones Act is currently preventing resources, however, from being used in the massive cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation that has been on the books since 1920 is hindering foreign vessels from assisting gulf communities as they work to prevent oil from reaching their shores.

Currently, foreign vessels need to obtain a Jones Act waiver from the Federal Government in order to help with the cleanup efforts. For many of the vessels wishing to respond, this request needs to be reviewed by three separate agencies--the Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, and Customs and Border Protection. That is three layers of bureaucracy when time is of the essence. During this crisis, we need to cut through the redtape. We must get all available assets on the scene as quickly as possible. I think everyone agrees.

Other countries have offered their services. They have offered to help. There are European countries that also drill in the oceans and waters on their shores, and they have offered to send ships to help to try to absorb the oil and skim it off. There are volunteers waiting with the right equipment, and they are willing to come to our aid. We should know that with oil leaking from the ocean's floor, the natural resources of the gulf are being destroyed as we speak. We need every resource at our disposal to prevent further destruction. In my State of Texas, I have a constituent who would like to provide equipment to aid in the cleanup--his ship has a foreign flag--but he is unable to help because no waiver has been issued to the Jones Act in this particular crisis.

There is precedent for waiving the Jones Act in disasters. It has been waived to speed up disaster responses in the past, including a waiver that was issued in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina nearly 5 years ago. It was done by the Executive with an Executive order.

Without this key waiver, foreign vessels are prohibited from working with their American counterparts to skim the oils from the water of the gulf within 3 miles of shore. Of course, that is where we desperately need to have the most help to skim the oil before it reaches and damages our shores.

That is why next week I intend to introduce legislation that will waive the Jones Act for vessels whose sole intent is to assist in the cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico. We will ensure these foreign ships will work under the auspices of the Coast Guard. We will make sure there is a clearinghouse for them, but we should not be waiting to have three different Federal agencies look at a Jones Act waiver request when we know what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We see the pictures every day. This waiver would be applied for a period of time that is necessary to respond to this oilspill and restore the waters of the Gulf of Mexico during this emergency.

The Federal response to this spill has been a little short of immediate. It has been a day late and a dollar short, and that is not acceptable. It is time that Congress does what we can with the resources we have to urge the administration to act while it can to mitigate the damages we know are already there. It is time for us to be proactive. It is time for us to act.

I look forward to having cosponsors. I am in the process of getting this bill in order now. I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Our Gulf States have a bipartisan senatorial delegation. I want to help to do everything possible. If we can waive the Jones Act for this disaster with all of the appropriate cautions that are necessary and get those foreign ships that are ready to help our country, that have offered to help our country, to get into the 3-mile limit before this oil does further damage to our coast and to the wildlife and to the natural resources on our coast, we need to do it. This is something that should have been done weeks ago. It was not done.

It is time for Congress to step in. I hope my colleagues will help us move this legislation expeditiously and urge the administration to do what is within their realm, even before Congress acts. That would be my wish. If the President would issue an Executive order, that would do it. But since he has not and since weeks have passed, it is time for Congress to take the reins and try to do everything that is within our power to mitigate the damage to the Gulf of Mexico.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Thune amendment. This is the Republican alternative. Of course, we now know the Baucus package did not get the 60 votes required to go forward and, therefore, we are now looking at the Republican substitute and waiting for a new bill to come from Senator Baucus.

I think it is so important that our Senate say to the American people

that we know the debt being created in this country is unsupportable. Our bailouts have skyrocketed, our spending, our borrowing, now taxing--it is more than the American people can stand.

Our national debt now tops $13 trillion. Since President Obama took office 18 months ago the debt has grown by over $2.4 trillion. The President's budget shows there is no end in sight. It doubles the national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10.

In order to sustain this current spending level, the Federal Government is being forced to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends this year. The Federal Government is spending 67 percent more than it is earning. This is similar to a household that earns $62,000 but spends $105,000.

From whom are we borrowing that money? We owe China over $900 billion, Japan nearly $800 billion. Every household in America knows what it is like to set a budget. They know what the income is, and they know how to stick with it. It involves setting priorities, making tough decisions, and discipline.

