Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Gregg Costa and David Guaderrama for their nominations to the Federal district bench. I want to say that Mr. Costa--and I will mention this again--asked not to be confirmed until after the case that he was working on was finished. His case was the prosecution of Robert Allen Stanford, who swindled so many Texans and other Americans out of money they had invested. Frankly, he was all over the country in his representation. Mr. Costa asked not to be confirmed until he could finish that case because it was complicated and he was the lead on it. So there has been no delay on our part at all on his nomination. As I understand it, we have confirmed the same--roughly the same--number of district judges as President George Bush and President Clinton did in their first terms. To my knowledge, we are not holding up nominations at all. In fact, of course, Senator Cornyn and I both highly recommended Mr. Costa and Mr. Guaderrama to the President for his nomination because we have a process that assures we nominate to the President the most qualified people to fill these spots. We have a bipartisan legal committee that vets them comprised of people who know the legal community in Texas, and so, therefore, they know the reputations of these lawyers, and our committee system has worked very well. I have served on it with Senator Gramm, as I have with Senator Cornyn, and we agree on the quality of these nominees. So I don't think there is a delay, and I am very pleased to be able to have nominated these two fine lawyers to the President. I would like to talk first about Mr. Costa, who did ask to wait for his confirmation, but now he is ready because the case he was working on was decided. Mr. Costa will be serving in the Southern District in Galveston, TX, where I was born. Mr. Costa was born in Baltimore, MD, and grew up in Richardson, TX. He attended Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in government and then continued his studies at the University of Texas School of Law where he served as editor-in-chief of the Texas Law Review and received his juris doctorate with highest honors in 1996. Mr. Costa's professional career includes being a law clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2001, as well as his current position serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston. As the co- lead counsel for the United States in the prosecution of Robert Allen Stanford, Mr. Costa secured a conviction of 13 charges of conspiracy, wire, and mail fraud. Mr. Costa has been credited by his colleagues as the glue that held the case together. His dedication to this case and these victims shows the core of his character. The fact he asked for a delay in his confirmation because he wanted to finish this case and assure that convictions would be obtained makes me proud and pleased to support his nomination to the Federal bench. I am also pleased to support the nomination of Judge David Campos Guaderrama to the Western District of Texas in El Paso. Judge Guaderrama is originally from New Mexico and moved to El Paso, TX, at a young age. He attained two bachelor degrees from New Mexico State University in political science and psychology, then earned his juris doctorate degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1979. In 1987, Judge Guaderrama was appointed as the first chief public defender of El Paso County and continued in that service until he was elected to the 243rd Judicial District Court in 1995. As a testament to his service to the El Paso community, Judge Guaderrama has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District for the last 2 years. During his three decades serving in the Texas legal system, Judge Guaderrama has earned many accolades for his help and leadership in initiating and enacting several successful judicial programs in west Texas. He has demonstrated a strong commitment to the El Paso community, and I am confident he will serve on the Federal bench well and I support his nomination. I would also say Senator Cornyn also supports these two judges. Of course, Senator Cornyn sits on the Judiciary Committee. Our judicial evaluation committee, which is bipartisan, has served so well to give us the highest quality nominees on the bench, and our committee did select both these nominees as their first choices after their interviews and input from the legal community in both El Paso and Houston, which includes the Galveston part of the district. These nominations have been well vetted. They have been supported by both sides of the aisle, and we are very pleased to put forward these two quality nominees. Senator Cornyn as well is very strongly in support of them. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the time allotment at present?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator. I would just say I have had a long record in this area. When I was a member of the State legislature, Texas passed the most far-reaching protection for victims of rape in the whole country. I was the lead sponsor of that bill. When we passed it in 1975, it then became the model other States used to strengthen the laws to help these victims. One day, just in this last year, I was at a grocery store in Dallas, TX. A woman came up to my truck I was driving, knocked on the window. I had no idea what she was going to say, but I rolled down the window. She said: Senator Hutchison, thank you for the bill you passed in Texas in 1975--because I was a victim of rape, and I would not have gone forward without your protections. But I did and that man was sent to prison. That is what we are here for, and that is why I have this strong substitute.