Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I wish to go ahead to the vote because I know it is important. But I will just say, I fully support our bill and look forward to working on the amendments and passing this bill, finally, tomorrow. Amendment No. 2757

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I also support this amendment. I think the reporting requirements are absolutely the right thing to do. Madam President, I yield back the rest of my time and ask for the vote to commence. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: I did not understand the last unanimous consent request, that we were going to a nomination?

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe we are now on the glidepath to finishing the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. We have an order. If we can clear some of the further amendments that are listed for a vote, I know we will be able to do that. Some of these are being negotiated at this time. At least we have a way forward. Our staffs have worked very diligently on this since we started this bill last Tuesday and, for various reasons, we are going to finish it tomorrow, a week later. We could not have done it without a lot of cooperation. I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Johnson, and his staff: Christina Evans, Chad Schulken, and Andy Vanlandingham. My staff also has ably worked through these. When I was called away to Fort Hood, my chief clerk, Dennis Balkham, did a great job with the help of Ben Hammond in our office. I appreciate very much all the cooperation and the help we have had coming to this point. I am pleased with our bill. I think we have a good bill that will do what all of us want, which is to assure that our veterans have the health care, the benefits, the needed outreach they should have for getting their benefits on a timely basis. This is one of the priorities we are funding in this bill. Secondly, of course, the military construction part of this bill is going to assure many quality-of-life improvements for our military personnel. Also, we will be building in faraway places where our troops are being housed right now. We want to give them every comfort we possibly can as they are fighting for our freedom. I thank my colleagues and certainly appreciate that we are now moving toward final passage of this bill tomorrow. I appreciate all the cooperation we have had. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this body have a moment of silence in memory of 11 great soldiers at Fort Hood, TX, who have been shot down this afternoon at the base at a processing center where they were being prepared to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the person who was the main shooter has also been killed. Over 30 of our great personnel are also injured and being treated as we speak. When I spoke to the general a few minutes ago, the base, Fort Hood, was still in lockdown to make sure they have checked every possibility that there would be no more shootings. I know all of us love our military and appreciate everything they do. For them to have to suffer even more tragedy like this, as they are on their way to protect our freedom, is unthinkable. I ask unanimous consent that all of us show how deeply we care about them right now on the floor of the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senators very much. Amendment No. 2667

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill before us. A lot of time and energy has gone into putting this legislation together, and I would like to thank Chairman Johnson and his staff for working hard to address the needs of our service members and veterans. This is a bipartisan bill, and I can say with great confidence that this subcommittee makes sure that the priorities of all Senators, on both sides of the aisle, are evaluated and taken care of to the best of our ability. As Chairman Johnson has pointed out, this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes, for fiscal year 2010: $76.7 billion in discretionary spending, including $23.2 billion for military construction and $53.2 billion for our veterans; $55.8 billion in mandatory spending for veterans' benefits, and $1.4 billion for military construction projects to assist our troops in Afghanistan in their fight against terrorists and insurgents. This legislation provides $23.2 billion for the Defense Department's military construction program. I am concerned that the DOD requested over $7 billion less for 2010, a 25 percent decrease from the previous year, and I hope this trend does not continue. Of all the funds we provide for our government, supporting the infrastructure needs of our soldiers is one of the most important I can think of. I am pleased that our bill provides full funding for the Base Realignment and Closure actions at almost $7.5 billion. These funds are essential to bring our troops home, predominantly from Europe and Korea, and basing them in the United States. By fully funding BRAC we can help the DOD stay on schedule to achieve this goal by September 2011. I wish to point out as well that our legislation contains the necessary funds for the Defense Department program specially designed to help our service members who are forced to relocate in this harsh economic housing environment, the Homeowners Assistance Fund. Chairman Johnson has been instrumental in making this program a success. This bill funds the Guard and Reserve at $264 million above the President's request. A significant number of the troops fighting the war on terror consist of Guard and Reserve members, so I am very glad we were able to provide additional resources for them. This summer, as our Nation was preparing for its Fourth of July celebrations, I had the honor of visiting our troops in Iraq and Kuwait. I listened to their concerns and saw first hand how the facilities we provide in this bill are instrumental in their ability to carry out their mission. This legislation contains almost $1.4 billion in emergency funding for the war in Afghanistan. The policies of this conflict have been passionately debated on the Senate floor in recent days. But I am sure we can all agree that--independent of our views of the war--we must provide the infrastructure needs of our sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines. This bill does that. In addition, I would like to point out that this subcommittee is committed to making sure that our NATO allies fund their fair share of all joint projects. I can assure my colleagues, and the American people, that every MILCON facility shared by allied forces is evaluated for NATO reimbursement and that we push hard for cost sharing at every possible opportunity. Our bill provides $109 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, a 14 percent increase above fiscal year 2009. Veterans' healthcare is funded at $45 billion, and medical research is funded at $580 million. This bill also makes a significant investment in VA infrastructure needs, with nearly $5 billion for the maintenance and repair of VA medical facilities and $2 billion in new construction projects. The Veterans Benefits Administration is funded at $56 billion to administer compensation, pension, and readjustment benefits earned by our veterans. We have fully funded the new education benefits provided by the post-9/11 educational assistance program, and included funding for 1,200 new claims processors to reduce the claims backlog. This legislation addresses the many demands facing the Department of Veterans Affairs. It includes funding over 2009 levels to enhance outreach and services for mental health care, combat homelessness, further meet the needs of women veterans, and expand access to healthcare in rural areas. Finally, we included $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for veterans' medical care for fiscal year 2011. This funding will allow the Veterans Health Administration to better plan and budget for veterans' health care. Congress has shown its resolve time and again to care for our nation's veterans and provide the infrastructure for our men and women in uniform. We owe all of them our gratitude, and we will do our part to take care of them. I ask my colleagues to support this bill. Again, I would like to thank Senators Inouye and Cochran for their support putting this bill together, and I would especially like to thank Chairman Johnson for his leadership and the hard work of his staff: Christina Evans, Chad Schulken, and Andy Vanlandingham.