The bill we are debating on the Senate floor today includes important policies that are national priorities, and I support many of them. However, it is time that the Federal Government does what every other household does; that is, pay for our priorities.

Here is what the Thune amendment does. It extends the expiring unemployment provisions until November, the expired tax provisions, including the local and State sales tax deduction through the end of the year. So we know that any of the expired tax cuts that people have been counting on that have been in place for several years would go through the end of this year so people would know that is at least one stabilizing force on which they can count.

It drops the job-killing tax increases in the Baucus substitute. The Thune amendment proves that government can make the tough choices. The Thune amendment is paid for. According to CBO, it cuts taxes by $26 billion, it cuts spending by over $100 billion, and it reduces the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years. It shows the American people that this Senate is serious about stopping the deficit spending we have seen in the last 18 months.

Spending cuts in the Thune amendment: one, it rescinds the unobligated stimulus funds; two, it imposes a 5-percent, across-the- board cut in government spending for all Federal agencies except the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense; three, it freezes for 1 year Federal employee salaries, including, of course, Congress. It is very important that our Federal employees have the same kinds of restrictions that most Americans are feeling right now. It is a freeze, not a cut, in Federal employee salaries. It requires the selling of $15 billion of unneeded and unused government property.

I believe the doctor fix that we have done in a patchwork way year after year since the balanced budget amendment is now another patch.

Medicare pays doctors in a fundamentally broken way. It has become an access-to-care crisis for our seniors. Too many seniors are unable to find a doctor who takes Medicare because the Federal Government has proven time and again that it is an unreliable business partner. We need a long-term solution so that the best and brightest in our country will choose medicine for their career and will choose to serve Medicare patients. Medicare is supposed to make seniors comfortable that they will be able to get medical care, but so many Medicare patients cannot find good doctors; they can't go to the doctors they want to see because the doctors have just said: I have had enough.

In Texas, over 60 percent of our counties are considered health professional shortage areas. The number of medical school graduates choosing primary care has dropped 50 percent since 1997. Fifteen medical specialties have reported physician workforce shortages, and we could face a physician shortage of more than 150,000 physicians in the next 15 years.

The Thune amendment provides over 2 years of a positive update for our Medicare physicians paid for by the kind of tort reform that has saved Texas doctors so much. The tort reform has brought down insurance premiums in Texas and we have increased our number of doctors since tort reform was enacted.

We could do the same thing at the Federal level, and then the many counties I hear about from my colleagues all over our country that don't have a primary care physician or don't have an OB-GYN physician would be able to start seeing an influx of medical personnel back into the practice of medicine.

We can do something good for America. We can show America that Congress understands that this debt is unsustainable, if we pass the Thune amendment. It is essential that we pass an amendment that will pay for the extension of unemployment insurance, that will not have any more deficit spending and not increase taxes.

We need to continue the cutting of taxes so that our businesses will feel they can hire people, so that we will have an economy that can be sustained without sending more and more money to the Federal Government, which is growing bigger and bigger. We need business to grow, to hire people, to get our economy going again so that all of the sectors, including retail as well as manufacturing, will survive in our country.

It is my hope we can pass the Thune amendment. It is fully paid for, it will not have deficit spending, and it will cut taxes rather than increase taxes on businesses. That is the alternative that we think is important for America to see.

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

I thank the Senator from Alaska for her great leadership in bringing this to the floor. I support this resolution. While cap-and-trade legislation has stalled in the Senate, the administration is pursuing a backdoor approach to implement new regulations. The EPA's use of the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to expand its authority is a political maneuver that will allow the agency to bypass Congress and regulate greenhouse gases.

This is the prerogative of Congress and Congress has not acted because it would be a mistake to act. So here comes the regulatory agency to bypass Congress because they cannot get congressional approval to do what they are trying to do.

This vote has nothing to do with the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is unfortunate that some are trying to use this tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico as some sort of leverage against this resolution. We all agree that we need a responsible energy policy that strikes a critical balance between the protection of our environment, natural resources, and the preservation of American jobs. It is the responsibility of Congress to implement such a balanced policy.