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, No. 2095 takes the part of the bill that reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act and continues those, but it does important things that are not in the underlying bill: No. 1, a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for aggravated sexual assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim unconscious is not in the underlying bill. It is in our substitute. No. 2, it grants administrative subpoena power to U.S. Marshals so they can have the ability to quickly find a known sexual predator. This has been cited by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as a key part of the need to help get these offenders when they are going to prey on children. It is not in the underlying bill; it is in ours. It protects Indian women on reservations in a constitutional way. The underlying bill has been questioned as to constitutionality by the Congressional Research Service.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. And it also does what the Cornyn and Klobuchar amendments attempted to do and assure that we get this backlog of people who have committed rape off the streets. Please support this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back time on our side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Violence Against Women Act. Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a bill that has many good parts, and I was listening to the things he said about it and agree with many of them. Because there are some areas of disagreement, I have worked with many of my colleagues to create a substitute that has the same coverage but is better in other ways also. So I hope we will have the ability to look at both and that from that we would be able to pass a bill out of the Senate to address the violence against women we see in our country. Our bill, as Senator Leahy's bill does, actually covers men, who we know now are also subject to this kind of violence. So our bill covers men who have suffered the same kinds of victimization as women and whom we covered 16 years ago. I would like to point out that I have been championing this issue for a very long time. When I was in the Texas Legislature, I learned there were serious problems in the reporting and prosecution of rape in our country. The State statute in Texas in the early 1970s discouraged reporting because of embarrassment to the victim and the difficulty of obtaining convictions because victims were not willing to come forward and report rapes because they felt they were treated like a criminal sometimes. If they actually did report it and agree to help the prosecution, their treatment on the witness stand was so humiliating they often gave up. So the reports of rape were often not made. This was true in Texas, but it was true throughout our country. I worked with Democratic members in our legislature and led the effort to strengthen victim protection in this area, and it included limiting irrelevant questions asked by law enforcement officials and attorneys and redefining the meaning of consent, all of which enhanced the privacy rights of our victims. We created a statute of limitations that was more in line with other crimes of assault and battery. Our bill was so good when it passed in 1975 that it became a model for other States that were passing legislation. So this was the beginning of the effort to do just that. It was the model bill many States looked at to adapt and adopt in their States to protect the victims of violent crimes in our country. In the Senate, it was my bill that created the Amber Alert system that would go across State lines. I worked with Senator Feinstein on that bill, and our bill has saved 550 abducted children. That has been documented. So we have been able to do some things on a bipartisan basis. I have also strongly supported the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and stalking across State lines was also in my bill. So I have been in this effort for a long time. Of course, 16 years ago when the Violence Against Women Act first passed, we did so unanimously, on a voice vote. Everyone supported it. We now have to renew this bill yet again, and I hope we are going to come together tomorrow to pass it. I am going to support Senator Leahy's bill. I like many parts of it. I also think we can improve it in the areas I have included in my substitute, and I hope we will be able to pass that as well. Our bill keeps much of the committee-reported bill intact. For instance, I am cosponsoring Senator Klobuchar's bill to take the stalking bill I passed originally into cyber stalking because that was not a problem when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act but is a problem today. The current legislation I am going to introduce will update and strengthen current law and fix some weaknesses that I think are in Senator Leahy's bill. Our bill updates current law by mandating tougher sentences for violent crimes, increasing support for sexual assault investigations and rape kit testing, and requiring more effective Justice Department oversight of grant programs to ensure scarce funds aren't wasted. This was done as a result of the IG in the Justice Department saying there