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to speak this afternoon about the health care bill that we all in this country are concerned is coming through Congress at a very rapid pace. I heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois saying the Republican complaint is how long the bill is. Well, of course, he acknowledged that there is no bill, that we actually don't have a bill that has been introduced yet in the Senate. So I think what we are talking about is the length of the bills that have been put forward by the two committees and will be put together, and it could be 3,000 pages long, if that is what it takes to cover this issue. The concern Republicans have is, are we going to have time to read it? Are we going to have time for the public to read it, so that we understand fully, before we start debating, before we start amending, what is in every line of the bill? The American people expect that we will know what we are voting on when we are talking about taking over one-sixth of our economy in this country. We are talking about the health care industry jobs--doctors, nurses, nurses' aides, hospital personnel, and the doctors' office personnel. We are talking about a lot of the economy of our country. Most importantly, we are talking about the relationship between a patient and a doctor, which is the most personal, most important health care relationship you can possibly have in every family. I think maybe the distinguished deputy leader on the Democratic side has mistaken the complaints about how big the bill is with how long we have to read the big bill. That is the issue. That is why we want to see the bill in the writing that is going to become law before we are asked to debate it, before we are asked to offer amendments. And we want the public to see it, too. In fact, there was an amendment offered in the Senate Finance Committee by Senator Bunning to reassure the American people that there would be 72 hours for this bill to be in the public domain before it would come to the floor. That amendment was defeated. It is very important to us that we have ample time to determine every part of this bill and how it will affect every American, every American family, and for all of the many people in the health care industry--the doctors, nurses, and all the people who provide health care in our country--to know how it will affect them, too. That is the complaint, for sure. Today I want to talk about the rising health care costs. We know that today, without any new bill, premiums are going up and Americans are being squeezed. Rising premiums are causing them to be very concerned about how much this health care coverage they have is costing. It is also squeezing small businesses, because their premiums are rising, and it is beginning to be a choice in some American businesses whether they can offer health care coverage anymore. We do need health care reform because of these rising premiums. You would think that, with the premiums going up and costs going up, and Americans being squeezed in a tough economic time, and employers being squeezed, that the position we would be taking in the Senate regarding health care reform would be to bring down costs. That would be what you would think we would be addressing. You would think we would be talking about offering more affordable coverage to more people. Texas, unfortunately, has the highest percentage of people today without health insurance coverage in the Nation. So I am very concerned about this issue. Unfortunately, 5.8 million uninsured Texans is the number we have reached. So this is a huge issue for my State. Let's look at the health care reform and how it is going to affect the rising premium costs. Inflation causes the premiums to go up every year. So what we should be looking for is a way to cut back on those costs that are hurting people so much. Here is an example: Individuals and families buying their own insurance could see premiums increase as much as 73 percent under the new Democratic proposals that are being written right now. One study projects premium increases of roughly $1,500 a year for individuals, and $3,300 a year for family coverage, in addition to the natural rise in inflation and premiums that would be ongoing anyway. This was from a study delivered by Oliver Wyman. Think about it. All of the taxes on insurance companies, the taxes on an American individual or a family that decides not to take the coverage would add to the cost as well. Then you have the cuts in Medicare that are proposed and the increase in Medicaid that is proposed, which will cost every State and every taxpayer. So you have all these increases in costs, mandates, and taxes. More alarming is, if you do have insurance today, you may not even be able to keep what you have. The President said if you like what you have, you can keep it. But under the Democrats' proposal that is going through, all plans include a long list of benefits that are required to be in every plan. Some of these may be benefits your family doesn't need or you would not choose as a priority, but they are there. So that will have a cost impact. Millions of Americans will be forced to buy more expensive plans in order to comply with these new Federal laws that are going to reform health care. When it comes to a small business, you might think: What is this going to do to a small business? Small businesses are now having a hard time because they don't have the big risk pool. So their costs are higher anyway. A small business with 20 employees is going to have higher premiums anyway, and their margins are generally less because they don't have the advantage of having big risk pools and the things that can bring down costs in a bigger business. Small businesses are going to look at these rising costs and probably say, you know, I now have to decide, do I continue to offer health care coverage to my employees or do I back off? And if I back off, of course, people will have to buy their own insurance or pay a fine if they don't. That is what is going through Congress right now. The Joint Committee on Taxation stated that ``the imposition of the excise tax on insurers can be expected to lead health insurance providers and consumers to take measures to minimize their burden from the tax. As insurers pass along the cost to the consumer by increasing prices, the cost of employer-provided insurance will increase.'' In the House bill, employers will be penalized if they don't pay for a specific percentage of employee premiums. So even if you are offering health insurance to your employees, you may still be penalized if the House bill prevails, if you don't pay the right percentage of coverage for employees. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a research study and said three out of five businesses in America that offer insurance would still have to pay the 8-percent payroll tax, because their percentages would not meet the Federal standard that would be in the House bill. That is just counterintuitive. It is counterintuitive to say if you are doing the right thing and you are offering health insurance to your employees--you are struggling to do it, but you are doing it--but if it is not the right percentage, if it is not 72.5 percent or 65 percent, then you are not going to qualify anyway, so you are going to have to pay an 8-percent fine of the entire payroll of your company. This is not the reform we should be going after. What we should be doing is trying to have more affordable health care access for individuals and small businesses. That should be our primary objective. Here are the principles the Republicans would put forward for health care reform. Small business pooling: We have offered time and time again on the floor of this Senate the small business health plan that would allow small businesses to pool, to be able to offer their employees a bigger risk pool and, therefore, lower premiums for the employee and the employer. We have offered plans that would allow a State organization or a national organization--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the American Institute of Architects, whatever association that you might join as a small business person--to offer all of their members insurance plans that would have a big risk pool so that if you work for a small business, a small architecture firm, you would be able to offer this in the same basic amounts that if you worked for a big architecture firm or big corporation. But that would not cost the government anything, and it would not change anyone's coverage if they like what they have. It would offer more affordable access to more people. If the Republicans had the ability to offer amendments to the health care bill or to offer a substitute, we would reduce frivolous lawsuits. In States where there are limits on noneconomic damages or you have an arbitration requirement before you go to a lawsuit, we have lowered the cost of medical malpractice insurance to the doctors by as much as 25 percent. Doctors have come back to practicing medicine again because these premiums have been lowered just by reducing frivolous lawsuits. This has been done in my State of Texas, California, and other States have followed suit and, no pun intended, have lowered the number of lawsuits. It has lowered the cost of the medical malpractice insurance premiums, and doctors have been able to do their work with their patients with much more freedom, knowing they do not need to order unnecessary tests just to cover themselves in case they get sued. No. 3, why not offer tax incentives? I am a cosponsor of a bill with Senator Jim DeMint that would offer tax incentives for individuals. There are small businesses and individuals who have no access to affordable coverage. It is just way too expensive. Why not give every individual who purchases their own insurance the same tax break that a corporation gets for offering health insurance to the employees? It is a nontaxable benefit to the employee. Why shouldn't the individual get that same break? Why don't we have a $5,0000-per-family tax credit if you buy your own health insurance for your family, or $2,000-per-person tax credit so that everyone is on a level playing field? That would be a huge incentive. It is a tax credit, so it would be much less expensive than what we are talking about in this government takeover of health care. How about creating a transparent, online marketplace for consumers to compare and purchase plans? That is something on which I think we could all agree. I think we could agree that if you had a health exchange where you could go online and companies would offer different kinds of plans, any company that wanted to come in with a credible plan for insurance coverage--again, a bigger risk pool so the company would have to be competitive, and it would have that lower cost--that would be a great boon for consumers and it would not cost the government anything to do that. It would just be a marketplace, a transparent place where people could shop for their plans and get a better deal because there would be more competition. We should allow the purchase of insurance across State lines. Why don't we allow the insurance companies the ability to pool States and offer individuals better prices for health care coverage? We have options that would be good options for American consumers and would give more access to affordable health care. The more people who have affordable health care, the lower cost to everyone who has health care because when people are covered, they don't go to the emergency room for a fever or a common cold. They go to a doctor's office. They have checkups so they have ongoing care to detect something before its gets so bad that it is more serious, more expensive to treat, and certainly more life-threatening. Those are the principles the Republicans would put forward. But to have a government takeover that is going to increase costs to everyone who has insurance and cause many people to lose their insurance because the employers back out is not the answer. It is not the answer. We can do something that would give affordable access to more individuals and their families. That should be the goal of this health care reform. We need health care reform. We do. We don't need a government takeover of our health care system. That is the debate we ought to be having right now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to raise serious concerns with the cap-and-trade legislation which is currently in hearings in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The committee is holding its third hearing today on the bill that would presumably be coming to the floor of the Senate. One of the panels today is going to focus on the impact on transportation of the cap-and-trade bill. I think Members deserve to know the real costs and effects this bill will have on transportation. That is what I will talk about today. Last week, Senator Bond and I unveiled a report that analyzed the fuel cost implications from the House bill that is making its way through the House. Our report forecasted a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the American economy for the life of the program, which is 2015 through 2050. At this time of economic uncertainty, with 15 million people out of work, just about every American is cutting back on spending. Do we really want to put a tax on energy and increase energy costs for families and small businesses at a time like this? I think the answer is obvious. The worst thing we could do to our struggling economy is to overburden it with new taxes and more regulations. But that is exactly what the cap-and-trade bill is doing, and that is exactly what is going through Congress right now. This past weekend, we began to see what was in the Senate bill that is being proposed. It is even more stringent than the House bill. The legislation on the Senate side would impose a huge tax on business and levy a massive economic burden on all Americans. For most Americans, gasoline is a mandatory expense, and raising the cost of it, of course, is going to strain working families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and our whole economy. Last year, when consumers experienced $4 gasoline and $5 diesel, it caused enormous hardships for Americans. Fortunately, those fuel prices were temporary. But under cap and trade, those high prices will be permanent--at least until 2050. High fuel prices don't just impact our transportation expenses; we are actually hit twice because the gas tax raises the price of every good and service--groceries, clothes--that consumers must purchase in order to live. Energy costs are, among our businesses, top operational expenses. Companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their plants and facilities to powering equipment and lighting. In order for businesses to withstand this heavier tax burden and to remain viable, they will be forced to pass fuel costs on to consumers through higher prices. Several industries will be more severely penalized by the gas tax than others. Let's take trucking. The American trucking industry is a major target of the cap-and-trade gas tax. In 2007, 1.7 million drivers of tractor trailers logged 145 billion vehicle miles, consuming 28.5 billion gallons of fuel. That equates to an annual fuel cost per vehicle of $34,560. That number will skyrocket under this cap-and-trade proposal that is going through Congress. When you consider that the average self-employed truckdriver earns only $43,000 per year in net revenue, the gas tax represents an enormous new tax on working middle-class truckers. Of course, truckers will not suffer those higher gas taxes alone. Their additional costs will be shared by every consumer in the increased price of everything they transport. At some point, nearly everything bought or sold must be shipped to a retailer. So the sweeping effect of the gas tax on every consumer, every person, every business--certainly the trucking industry but every other business-- will harm our entire economy. The pain doesn't stop with trucking. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers, who are tasked with producing high-quality goods for much of the world, will be irreparably harmed under the House's $2 trillion tax on gasoline and $1.3 trillion tax on diesel fuel. Gas and diesel fuel- powered equipment, ranging from tractors to combines to fertilizing systems, are the operational foundation of America's farms and ranches. Every extra penny they pay will be seen in the cost of goods and certainly the cost of food. Under the climate change legislation, they will face $550 million in higher fuel costs in 2020. Despite all of this pain we are going to see on our truckers, on our family farmers, and on every business, what good will it do? If there is a good side, let's look at it. It is supposed to be to help our environment. But even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator admits that unless China and India impose similar Draconian taxes and regulations, there will be no effect on world temperatures. So what is the purpose of this increase in taxes and increase in costs every American will bear? Well, there is no improvement because it is certainly common sense to know that if we do this unilaterally in the United States and put this tax on our refineries, on our exploration companies that are trying to produce more energy for our economy at a cheaper price and environmentally safely, and if others around the world don't do it--put more caps on and more regulations--and they are spewing into the world much heavier carbon emissions than the United States does now--if they don't change and we do, it will still come to our country. So there will not be any effect on the global environment. Under the bills going through today, trillion-dollar figures have been discussed so nonchalantly in Washington that it seems as if they are losing their shock value. Americans must know that $3.6 trillion in gas taxes is a real number, and it is going to have a real effect on every American. We can improve the environment and we can improve the economy. One of the things that is not being discussed, as we are talking about putting more taxes on the industries that produce energy, the bread-and-butter energy of our economy, what isn't being discussed is nuclear power. Nuclear power has been shown time and again, where it is in place, that it is inexpensive, efficient, and it is environmentally safe. There is no carbon emission from a nuclear powerplant. So why does the House bill not even address nuclear? Why are we not talking, in this administration, about nuclear power, which can be clean energy, efficient energy, and which has been proven to also have fewer consequences than once thought because the amount of nuclear waste has now been lowered to a huge extent and can be safely kept? And if we continue our research, we will probably be able to reuse the nuclear waste and put it back into more nuclear power. Why aren't we pursuing nuclear instead of just putting more taxes and regulations on the bread-and-butter energy that is produced in our country? We need to reject the cap-and-trade bills that are going through Congress right now. We need to focus on environmental policies that will make a difference in our environment, that might make a difference in our global environment. But certainly unilateral regulations and taxes just on America has been absolutely proven not to make a difference in the global economy if no other country adopts these Draconian measures, which they have all said they are not going to do. While I stand ready to support clean energy technology, nuclear power, I could not possibly support a bill that is going to wreck our economy in a very precarious time and that will send jobs away from America at a time when we know we need to increase jobs in America. It will be sending American jobs overseas where it is easier to do business and where regulation is more stable. Mr. President, what are we doing? What are we doing talking about more taxes and more regulations that will not impact the global environment? I hope that as these bills are vetted in committee, we will stop and say: Let's do something rational. Let's promote clean energy. Let's promote nuclear power. Let's don't hold back those who would be willing to make that investment and take that chance. We should not pass cap and trade, which will tax and regulate our energy industry and it will not help the environment. That is a lose- lose proposition. I hope Congress and the majority in Congress will see that this is the wrong way and stop the cap-and-trade bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great importance to our Nation's energy supply and our ability to continue producing affordable and reliable domestic energy. In particular, I would like to speak about a provision in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act conference report which pertains to a study on the use of hydraulic fracturing, an extremely important tool that will enable us to unlock the vast potential of our domestic oil and gas supplies. Hydraulic fracturing is a critical technique used in producing domestic oil and gas resources. Across the country, leaders are recognizing the growing importance of natural gas to our Nation's energy supply. Natural gas is the most abundant form of clean energy in the United States. Natural gas, including gas from coal beds and other unconventional sources, is becoming an increasingly important energy source for the United States. Most experts predict that demand for natural gas is likely to increase dramatically in the next decade. The increased production of natural gas will both enhance our energy security and help us address the problem of carbon reduction. The Interior appropriations conference report includes a provision to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. It is imperative that we ensure that any study conducted is based strictly on facts and science. Specifically, any study must be conducted in a comprehensive, scientific, credible and transparent manner. It must be based upon the best available science as well as independent sources of information. Additionally, it should allow for stakeholder participation and should be conducted in coordination with states and interstate regulator agencies. Finally, the study should seek input and participation from industry and be peer reviewed. This will ensure that the study is credible and useful I am confident that if properly conducted, the proposed study will clarify that the use of hydraulic fracturing will help to increase our domestic resource potential while posing no environmental harm.