It is also the responsibility of Congress to consider the economic impact that regulations will have on Americans throughout our country. Here is how these regulations will affect my home State of Texas. In Texas, more than 30,000 businesses will be in industries that will now be newly subject to the EPA regulations.

Texas' agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion, or 9.5 percent of Texas' total gross State product, would be disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations because of their use of fertilizers which are already regulated.

Across the country, small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and farmers and ranchers, which are the backbone of our economy, will be devastated by these regulations. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, the smallest businesses bear a 45-percent greater burden than their larger competitors.

The annual cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is over $7,000 to comply with their regulatory burden. Actions from the EPA are going to give foreign competitors an advantage over American businesses. While our businesses will become burdened with these new regulations, companies in China and India will have free rein in U.S. markets.

As our economy begins to recover, the last thing families and small businesses need is a backdoor energy tax that is going to raise their costs across the board. Rather than imposing invasive regulations, we need a responsible energy policy that focuses on making alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear, wind, and solar commercially available. We all agree on that. That would be a balanced approach to an energy policy, which is what elected representatives should be making.

This vote is to prevent a federal bureaucracy from doing the work of the elected representatives of the people. I am alarmed by this further attempt of the administration to circumvent congressional authority. I am sorry to say but this is becoming a hallmark of this administration, more regulation. And if Congress does not agree, let the agencies do it.

I am dealing in the Commerce Committee right now with the FCC that is doing exactly the same thing. They are going to impose net neutrality rules when Congress has not authorized the regulation of the Internet in that way. It is a pattern that is beginning to show itself and it is wrong for our country.

I am going to stand strong against cap and trade. I will certainly oppose the audacious attempt by this administration to bypass Congress and implement new regulations without the authority of Congress.

As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy. We need to work on creating jobs, not tax small business to keep us from being able to create the new jobs.

It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people. The EPA is not. And this is overreach. If we do not stop it, who will? Who will stop bureaucracy and agencies that are not authorized by Congress to take on more and more regulatory responsibility that is not theirs, and that is going to cost jobs in our country?

The growth of government is breathtaking in this country. I urge my colleagues to think about this and support the Murkowski resolution.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak today in favor of the McCain amendment and the Cornyn amendment. I am cosponsor of both of these amendments. I understand we will be voting very shortly on these amendments as we move forward on the supplemental appropriations.

I am cosponsoring these amendments. The border State Senators have worked together, particularly in light of the escalating violence that is happening on the other side of the border with Mexico. It has particularly hit Texas and Arizona. So Senator McCain and Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn and I have repeatedly asked for reinforcements to support controlling our border.

I offered versions of both of these amendments in the committee that produced this bill. I certainly hope we will be able to agree to these amendments--which are fully paid for, I might add. They will not add to the deficit. But it is so important that we have as a priority in this country the control of the borders of our sovereign Nation.

We cannot allow the illegal activity and the unspeakable violence to continue along our shared border. Ten thousand people have been killed in Mexico in drug cartel-related violence, many of them police officers and law enforcement officials, just this year; 2,000 over the last 3 or 4 years. It is escalating. We are seeing effects of the illegal activity spill over on our side of the border for sure.

We have an increase in the activity in our judicial system, in our law enforcement, our local law enforcement. American taxpayers are paying for local law enforcement for us to be able to try to stop this activity from coming across. But there is evidence that it is coming across as we see drug cartels setting up operations in cities on our side of the border.

I have invited the President to tour the border with me. That offer still stands. I welcome the opportunity to show the President exactly what the security challenges are and to see what the Border Patrol and DEA agents are going through on a daily basis, not to mention our border sheriffs and policemen.

After deemphasizing border security and even proposing to cut the border patrol on the southwest border in the President's own budget, I was pleased to finally hear a better set of words and proposals from the President--that he will agree to increase border funding. But it is a little late coming since so many of us have been asking for months, and even over a year, for this extra border security. Border Senators and Congressmen have repeatedly called on the President to focus on this issue. Then we find that his original budget actually decreased the number of border patrol.