was not enough oversight and not enough auditing of the grants to ensure they go to the victims and victims' rights organizations for which they are intended. Our bill is one I certainly hope we will be able to pass. One of the trends--and not a good trend--in this country right now is the downward curve of sentences handed out in Federal courts for child pornography. The most recent report to Congress from the U.S. Sentencing Commission notes that child pornography defendants are being sentenced to terms below Federal sentencing guidelines in 45 percent of the cases. Almost half of these defendants are receiving less than the recommended sentences. In one particularly egregious instance, a man was convicted of knowingly possessing hundreds of child pornography pictures and videos of 8- to-10-year-old girls being abused. I can hardly even talk about that, but even worse, the sentencing guidelines called for this man to receive 63 to 78 months of imprisonment, yet he was sentenced to 1 day in prison. That is ridiculous. It is obscene in and of itself. Our bill would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in these cases. If I could have written this bill by myself, it would have been more. So a minimum of 1 year for child pornography showing 8- to-10- year-old girls being violated. That is hard to talk about, and we need to do something about it. Our substitute does create a minimum sentence for this type of violation. We have many other provisions in our bill that are very strong. My substitute is one I think we can put together with Senator Leahy's bill when we go to conference. I know the House is going to pass a bill. They are introducing their own. We will go to conference on this bill, and we will come out with a good bill if everyone will cooperate because we are on the same path. I think our bill is a good and solid one. I am looking forward to talking about it tomorrow, having a vote, and I hope we will be able to go forward with the sincerity I think everyone has on this issue. I think Senator Cornyn has a wonderful amendment that will also increase getting rid of the backlog in the rape testing kits so that people who are guilty of these crimes can be found through the testing and stopped from committing future crimes on victims. That is the purpose. So Senator Cornyn and I hope to be able to have our amendments brought forward tomorrow--two amendments--and with Senator Leahy's bill, we can pass this and send it to the House. Something is going to pass the Senate, and I hope we will just have a minimum ability to move on our very respectable alternatives or amendments and then go to conference, where we can come out with a bill that extends this very important act in our country. Mr. President, I have four letters of support for our bill. One letter is from a rape prevention and victim protection group. The PROTECT group says their support is for strengthening Federal sentencing of child sexual exploitation. The Shared Hope International organization is very supportive of the parts of our bill that have gotten into the international realm of trafficking. The Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, which is the largest rape victim organization in America, has written a very strong letter of support, as has the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. I hope we will be able to talk again tomorrow about these pieces of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the four letters to which I referred.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 3606, the JOBS Act, which we passed in the Senate last Thursday, March 22, 2012 by a vote of 73 26. I am very pleased that this legislation passed with such strong bipartisan support, particularly because it includes a measure which I authored to update the shareholder threshold before which banks must register their securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Title VI of the JOBS Act is based off of S. 1941, which I introduced on December 5, 2011 with Senator Mark Pryor. Section 601 of this title increases the registration threshold for banks and bank holding companies to 2,000 persons and the deregistration threshold to 1,200 person. As the author of Title VI of the JOBS Act, I welcome today's consideration of H.R. 3606 in the House of Representatives and the endorsement that President Obama has given this job-creating legislation in a Statement of Administration Policy. The new thresholds for registration and deregistration are effective upon the President's signature since no rulemaking is necessary. It is the intent of Congress that this new law should apply immediately to banks and bank holding companies so that they can raise additional capital to increase lending in their communities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, one of the six components of the House-passed JOBS Act is a measure I sponsored here in the Senate to foster capital formation in the community banking industry. I appreciate the support of Senator Toomey and twelve additional cosponsors, including Senators Pryor, McCaskill and Bill Nelson. Our bill would update the threshold before a bank must register its securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission from 500 shareholders to 2,000. It is Title 6 in the JOBS Act before us today. My colleague Senator Toomey has a bill contained in the JOBS Act as well that would raise the shareholder threshold for all companies. Senator Toomey's