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I request to enter into a colloquy concerning appropriations for the Army's medium tactical vehicle fleet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, the Army has recently announced its decision on the future contract for the family of medium tactical vehicles, a major acquisition program in the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Several Senators--some who may join us in this colloquy--are deeply concerned about the Army's decision. However, since the Army's announcement came after the committee finished its work on this bill, Members of the committee had no opportunity to express their concern or to question the decision. Consequently, I have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle strategy. I would therefore like the chairman's commitment to having the Defense Subcommittee focus on this issue at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I support the Landrieu amendment. The year 2008 witnessed numerous devastating disasters: severe wildfires in California, floods in the Midwest, and the one-two punch of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike along the Gulf Coast. Congress responded last fall by passing a natural disaster supplemental, which in addition to providing necessary FEMA and SBA funding, provided $6.5 billion in community development block grants to support recovery. Unfortunately, the language included a restriction that has impaired these impacted communities' ability to rebuild. This amendment removes that restriction, providing flexibility for these funds to be used to their greatest impact in the community, helping these communities get back on their feet as quickly as possible. Without this amendment, many communities will be unable to balance their budget priorities, jeopardizing critical projects in the recovery process, or worse yet, leading to the abandonment of projects altogether. Communities across this Nation have been greatly impacted by natural disasters over the past several years, including the State of Texas. Tax bases have been decimated and many communities are still struggling to recover. These devastated communities want to be able to stand on their own; however, they don't currently have the resources to do so. By providing maximum flexibility of vital Federal funds, as we have for previous disasters, we remove one more barrier from their way on the road to recovery.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, Senators Lieberman, McCain, and Graham took the floor a few minutes ago. I have some concerns about the direction we are heading in Afghanistan as well. Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that success in Afghanistan would probably require more forces and certainly more time. I think all of us who are aware of what is going on there--and certainly I was there last year myself; many of us have gone over there to see for ourselves what the conditions are--and I think clearly we can all agree we are going to have more time in Afghanistan. While the Chairman did not specifically ask for more troops, and had not had a request from GEN Stanley McChrystal, who is the senior American officer and NATO commander in Afghanistan, he did, however, indicate he ``believed--having heard General McChrystal's views--and having great confidence in his leadership,'' as we all do--``a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance.'' There are currently approximately 64,000 American troops in Afghanistan. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot achieve our goals in Afghanistan unless we add additional troops and anticipate a protracted effort. To his credit, President Obama laid out a new strategy in March. It properly put primary emphasis on building the governance capacity of Afghanistan and building up Afghan security forces. He also said he would send--and has--21,000 additional U.S. troops. We know now that was probably not enough and more troops will be needed. Just this week, the President said we should ``not expect a sudden announcement of some huge change in strategy,'' and he further pledged that the issue was ``going to be amply debated, not just in Congress, but across the country.'' I welcome that debate. We need to agree as a nation on a strategy for victory, on the resources necessary to complete the mission. We need to block attempts by the cut-and-run crowd to limit the deployments and operations of U.S. troops or to tie their hands as to what they can do while they are there. We do need more Afghan forces. It should also be abundantly clear that if our strategy is going to work, we must have another resource. I want to call attention to the role of NATO. With the Taliban resurgent and casualties rising to levels never seen before in Afghanistan, we must have more security forces in Afghanistan, and it is well past time for our NATO allies to step up and do their part. The security of the free world is at stake in Afghanistan. Sometimes there has been legitimate argument about whether there is a legitimate American interest in some of the places we have gone. It cannot be questioned that in Afghanistan our security interests are at stake. In fact, the credibility of the NATO alliance is at stake, and I think whether the NATO alliance proves it can be successful and relevant in today's world is at stake in Afghanistan. NATO countries need to realize how much it is in all of our interests to defeat the Taliban resurgence and prevent a new al-Qaida safe haven from developing there. We need to prevent ungoverned territory in Afghanistan from being used by terrorists with global reach, and the only way to ensure this is through a strong and stable Afghan Government. But they are not going to get there without the help of the NATO alliance. The horrors of September 11 were only a taste of what the terrorists, with global reach, might accomplish if they have uncontested territory from which to operate. Our NATO partners need to realize that the credibility and relevance of the alliance itself is now being tested in Afghanistan. NATO no longer faces a threat on the continent of Europe or even on the periphery of Europe. For NATO to be relevant, it must have a global expeditionary role in the defense of our common interests, particularly against the threat of global terrorism. If NATO cannot succeed in Afghanistan, where we all agree NATO must succeed, the alliance will be weakened to the point that will call into question: Will it succeed anywhere? Many NATO countries are present in Afghanistan, but among them only a few are bearing the brunt of combat operations: Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and, of course, the United States. But just this week, Canada announced its intention to pull out all forces by 2011. Other NATO allies have limited operations of their troops through restrictions on their missions--restrictions that I think are a little embarrassing, frankly. For example, some nations that have signed up--part of NATO, willing to do their part in Afghanistan--refuse to conduct any operations at night. Others refuse to carry Afghan soldiers on their helicopters. Others are prohibited from participating in combat unless they are fired on and protecting their own base. In other words, they are prohibited from coming to the aid of an ally under attack. Let's be frank. If a NATO member cannot handle the responsibilities of alliance membership, they should not enjoy the privileges and prestige of membership. Our NATO allies need to remember what was agreed to in Bonn in December of 2001. The alliance gave their solemn word to help Afghanistan overcome the ravages of terrorism and civil war. The credibility of our allies is at stake. The NATO alliance has a very simple mission. It is: If one is attacked, we are all attacked. America has come to the aid of European nations well into the last century--throughout the last century. America was attacked on 9/11, 2001, and we have not seen the response that would meet the test of the mission of NATO. We have not seen