What we know is that the President is now calling for an additional 1,200 National Guard to be deployed to the border. Texas alone has requested 1,000 National Guard. Spreading 1,200 National Guard over four States is really an insufficient response to a national security priority.

The McCain amendment specifies title 32 authority for the National Guard. It is fully offset, and it deploys 6,000 National Guard to the southwest border. This is much more aggressive than the President's proposal of 1,200. Although I am pleased the President is making a start, 1,200 is barely going to cover Texas, much less Arizona and California. It would certainly be an addition, if we can agree to the McCain amendment, to really show we are serious about beefing up the border security for our country.

Under the McCain amendment, the National Guard would help the CBP, the Border Patrol, get operational control of the southwest border. It will augment our security forces until a continued scale-up and training of Border Patrol agents can take place.

Basically, what the McCain amendment does is say this is a temporary fix. We are not asking that Border Patrol be a permanent fixture on our border. We don't want that. I was even

hesitant to ask for Border Patrol. But the situation has gotten so serious that we now have to take stepped-up measures as a stop-gap while we train the Border Patrol to do their job.

The Department of Homeland Security has 17,000 personnel assigned to the southwest border. Well under half the agents--about 7,700--are currently assigned to Texas even though 63 percent of the border runs through our State. Arizona has only 4,000 agents. We all need more support.

Adequate National Guard support is critical to help patrol spillover violence and address all of our security challenges until we have more of the Border Patrol agents ready to go.

Another amendment offered by Senator Cornyn, which I also cosponsor, will drastically increase support for law enforcement at every level, Federal, State, and local. I wish to speak particularly to the portion of Senator Cornyn's amendment that funds the unmanned aerial vehicle, the UAVs as we call them, which I introduced in committee and on the floor as stand-alone amendments.

I have worked with the FAA and Customs and Border Patrol so we can quickly increase the presence of unmanned drones, or UAVs, to help protect the Southwest border. These unmanned drones are able to monitor the progress across the border, and also monitor crossings that might be illegal across the border, places where you cannot put a Border Patrol agent. There are many miles that have to be covered. You cannot have a Border Patrol agent every 12 or 15 feet on the border.

But these unmanned aerial vehicles do provide so much of our intelligence gathering and information gathering that it would supplement the Border Patrol, and what I hope are additional National Guard.

Last week, I, along with members of the Texas delegation, met with FAA Administrator Babbitt. We urged him to allow the UAVs to operate along the Texas border. He committed to working closely with the Border Patrol to approve the use of UAVs in my State, as well as to streamline the approval process across the Nation.

We have no UAVs in Texas, none. The FAA and the Border Patrol have gone back and forth about who is responsible for this. But the bottom line is we have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico and no UAVs to help bridge the gap between Border Patrol stations and cameras.

The UAV amendment will allow the Border Patrol to obtain and operate at least six new drone systems and hire pilots, with the goal of covering the United States-Mexico border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California every day of the week, including nights. We now have a system that only operates in the daytime--not in Texas, but in other areas. That is not good enough, because so much of the activity takes place at night.

The amendment provides funding and direction to quickly implement the drone procurement and maintenance. It provides funding for 60 pilots and crew. All of the costs are fully offset. Border Patrol currently operates six unmanned drones in the United States, but only three in the Southwest border. The six additional UAVs will provide full Southwest border surveillance 7 days a week without diminishing drone surveillance along the Northern border and off our Nation's coast.

More UAVs will help the Border Patrol gain consistent control of our borders. Using the drone systems is a force multiplier, and it allows border enforcement officials to more efficiently and consistently monitor the border and respond to illicit activity.