legislation is contained in Title 5 of the JOBS Act. On this point, my understanding is that Sections 501 and 601 of the JOBS Act address two distinct classes of issuers. One is a general provision for all issuers other than banks and bank holding companies-- and the other one applies to banks and bank holding companies. I ask the Senator, is this correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand and add my experiences with and admiration for Senator Barbara Mikulski. It is fitting that she is now the longest serving woman in the U.S. Congress. When I first got here--I was elected in 1993--Barbara Mikulski, as the dean of the women in the Senate, had a workshop the previous year for the newly elected Democratic women Senators. When I arrived in 1993, she expanded it to include all new women Senators, and her sort of opening comment was, civility starts with us. Surely, she has carried through as the dean of the women of the Senate to ensure that all the new women get their bearings in the Senate, that they get the advice of the ones who have been here before. It has been a huge help and really a fun opportunity for us to get to know each other on a personal level as we have our women Senators' dinners. From this came a book Senator Mikulski and I worked on together. The genesis of the book--which became ``Nine and Counting,'' the nine women Senators who were here in the year 2000--came from a meeting called by Senator Mikulski to meet with the women of Northern Ireland, along with the women of Ireland, when there was so much strife in that country. Barbara Mikulski called all of the women Senators together, our nine, to give encouragement and advice to the women who were trying to bring the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland together so that there could be a peaceful conclusion to the conflicts in Northern Ireland. From that, as we were sharing our stories to show the women of Northern Ireland how much they could do, from our experiences and our overcoming of obstacles, Barbara Mikulski and I sat down and said: You know, I think we have a book here. If each of the nine women Senators could write a chapter about our obstacles and our beginnings in politics and help encourage other young women and girls to aspire to and be able to succeed in politics, then we ought to do it. So we worked with a publisher. We got together and decided how we would lay it out. We then decided as a group that we would give all of the proceeds to the Girl Scouts of America because almost each of us had been a Girl Scout at one point. From so from that we put a book out, which is still being sold here in the Senate bookshop called ``Nine and Counting.'' It has given a lot of money to the Girl Scouts of America, to a leadership fund so that they can continue to create girls who will be leaders in our country. But that started with the meeting Barbara put together for those of us who could maybe give advice and help these women of Northern Ireland. When I came into the Senate in 1993, the first thing I wanted to do was give equal treatment to women who work at home in their ability to save for retirement as those who workout outside the home. I had the experience, as a single working woman, of putting aside some money for my IRA, and then when I married my husband Ray, I found out I could put aside only $250 in an IRA. I said: Wait a minute. Why would someone working inside the home--a woman who is probably going to need retirement security more than any of us-- not be able to save for her own retirement security if she is a married woman? So I authored the Homemaker IRA, and of course I wanted to have a Democrat lead because we had a Democratic Congress. So I asked Senator Mikulski, and she said she would absolutely sign on--as she always does--when it is something that is going to benefit women. So it became the Hutchison-Mikulski bill. I said to Barbara: I want this bill to pass. I don't care if my name is first. I would love to put your name first if you think that will help us get it through. She said: Absolutely not. I would not take your name off that bill for anything because it was your idea. There are not very many people in this body who would make that gesture and also put her weight behind the passage of the bill. Of all the things I have done and that we have done together, Barbara, and of all the things that bill is going to affect the most people in our country because now we have the Homemaker IRA that passed in 1996 that allows women--whether they are married and working at home or outside the home and single or married--they will be able to set aside the same amount. Fortunately, that amount has grown, and so it is not $2,000, but it can be $2,500 or $3,000 or $5,000, depending on their age. It is a wonderful thing we were able to do together. Senator Mikulski and I also worked on behalf of Afghan women. When we started hearing the atrocities that were happening to the women of Afghanistan that were brought back by great women's organizations, such as Vital Voices, that told stories of not only unequal treatment of women in Afghanistan but inhumane treatment of women in Afghanistan. Senator Mikulski, Senator Clinton, and I introduced the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act, which was signed into law in December of 2001, which authorized funding for women in Afghanistan and Afghan refugee women. Political participation was supported for Afghan women, and we