our allies on the field in Iraq, with notable exceptions. Great Britain has always been there. Others have been there part time. But America has carried the lion's share. They are carrying, by far, the lion's share in Iraq today. Afghanistan is the hotbed in that area, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, of al-Qaida, which was the attacker of our country on 9/11. NATO agreed in December of 2001 that they would be engaged in Afghanistan, and yet NATO has not fulfilled its responsibility, even though the lion's share of our troops--our troops who have done an outstanding job, our troops who are fatigued from overdeployment have done their jobs--have not had the help of NATO. NATO is supported by the taxpayers of America because we thought it would be an alliance that would come to our aid, as we have come to the aid of every member of NATO. The United States pays 24 percent of the operating costs of NATO. I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, and I can tell you that the military enhancements and military construction for NATO are in the range of $230 million in this year's bill. It is usually in that range--sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. But basically America is paying a quarter of a billion dollars every year for military construction and enhancements for NATO. There are not NATO bases in America. They are in other places. Yet we are having to now put more troops on the line because our NATO allies have restrictions, except for the ones I have named that are in full combat and full partners and doing their jobs, and we appreciate that so much. But I think the NATO alliance must step up to the plate. As we are debating more troops, I know we will do what is necessary because America always does what is necessary, and I think our NATO allies know that, but sometimes they just sit back and let us do it. They let our taxpayers pay the tab. They let our troops be the ones who lead in the field. We went to Bosnia. Bosnia was in their backyard, but they needed us to step in; also in Kosovo. We have been there for them to step in because when it is necessary America is there. But when we are debating the increase in troop strength in Afghanistan--which everyone who has been there knows we are going to need--let's not forget to bring in another source that would help America in this time of need, while we are continuing to keep our commitments in Iraq with very little help from the outside, while we still have troops in Bosnia, and while we have 64,000 troops, the lion's share, in Afghanistan. Now we are looking at sending more, and I think now is the time for us to put it on the table for our NATO allies, that they have a commitment, if the NATO alliance is relevant. ``If one is attacked, we are all attacked'' is a great, simple, clear mission. But it is not simply successful because we have the right mission. It takes every member doing its fair share. And, most certainly, at a time when America is doing so much more, this is the time for our allies to take the shackles off, to engage, to be in combat, to put our treasure on the line with their treasure and not just our treasure alone. I think it is time for us--and I call on the President--and fulfill the mission. Terrorism is the enemy of every NATO country. This is not an American fight. It is a global fight for freedom. If we lose in Afghanistan and give unfettered territory for operations of al-Qaida, every NATO country will be attacked. Don't they see it? Don't they have the commitment and the courage to stand up? Just because it is in another country and seems far away, can they be so naive? When we talk about more American troops, as the President has said we will, I ask the President to look for more troops from other sources as well and to ask our allies to step to the plate and be our partners as NATO envisioned. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has a compelling biography. As the first daughter of a young Puerto Rican couple, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her father, a factory worker, died when she was 9 years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised her and her younger brother, and instilled in them a belief in the power of education. Judge Sotomayor excelled in school. She graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton University, where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system. Today, she serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. An appointee of President Clinton on the Second Circuit Court, she has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions, and authored roughly 400 published opinions. When I met with Judge Sotomayor last month, I found her to be a very likeable woman. She also displayed these traits during her Senate confirmation hearings. If she is confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice--an ascendency that will mark a historical moment for our country. I have, throughout my career, been a strong supporter of Hispanic nominees for judicial appointments and confirmation. I am proud of the fact that, of the 40 judges I have had a role in nominating for the district courts in Texas, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 30 percent have been Hispanic. Likewise, I was a strong supporter of Miguel Estrada, who, like Judge Sotomayor, had an incredibly compelling life story, but whose nomination for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit was filibustered. I believe the decision of whether to support a nominee for the Federal courts--and especially the highest court--must be grounded in qualification and judicial philosophy. She certainly meets the academic and experience criteria for service on our country's highest court. The criteria for judicial philosophy for my concurrence is to apply the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret the Constitution, not amend it by judicial decree. One of the most important and recently confirmed constitutional rights is the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. This wasn't an accident. They knew from their experience in the Revolutionary War that a free people must have the right to possess and bear arms. The second amendment clearly says: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' Although some people are confused by the word ``militia,'' it is clear that the Founders did not use the word ``militia'' to mean that gun rights could only be used in an organized army. The Framers did not intend for this right to be a ``collective'' right. If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with article 1 section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power ``to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.'' The Framers went further than that. They wanted to ensure that gun ownership was recognized by posterity as an ``individual right.'' So they included it as part of the Bill of Rights, which is a compilation of protected individual liberties such as free speech, freedom of religion, and a fair trial. The second amendment ensures that every American can secure his freedom, and defend his life and property, if necessary. In that sense, the right to keep and bear arms could very well be one of our most important rights--because it is the right from which all of our other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, et cetera are secured. That's why, last year, I led a congressional effort to support the affirmation of the second amendment as an important individual right in the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller, which overturned Washington, DC's unconstitutional ban on handguns. In that case, Senator Tester and I, joined by 53 of our colleagues and 250 members of the U.S. House, filed a ``friend of the court'' brief in favor of Dick Heller, who simply wished