I am a cosponsor of the two amendments. This is very important to the whole Southwest border. But I do feel that my home State of Texas has been particularly challenged because we have had no UAVs. We have had only 7,700 Border Patrol personnel across the 1,200 miles, and you cannot be serious about border security. This has escalated because of the violence in Mexico. The heinous crimes that are being committed in Mexico, many against law enforcement officers, are something we read about in the papers. We have even had our own U.S. State Department people killed in Mexico. We have evidence that the cartels are setting up shop in cities in my home State of Texas, and I imagine they are setting up in Arizona as well, maybe California. I do not know about that. But I do I know in Texas they are. I know that when you are facing people who have automatic weapons, they have very sophisticated intelligence gathering--these are the cartels, not the government. They are killing police officers. They are putting signs on the burial places of these police officers saying: These are next. Then they will come back and they will cross off on the sign the people they have just killed, leaving the ones who are still alive to know they are being watched every moment and they are targets.

We cannot sit here and let this happen without aggressive action. That is why we have to act, and why his original budget that was submitted to Congress is laughable in this context.

Now he is saying he will do 1,200 National Guard. Texas is asking for 1,000, Arizona is asking for 600--Arizona is asking for--I don't know. They only have 4,000 Border Patrol agents and they are asking for 3,000 National Guard. I did find my place. They are asking for 3,000. Texas is asking for 1,000.

We need to pass this amendment. It is fully offset. We would like for the whole stimulus bill that is going through, the supplemental appropriations, to be offset. We should have not more debt. We have enough money in our system if we prioritize border security. It is a national security issue and it should be in this bill.

I yield the floor.

I call up the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct conferees.

I ask to be notified at the end of 5 minutes so I may yield the floor to Senator Hagan for the rest of the time.

Mr. President, the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct is trying to narrow the definition that falls under the Volcker rule and the underlying bill. I believe our amendment would have passed overwhelmingly if we had been able to get it up before cloture was invoked. I appreciate there was a lot going on last week, but this is the way we hope to be able to assure that our amendment is a part of the final bill. The Volcker rule contained in the measure before us seeks to restrict or ban risky proprietary trading at depository institutions. As currently written, the rule brings about some unintended consequences that could be disastrous for our financial system and to a special class of customers--American service men and women. The major problem with the current language is that its reach extends beyond the bounds of the depository institution to a bank's affiliates and subsidiaries, including insurance companies. For diversified financial institutions that serve as one-stop shops of banking and insurance products, especially those serving our military service men and women and their families, the extension of the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions to a depository institution's insurance company affiliates threatens their ability to address the special financial needs of the U.S. military community. The Hutchison- Hagan motion to instruct conferees seeks to ensure that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions do not extend to the normal operations of insurance affiliates of insured depository institutions so that we can preserve convenient access to the full spectrum of financial services for the U.S. military community.

It is important to note that the proprietary trading that insurance entities engage in is significantly different from the proprietary trading that is the target of the Volcker rule.

First, insurance companies use premiums to fund trades, not customer deposits. Thus, insurers are trading their own funds, not those of depositors. Insurance company trades are generally low risk, focus on long-term payment of claims and profitability, and are already heavily regulated by State insurance regulators. Simply put: Proprietary trading is essential to the life insurance and property and casualty insurance business. Proprietary trading is what allows insurers to offer annuities and other insurance products that can protect consumers in the long term.

The motion to instruct is narrowly drafted. We have worked with the majority staff as well as the minority staff of the Banking Committee to assure that the drafting is in line with what we all intend to do. It doesn't speak to the Volcker rule's impact on depository institutions at all. It merely seeks to allow regulated insurance entities to continue to operate as they currently do in a manner that ensures payment of claims and annuities for years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion. We have worked on this for several weeks together. I believe this bipartisan motion to instruct will be overwhelmingly approved because so many people have heard from their constituents.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, and the TIAA CREF, a national financial services organization dedicated to serving the financial needs of those who work in the academic, medical, and cultural fields, all in support of our amendment and our motion to instruct.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been supportive of this amendment from the beginning. Senator Hagan and I can say that we have regularly communicated with the chairman, and maybe he would even consider that we have hounded him to death. But nevertheless, I know he was helping us all along. We worked on the drafting to assure that the language met both the minority and majority requirements. I am pleased he has worked with us on this amendment. I thank Senator Hagan as well for being such a staunch cosponsor of this amendment.