followed up with appropriations. I have to say our Republican President, President Bush, and our Democratic President, President Obama, have always said American money will go into Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else to support equally the education of girls and boys; that we would support women where they are not being treated as equals on a human rights basis. So our Presidents have stood and, of course, our bipartisanship in Congress has done the right thing. Again, Senator Mikulski is a leader in that area. I cannot think of a stronger supporter in this Senate than Barbara Mikulski in the area of NASA. I wish to say Senator Bill Nelson also has been such a strong supporter, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander, but Senator Mikulski and I now are the--she is the chairman and I am the ranking Republican on the committee that is appropriating for NASA. We are also fortunate to have Chairman Jay Rockefeller on the authorizing and oversight committee for NASA. He, too, has been such a strong leader in assuring that we continue America's preeminence in space. When the rubber hits the road in appropriations, Senator Mikulski has been there to say: We are going to have the science in the Hubble telescope, which has given us so much information, as well the James Webb telescope. Now, of course, we have the human space flight issues and Barbara Mikulski has been right there saying, of course we are going to utilize the International Space Station, of course we are going to keep America's priorities in space because it has done so much for our economy and our jobs and our technology and our health care improvements, but it has also been a national security issue that Barbara Mikulski recognizes, first and foremost. I cannot match a lot of the stories about Barbara Mikulski and her personality, but I can tell you I took Barbara Mikulski to tour the Johnson Space Center in 2001, and we did a wonderful event at Baylor College of Medicine to talk about the research that is being done in the biomedical sciences and on the space station. I thought, I am going to bring Barbara where we can show her a little bit of Texas. We know Texas has a lot of personality and sometimes we are thought to have a little too much fun, but I will tell you what, Barbara is one of us. I brought her to the Houston rodeo. During the month of the Houston rodeo, everybody is ``Go Texas,'' and everybody dresses Texan, which means cowboy, and we have a great time. So I took Barbara Mikulski into the steer auction, where just this past Saturday a steer was sold for $460,000. It is a grand champion steer, I might say. All of that money goes for scholarships for our young people to go to college. Barbara came into the steer auction, and she looked around. There were 2,000 people at the breakfast before all these people are going to go and bid on the steers so we can fund scholarships. We were all dressed appropriately for Texas, and she reached over to my ear and she whispered: Now, Kay, if we were here on Monday morning and we went to a chamber of commerce meeting, do these people look like this? I love to tell that story in Houston because it gets huge laughs. She won over everybody in Houston. They adored her from the beginning. She put on her cowboy hat, she rode in the grand entry on a buckboard and she became an honorary Texan in our hearts. So Barbara Mikulski knows how to win over others. Let me mention one of my early experiences when I first came into the Senate. There was an effort to have health care reform. A program was put forward and this particular program had some things that were good, but one of the things in it was that no health insurance coverage would be required for women to have mammograms if they were 40 or below. I will tell you something, the biggest eruption in the Senate was Barbara Mikulski saying: Are you kidding? I will not let this go by me in the Senate. We are not going to say that a woman who is 40 or under is not going to be eligible for insurance coverage for a mammogram. It is not going to happen. Barbara Mikulski took the lead, and I am going to tell you, the first thing that came out of that plan was that provision, and it will never be in a plan as long as Barbara Mikulski is in the Senate. So I am just going to tell anybody who is looking at health care reform, take a little advice, don't mess with Barbara Mikulski because we are going to have mammograms. Not only that, Barbara Mikulski came forward in the next month and passed unanimously in the Senate a mammogram standards bill. During this process she learned that there were varying degrees of standards of mammography. She was going to make sure there were standards that every clinic would have, that every piece of equipment would have and she led the effort. It is law today. I will end with yet another accomplishment; that is, single-sex education in public schools. Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri started looking at the issue and said: We need to allow our public schools to offer single-sex education--meaning girl schools and boy schools-- because so many of us have seen that we have to adapt education for the needs of each individual child to the best of our ability. We know there are so many wonderful private schools for boys and girls, but we could hardly have a public school that would be single sex in this country in the 1990s. So Jack Danforth started the effort, and when he left the Senate, I picked it up. The more I looked at it, the more I saw the benefits to boys and to girls--particularly in the middle and high school grades-- were palpable. Senators Clinton, Barbara Mikulski, Susan Collins, the three of them, had gone to an all-girls school. I had not, but they knew the benefits firsthand of single-sex education. Barbara was the product of single-sex education, having gone to a parochial school. I first introduced the amendment in 1998, but it was in 2001--when the four of us came together--that we actually got the bill passed through an amendment and that amendment then not only made public single-sex education an option and legal, it also made it eligible for Federal funding grants similar to all our public schools. I wish to say it has been one of the joys of my time in the Senate to work with Senator Barbara Mikulski, and I think this 4-foot-11-inch mighty-might has 10 times the impact. She has made an impact on Congress and an impact on America because she is relentless, she is reasonable, she understands an issue, and she understands the importance of listening as well as talking. She is effective and she is respected. If there is anyone in the Senate who doesn't like her, respect her, and work well with her, I have not met them. When one is the longest serving woman in the Senate and Congress, they have worked with a lot of people. She is unanimously so well regarded, I have never met an enemy of hers. I will close by saying the people who know her best love her most, and I cannot think of a finer thing to say about any person. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am not going to call up my amendment that would limit the tolling federal highways, and limit tolling of Federal Interstates under the Pilot Program through which three facilities have been conditionally approved by the Department of Transportation. Senator Carper and I have talked, and his amendment, which would have expanded that, is also filed but is not going to be considered. Mine also was filed but it is not going to be considered. Here is the point, though. It is time that we have a real discussion and a debate about tolling. We need to bring this out. I ask the chairman and ranking members of the committee to have a hearing. Let's talk about this. When President Eisenhower said we need a National Highway System it was for the purpose of national security. That was his major purpose, but it has also clearly been a huge help for commerce, the ease of commerce and travel among our States. I don't think President Eisenhower ever envisioned that a State would then put tolls across an entire Federal highway and make the taxpayers--who have paid for 50 years to build these highways, and not just in their States--pay again to use them. To me, that is not in keeping with the vision of President Eisenhower to have a free system that supports national defense, connectivity, and commerce. I am not going to offer my amendment and Senator Carper is not going to offer his amendment that would expand tolling. But I do think it is essential that we have a new policy for our highways that have been built for 50 years to give us the vision that President Eisenhower had of a National Highway System. We have completed it, the skeleton has been completed, now it is time to look at different ways of funding these highways. No. 1, I agree with tolling on one lane where there is at least the addition of a new free lane. That is fine so as long as you have the same number of free lanes for the people of the United States who have paid for these lanes and the truckers of the United States who are using these lanes. I do not object to tolling that adds new capacity, but to take all free lanes away and say we are going to toll the truckers and the taxpayers who have built and used these freeways is wrong. I think we should have a policy against it. I see the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is here, Senator Boxer. I ask as we move through this--and I do hope we have this 2-year bill, and I commend her and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for a 2-year bill that does keep our infrastructure going. But I hope in the future, as Congress considers a long-term bill, that we would have a national discussion on tolling. I think we should adopt a policy that says, No. 1, we are not going to clog the freeways already built by taxpayers with toll lanes that make Americans pay again; and, No. 2, that we will open up the possibility that States that are donor States, that are giving their hard-earned tax dollars to other States that now have equal ability to build out, that they be allowed to opt out of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and use their transportation dollars for their needs. We are a fast-growing State, as is the State of California. We need our highway dollars for our own priorities. I think that should be considered in the future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about an important issue that is going to be addressed on the highway bill. I have an amendment that would basically say you cannot toll a Federal highway unless it is for the production of another free lane. This is an effort to curb a State from tolling every lane of a highway that has been built with Federal dollars by Federal taxpayers. When President Eisenhower established the National Highway System, it was on behalf of national security that he made this monumental