to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself and his family. That brief was proof that a majority in Congress believe that the second amendment is a constitutionally secured individual right. It was the first time in history that a majority of the House and Senate sent this type of brief to the Supreme Court. In the case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right for the first time in almost seven decades. Unfortunately, however, just a few months ago, even after the Supreme Court's verdict in D.C. v. Heller, Judge Sotomayor issued an opinion in another case, Maloney v. Cuomo refusing to acknowledge that the second amendment is a fundamental right, and therefore may not be binding on the States. As a strong advocate of the second amendment, I cannot ignore this decision. I am very troubled by Judge Sotomayor's opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo because it appears to disregard an instruction by the Supreme Court in Heller specifically regarding fundamental rights. In Footnote 23 of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court stated: ``With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.'' These ``later cases'' to which the court is referring held most Bill of Rights guarantees to be incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th amendment against State violation. This was a clear instruction to the circuits that in future second amendment cases they will need to confront the incorporation argument and do so following the Supreme Court's line of cases on incorporation. I must take issue with Judge Sotomayor's per curiam opinion in Maloney because while her opinion references the Heller footnote, it only acknowledges the portion noting the continued validity of Supreme Court precedent indicating the second amendment is not binding on the States. Her court failed to recognize the instruction to conduct the contemporary 14th amendment incorporation analysis the Heller footnote demands. As such, the Sotomayor opinion reaches the conclusion that the cases from the 1890s are still applicable--and therefore, basically, the second amendment is not binding on the states. When questioned by the Judiciary Committee about the Maloney case, Judge Sotomayor said she was following precedent. However, she did not follow the instruction of the Supreme Court in Heller on this point. In Maloney, the Second Circuit cites the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Presser v. Illinois, decided in 1886, and the Second Circuit opinion Bach v. Pataki, decided in 2005. Judge Sotomayor determines that Presser and Bach instruct the court to maintain Presser 's conclusion that the second amendment is not applicable to the States. But Heller's Footnote 23 asks the Court to ``engage in a Fourteenth Amendment inquiry.'' I specifically asked Judge Sotomayor when we met why she did not follow this instruction, articulated just last year by the Court? I did not receive a satisfactory explanation to this very pivotal question, nor did I hear one in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Heller is precedent, and in this precedent, the Supreme Court tells the circuits to perform a 14th amendment inquiry. In April of this year, the Ninth Circuit considered the same second amendment incorporation question. While also looking to Presser for guidance, the Ninth Circuit turned to its own circuit precedent, Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp, and--like the Second Circuit--it would have been inclined to conclude that the second amendment did not apply to the States. However, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it had not yet engaged ``in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by [the Supreme Court's] later cases,'' and therefore undertook the due process incorporation analysis as envisioned by the Heller footnote. At the conclusion of the analysis, the Ninth Circuit finds that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'' and ``compels [us] to recognize that it is indeed fundamental'' and is therefore incorporated by the due process clause of the 14th amendment and applied against the states and local governments. Let me repeat that. The Ninth Circuit's opinion holds that the second amendment protects an individual's liberty, and because that protection is enumerated and so fundamental, the due process clause guarantees it, and the second amendment is therefore binding on the States. We cannot escape the fact that both courts, each bound by the same Heller precedent, reached opposite conclusions, with Judge Sotomayor's opinion failing to subject the second amendment to the incorporation analysis required by the Supreme Court, and failing to identify the second amendment as a fundamental right, binding against the States. It is from this fact, this outcome, that I am unable to reconcile with my earnest desire to confirm the first Hispanic Justice to the Supreme Court. With the circuit courts split on the question of whether the second amendment is an individual right protected against State infringement, the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have this issue before it in the upcoming term. With the constitutional right to keep and bear arms hanging in the balance, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm a nominee whose judicial record indicates an unwillingness to protect and defend such a fundamental, individual right. For that reason, I must oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. I similarly opposed the confirmation of Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year due to his stance on the second amendment embodying a collective right rather than an individual right. One added point. I am troubled by a line in her February 25, 2005, speech at the Duke Law School, ``Court of Appeals is where policy is made.'' This is a troubling statement in the area of judicial philosophy. As I have stated earlier, I believe policy is made by elected officials who must be accountable through elections, not by Federal judges with lifetime appointments. Judge Sotomayor is without a doubt an intelligent, experienced, and capable nominee, and she will bring much needed diversity to the Court. But, after careful examination, I cannot support her confirmation to the highest court in the land.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a sense-of- the-Senate resolution that I am offering. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution seeks to address drought aid that producers in my home State of Texas desperately need. Texas is in the throes of one of the worst droughts in 50 years. We are seeing the hottest, driest summer on record over a large portion of the State, but especially in central and south Texas. Lack of rainfall and sustained record triple-digit temperatures for weeks have scorched crops and rangeland throughout parts of Texas causing drought losses to reach $3.6 billion. The Texas AgriLife Extension Service predicts this total could rise above $4.1 billion in producer losses if sufficient rainfall isn't received to revive crops and forage. In the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also known as the farm bill, which I supported, Congress established five permanent disaster programs to deliver timely and immediate assistance to producers recovering from losses. The logic behind establishing the permanent disaster program was to ensure producers who have eligible losses receive timely assistance. I agreed with the inclusion of this provision and I supported it. For too many years, producers had to wait months and even years to receive assistance from USDA. The problem today is USDA has not finalized any of the five disaster programs included in the farm bill. While the Department is working to finalize these programs, farmers and ranchers in Texas are seeing their crops, and livestock heards, diminish due to the excessive heat and drought. My sense of the Senate simply urges the Secretary of USDA to use any of his discretionary authority to provide immediate assistance for producers who are sustaining losses as a result of this extraordinary drought. The Secretary has authority to provide quick assistance and he has used these authorities in past extraordinary circumstances. Our farmers and ranchers need immediate assistance; they cannot continue to wait for bureaucratic reg. writing. Please join me in encouraging the Secretary to use the tools at his disposal to provide any available assistance as quickly as possible. Amendment No. 2240