I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman, when we start the vote at 5:30, it will be the Brownback motion first and then Hutchison-Hagan.

I call up the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct conferees.

I ask to be notified at the end of 5 minutes so I may yield the floor to Senator Hagan for the rest of the time.

Mr. President, the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct is trying to narrow the definition that falls under the Volcker rule and the underlying bill. I believe our amendment would have passed overwhelmingly if we had been able to get it up before cloture was invoked. I appreciate there was a lot going on last week, but this is the way we hope to be able to assure that our amendment is a part of the final bill. The Volcker rule contained in the measure before us seeks to restrict or ban risky proprietary trading at depository institutions. As currently written, the rule brings about some unintended consequences that could be disastrous for our financial system and to a special class of customers--American service men and women. The major problem with the current language is that its reach extends beyond the bounds of the depository institution to a bank's affiliates and subsidiaries, including insurance companies. For diversified financial institutions that serve as one-stop shops of banking and insurance products, especially those serving our military service men and women and their families, the extension of the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions to a depository institution's insurance company affiliates threatens their ability to address the special financial needs of the U.S. military community. The Hutchison- Hagan motion to instruct conferees seeks to ensure that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions do not extend to the normal operations of insurance affiliates of insured depository institutions so that we can preserve convenient access to the full spectrum of financial services for the U.S. military community.

It is important to note that the proprietary trading that insurance entities engage in is significantly different from the proprietary trading that is the target of the Volcker rule.

First, insurance companies use premiums to fund trades, not customer deposits. Thus, insurers are trading their own funds, not those of depositors. Insurance company trades are generally low risk, focus on long-term payment of claims and profitability, and are already heavily regulated by State insurance regulators. Simply put: Proprietary trading is essential to the life insurance and property and casualty insurance business. Proprietary trading is what allows insurers to offer annuities and other insurance products that can protect consumers in the long term.

The motion to instruct is narrowly drafted. We have worked with the majority staff as well as the minority staff of the Banking Committee to assure that the drafting is in line with what we all intend to do. It doesn't speak to the Volcker rule's impact on depository institutions at all. It merely seeks to allow regulated insurance entities to continue to operate as they currently do in a manner that ensures payment of claims and annuities for years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion. We have worked on this for several weeks together. I believe this bipartisan motion to instruct will be overwhelmingly approved because so many people have heard from their constituents.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, and the TIAA CREF, a national financial services organization dedicated to serving the financial needs of those who work in the academic, medical, and cultural fields, all in support of our amendment and our motion to instruct.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been supportive of this amendment from the beginning. Senator Hagan and I can say that we have regularly communicated with the chairman, and maybe he would even consider that we have hounded him to death. But nevertheless, I know he was helping us all along. We worked on the drafting to assure that the language met both the minority and majority requirements. I am pleased he has worked with us on this amendment. I thank Senator Hagan as well for being such a staunch cosponsor of this amendment.

I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman, when we start the vote at 5:30, it will be the Brownback motion first and then Hutchison-Hagan.

Mr. President, I was going to speak on the amendment Senator Landrieu and I have, the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment. I will be happy to yield any time the chairman of the committee wishes to clarify. Until he does, I will speak on the

Hutchison-Landrieu amendment, which is an amendment that has been filed but is not yet pending.

This is an amendment that will provide a permanent exemption for publicly traded small businesses with less than $150 million from the costly reporting requirements mandated by section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In removing this great burden, our amendment will free small businesses to focus on the capital investment and job creation that we need now to get our Nation's economy back on the right track.

In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the aftermath of the huge accounting frauds at Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom. This landmark bill was enacted to restore investor confidence in the wake of these shocking abuses by making it harder for companies to misrepresent corporate earnings.

Hindsight is 20-20, though, and, while the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was well intentioned, it has created unexpected and unprecedented costs for the small to medium sized businesses that serve as the backbone of our economy.

The main culprit of this immense burden on small businesses is section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. Here a public company is required to include in its annual report an assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The company's auditor must attest to and report on the company's assessment.

The compliance costs of section 404(b) have been far greater than expected. In 2009, the SEC reported that companies paid an average of $2.3 million to comply with section 404. When taking into account the size of a company, small businesses with less than $150 million in public float, or the shares held by outside investors, are disproportionately encumbered by section 404(b), facing a compliance cost that is seven times greater than large companies.

Small businesses are being forced to tie up time and money on burdensome amounts of paperwork. They should be directing these resources toward operations and capital investment that will create jobs and spur our economy toward recovery. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment will fix this issue, ensuring that smaller public companies will no longer be subject to the cost burden imposed by section 404(b).

Under current SEC rules, small public companies with less than $75 million in public float are now exempt from section 404(b). However, this exemption expires in June. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment builds on this existing exemption and takes into account recommendations from the SEC to increase the exemption. Our amendment will permanently exempt small businesses with less than $150 million in public float from the section 404(b).

I am pleased that my amendment has the strong bipartisan support of my colleague, the distinguished chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu. I also thank our other cosponsors, Senator Bob Bennett, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Crapo, Senator DeMint, and Senator Hatch.

We are offering our amendment on behalf of the small businesses across our country that face this disproportionate burden. We have the support of: The Biotechnology Industry Organization, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechAmerica, The Association for Competitive Technologies, Advanced Medical Technology Association, and Technet.

These groups represent the companies that want to innovate. That want to grow. They want to excel. But their companies are spending vast amounts of money on compliance costs, and, according to an SEC study, this money is being misdirected. The SEC reports that 75 percent of companies believe that the attestations of auditors required by Sarbanes-Oxley have little to no impact on investor confidence. Thus, rather than devoting important resources to invest and create jobs, small businesses are spending millions of dollars on paperwork that investors don't even care about.

Our amendment also has the support of the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the American Bankers Association. Our community banks want to lend to worthy entrepreneurs and help jump start our economy. But our entrepreneurs and small businesses are hesitant to grow if they are hit with the high costs associated with 404(b) compliance.

We are also offering this amendment because of the unintended consequences on our initial public offering market brought by section 404(b). Since the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, IPOs in the United States have been lower each year than in every year of the 1990s. Even in 2006, the peak year of economic growth after Sarbanes- Oxley, the 162 U.S. IPOs were far below the 295 IPOs issued in 1991 when our economy was mired in recession. This drop-off in IPO's hit the map in 2008 and 2009, when, according to a Renaissance Capital report, the IPO level was lower than any period since the Vietnam war.

Why is this? Why are companies avoiding initial public offerings? Why are companies refusing to access the capital that the stock markets provide? Quite frankly, companies do not want to deal with onerous burden of Sarbanes-Oxley. And based on the costs I mentioned, who can blame them?

This provision incentivizes small businesses to remain private to avoid 404(b) altogether. Worse, it incentivizes small businesses to go abroad to markets such as the London Stock Exchange, which has advertised itself as a Sarbanes-Oxley Free Zone, to encourage our companies to do their IPOs there instead of in Ameirca.

Small businesses should not be incentivized to stop growing or list overseas. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment also has the support of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, who want to see American companies list here and remain home-grown. Now more than ever, we should be encouraging our Nation's small businesses to invest in new jobs, plants and markets. Our amendment will help small businesses do this by reducing their paperwork costs. A similar measure was included in the House financial reform language, and with immense bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment to permanently exempt small businesses under $150 million from Sarbanes Oxley section 404(b), to ensure that small businesses can fully devote their resources toward being the engines that drive our Nation's economy.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial that appeared today in the Wall Street Journal that is entitled ``The No-Cost Stimulus.''

Mr. President, this editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal today says we can have

a stimulus that will cost taxpayers nothing by freeing our small businesses and especially our entrepreneurial and high-tech businesses from the burdens of all this paperwork and instead let them focus on growing, on listing their IPOs in America for the benefit of the American economy. That is what we should be doing, and that is what the editorial says.