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the transfer of the highway trust fund money. I do, of course, support having the money in the highway fund because so many States need to have this money and we need to assure it is there. I also support the amendments that would use the stimulus money so it would not be new money. But I do wish to talk about the highway trust fund because I think it is important, as we are talking about this very important transportation issue for our States, that we begin the debate about whether the highway trust fund is now the appropriate vehicle for keeping our Federal highways repaired and also doing the best for every State in transportation. What concerns me is that the first reason for the highway trust fund back in President Eisenhower's day over 50 years ago has been achieved. Yet we are still continuing to have the same formulas where some States are winners and some States are losers. But every State today has the capacity to determine its own priorities and the capacity to fund those priorities, unlike 50 years ago when there were many States that had very little capacity. They had little property, they had little taxable revenue sources, and therefore there was a need for a national system of highways to assure that we had national security. That was the first reason for it--but also mobility and commerce. Today, however, I think it is time for us to start all over. I think it is time for us to allow States to opt out of the highway trust fund. Of course, I am speaking for the largest donor State in America. We give more back to other States than any other State. We are a State that has more highway miles than any other State; therefore, we collect more taxes. Because we are a donor State, we give the most away. If these were States that could not meet their own needs and my State of Texas was a State that had its needs covered, maybe you could argue that would be OK. But, in fact, that is not the case. In fact, Texas is facing a huge shortage in our highway funding. We now have two cities that have mass transit systems that are certainly very successful but very far behind the curve when it comes to the transportation glut on our highways. We need to have the money in Texas to start meeting our great transportation needs. This also affects our environment, because when we have people clogged in traffic, sitting on freeways hour after hour, of course it is bad for the ability to get where you want to go, but it is also bad for the environment to have the fumes going in the air. I think today it is time for us to start the debate. Why not let a State opt out, agree to keep in good repair the Federal highway system and allow the States to use their own taxpayer dollars for their own priorities to meet their own transportation and mobility needs? If Texas could keep all the money it raises, rather than toll roads, which are now being contemplated throughout our State, perhaps we could have a mobility plan that would include highways, rapid transit, high-speed rail, and more innovative ideas that are very costly, which we cannot afford at this time. Obviously, today we are going to go forward with extending the trust fund and replenishing the highway trust fund because that is what people want to do because we don't have time to address the whole issue of reauthorization at this very complicated time. I wish we were not going to consider an 18 month extension in September because I think we ought to have a short-term extension, so we do have the reauthorization of the highway bill, so we can start discussing these priorities--so we can start maybe thinking outside the box. Maybe we can start all over. The highway trust fund and the highway authorization bill is a mishmash of different projects. I don't think there is fairness in the system at all. You have donor States, you have winner States, and the winner States have all the capacity. The loser States have as much need as the winner States, and the winner States have the ability, I believe, to fund their own options. Even though I know we are going to extend the highway bill for 18 months by the end of September, and I know we are going to replenish the highway fund today--and I wish it would be from our stimulus package so it would not be yet another deficit-inducing measure from this Congress--I think I am going to lose all the arguments I am making. But I do think it important that we bring this issue to the forefront. There is no reason in this country today for winner States and loser States. Our States should be able to plan for themselves, make their own priorities, meet their needs, be able to be more efficient, have multimodal systems--which is what I hope for Texas--and be able to use our own tax dollars for our own needs. Were we a State that did not have needs, were we a State that was not growing, maybe we could afford to continue giving 8 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. Maybe we could afford to leave the 8 cents in Washington. Instead, we are getting 92 cents back for every $1 we send to Washington. That is hundreds of millions of dollars that we need for our high-growth State that has many traffic problems and congestion problems today. We will repair our highways. We would sign an agreement to repair our highways so there would be no Federal responsibility for that. But I hope this argument will be the beginning of a debate so we can instate a system that will be more in tune with today's times, 50 years after the National Highway System was created--a wonderful system that connects our country but one, now, that is finished. We have our National Highway System. We do have connectivity among our States. Why not allow the States to go out from those Federal highway miles and lanes, to go into their States in the best way for each individual State? I thank Senator Brown for allowing me to speak on this issue. I hope, as we go through, we will have more of a discussion. I do have a bill introduced that would allow States to opt out. It is something I think the time has come to address. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1864 be called up and changed with the modifications at the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that basically is to fill a needed gap in wind energy research. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado; from Professor Daniel Kammen at the University of California, Berkeley; and from the American Wind Energy Association.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that we pass this amendment, which would require $8 million of the $85 million already in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy to be competitively awarded to universities for turbine equipment purchases to study turbine performance, because there is a lack of understanding about why wind farms are experiencing premature turbine component failures and power underperformance, and this is an area we need to address. I ask my colleagues to support the acceptance of my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if there is going to be a quorum call, I ask unanimous consent that I speak until the agreement has been reached.