I hope very much my colleagues will listen and we will be able to pass the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment, hopefully by voice vote. This should be a unanimous amendment passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will not go into the specifics of the Rockefeller-Hutchison amendment because the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee said it very well. Let me make a couple of other points to show what I think is the important reason for this amendment to be adopted.

Over the past 5 years the Federal Trade Commission has filed over 100 actions against providers of financial services, and in the past 10 years the Commission has obtained nearly $\1/2\ billion in redress for consumers of financial services. In 2009 alone, the FTC and the States, working in close coordination, brought more than 200 cases against firms that pedaled phony mortgage modification and foreclosure rescue scams. Despite these successes, the substitute that is before us would transfer all consumer protection functions of the FTC to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The FTC, in a bipartisan letter signed by all five Commissioners, has expressed concern that the current Senate language could inadvertently restrict the ability of the FTC to work with this new financial protection bureau to stop unfair and deceptive practices that prey on consumers of financial products and services. The FTC has warned that the current bill, which grants the new agency exclusive rulemaking and enforcement authority in several areas, could even inhibit the FTC's authority in consumer protection with respect to consumer protection laws of nonfinancial products and services.

The bottom line is, I do not think it was the intention of the bill to take away from the FTC the authority and the record they have. It is important that they have a record in this area. They have experience. They have experienced staff. And we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need another whole agency to do the same things the FTC already does.

It also is confusing to the regulator. It is confusing when they have two agencies. They may have conflicting rules. Sometimes, as a businessperson, I have been in a position where two agencies have rulings that if you do what one ruling says, the other agency's ruling would be violated. That is unfair to our small businesses. It is unfair to the regulated entities not to have one regulatory authority that does not in any way have a double burden or make a double burden on the regulated. We need to keep commerce going and we also need to protect consumers and our amendment will ensure that happens. So I am very pleased to be a cosponsor.

I will say the leadership for this amendment certainly resided with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Presiding Officer in the chair now, and also I appreciate that Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby worked on this amendment to make sure it was written in the correct way and that the FTC will keep its basic authority it has now. It will not get new authority, and it will not have authority taken away. It will

just be that their staff and their experience will be utilized--and certainly in a more fair way--and particularly in nonfinancial institutions consumers will have the protection of the FTC, where they are the relevant agency, rather than transferring to a new agency that is going to be set up and that doesn't even have rules yet, much less staff.

So I think it is a good amendment, and I appreciate the leadership of the distinguished chairman, Senator Rockefeller.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a dear friend whose contributions to the great State of Texas and our Nation are most notable.

B.M. Rankin, Jr., known by his friends as ``Mack,'' is a pioneer in the oil and gas industry. More than three decades ago, Rankin and two partners, W.K. McWilliams, Jr. and James R. Moffett, founded McMoRan Exploration Co., an independent public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore in the gulf coast area. Today Rankin is the vice chairman of both McMoRan Exploration Co., NYSE, and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., NYSE, the world's third-largest copper deposit and the single largest gold deposit in the world.

Rankin's expertise and knowledge of America's energy resources, coupled with his leadership and vision for our country's energy needs, have transformed public policy in this area.

For the past 2 years, he has served as the chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. Under his guidance, the association has provided the industry with representation in legislative, regulatory and public affairs, and it serves as a resource on technical matters. Membership in the association represents all segments of the industry, including major oil and gas companies, independent oil and gas producers, refineries, natural gas and petroleum products transportation and distribution companies, natural gas generation companies, and other firms and individuals involved in the industry.

Throughout his career Rankin has been a strong advocate for clarity and practicality in the ongoing debate to formulate a responsible national energy policy. Because of his steadfast efforts, the oil and gas industry plays a leading role in these policy debates and deliberations.

A native of Dallas, Rankin is an active member and generous benefactor of a number of local charitable foundations. He has served on the Board of Visitors of the University Cancer Foundation of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Hospital Cancer Center and as chairman for the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, CLL, Global Research Foundation.

On May 13, 2010, Rankin will step down as chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. On this special occasion I want not only to commend Rankin for his lifelong dedication to energy policy but also to thank him for his tremendous commitment to our State and country.