policy decision which has taken us years, tens of years to complete. It has had the added advantage of commerce--having a National Highway System where all of our States are connected with good quality Federal highways has been a huge boon for our country. That has been funded through highway user fees. The gasoline tax that everyone pays at the pump in our country has funded our Federal highway system. However, the Federal highway system has now been completed. For a State to come in and toll every lane of an existing Federal highway is not only disingenuous, but it breaks faith with the Federal taxpayers who, for over 50 years, have paid into the highway trust fund so we would have a Federal highway system for all Americans and for the commerce among our States for them to use. Now, we have three States that have been approved by the Department of Transportation to do exactly what I wish to prohibit--toll lanes of an existing Federal highway. That would prohibit the free use of that whole highway that has been built with Federal dollars. My amendment would keep us from going beyond the three. The amendment is two. I would extend it to three because there are three that the Department of Transportation has approved, but I want to stop this practice from going further. It is wrong for the Federal Government to allow it, it is wrong for the States to ask for it. Instead, we need to allow the opposite, the opt- out ability for a State to say we want to spend our highway dollars on our priorities. That is what we ought to be doing. I do not disagree with tolls that are going to create a new free lane. That would keep the faith with the people. It would expand the system and the people would be paying to expand the system. That can be done in an effective and, frankly, a responsible way. On the issue of allowing States to opt-out--Senator Portman has put in an amendment that I would support, except that he goes a little bit too far. Senator Portman and Senator Coburn have amendments that would allow an opt-out from the whole Federal highway fund, which includes transit. I think that goes too far. I have a bill that would allow the opt-out of States that would be able to spend their highway funds the way they believe their priorities are set, but the 20 percent of the highway trust fund that goes for transit I think should be kept for the urban areas that need that kind of bus transportation, as well as intra-city and commuter rail. I think we ought to be able to keep that at the Federal level to determine what are the worthy grants. That is what the highway trust fund now does. The Portman amendment would take that away and put it into the State highway department. That sounds good on the surface, but highway departments have, in general--certainly I can speak from the experience of my State--not focused on or prioritized mass transit. This is one of the reasons why our cities in Texas are clogged--and in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and Austin it is getting worse. I wish to see those cities be assured that transit funding would go forward as it is envisioned or I would be happy to amend my bill to say the 20 percent of transit funding could be opted out but it would have to go for transit funding in the States and the States could then set the priorities. But transit should not be shortchanged by the highway departments that have not prioritized mass transit. I think we need to work a little more. I could not support the Portman amendment the way it is written, but I want to gather the people who believe that we should have an opt-out of our highway funds and get a stronger mass--which I think Senator Coburn and Senator Portman would do, if they would take the transit out of their amendment. I think we have some work to do. I wish to support the Portman amendment but not in the form it is at present. I hope down the road other States will want to be able to opt out as well. But for now, I hope we will be able to stop the tolling of our Federal highways as a first step to keep faith with the American taxpayers who, for 50 years, have built the Federal highway system and deserve to be able to drive to any State on a Federal highway without being shut out by States that decide to put a toll on it for their own purposes. These are Federal highways built with Federal tax dollars and they should be open to every taxpayer in America to use those freeways for commerce. I hope my amendment will be considered. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that was introduced this morning. The bill is the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act, which we refer to as the SECURE IT Act. This is a very important piece of legislation because we know that cyber attacks are a threat to our country and we need to strengthen our laws to ensure we are protecting our assets, our communication systems, and all of the infrastructure that is run by communications systems. We are working as a group. Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are original cosponsors. All of us are the ranking members on the relevant committees that must deal with cybersecurity. Senator McCain, the lead sponsor, is, of course, the Armed Services ranking member. I am the ranking member of Commerce, Senator Chambliss of Intelligence, Senator Grassley certainly of Judiciary, and Senator Murkowski of Energy. It is very important that our relevant committees have come together with our ranking members, and we hope very much to gain support from the Democratic side as well on a bill that we think can get through all of Congress and be signed by the President because the parts of our bill that will strengthen our cybersecurity in this country are, I think, accepted by those who have expertise in this area. For instance, our bill will help prevent the spread of cyber attacks from network to network and across the Internet by removing barriers to sharing information about threats, attacks, and strategies for improvement of defenses. We remove these barriers through addressing the antitrust laws that would allow companies that are sharing information not to be threatened with antitrust suits, because this is a security issue, it is not a competitive issue. Secondly, we want to have liability protection for those who disclose cyber threat information with their peers. These are things that would be in everyone's interest for us to do, and we do need to address them in legislation. The liability and antitrust protections are available to all companies that would share information, not just those that share with the government but when they can talk to each other, to understand each other's systems. Further, the SECURE IT Act would require that Federal contractors providing electronic communication or cybersecurity services to Federal agencies share cyber threat information related to those contracts. Of course, when they have contracts with the government, that information is going to be very important so we would require the sharing of information about threats that might jeopardize the system's security. In addition, the government will develop procedures for the timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information to ensure that information needed to secure networks is fully accessible to trusted parties. We are concerned that there are other bills out there that will add another new bureaucracy, another layer of regulation that is not necessary and brings in another agency that would overlay the security agencies that already have systems in place. It would also allow the regulatory bodies for certain areas of interest to handle the cybersecurity rather than another overlay of a new department. I think so many people in our country who are in business feel they are overwhelmed with duplicative regulations and different agencies they have to report to. We want to streamline whom they have to report to and try to use existing structures and existing regulatory authorities to deal with each individual company or industry so that we don't have to give them yet another new bureaucracy that would then have regulations, if they are deemed to be critical infrastructure. That is when it becomes the regulatory threat. We believe the private sector is more aware of individual security needs and better equipped than the Department of Homeland Security to secure its own networks, working with its own regulators. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the government itself has had great difficulty in preventing attacks on Federal systems. So we do require that the reporting of Federal contractors go to the Federal security agencies, but we don't think the Federal agencies being in charge of everything is necessarily an improvement. We want to make sure the Federal Information Security Management Act, which is the law, is actually updated so that the new forms of cyber threats are accommodated in FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and to strengthen that with the updates. The legislation also updates the Criminal Code to address cyber crimes, strengthening penalties, improving the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute this kind of criminal who would take down whole systems of our government. Our bill will prioritize cybersecurity research and development so we can harness innovation to protect our country and our private industries from cyber attacks. I am very pleased that we have been able to introduce this legislation as an alternative to some of the other bills that have come out. I believe that if we can go forward with negotiating, perhaps we can come to an accommodation with the bills that have been introduced with other sponsors. But we don't think the bills that have been introduced address our concerns and we want to ensure that we do not have another big Federal bureaucracy, that we do not overlay the regulators who already have expertise in this area with new regulators whom we have to train and deal with. We think the defense agencies--the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, DHS--all of those with their cybersecurity assets already in place are the better place to put the strength, not reinventing the wheel but better utilizing the systems we already have. I think it is time for our Senate to address cyber security. I think we have good proposals out there; perhaps we can take the best of those. I think this is the right approach, and Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, and Murkowski were key to drafting this legislation that I think will get the support of all of the stakeholders, as well as the House of Representatives, to actually pass a bill to improve our systems and take it to the President for signature.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that was introduced this morning. The bill is the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act, which we refer to as the SECURE IT Act. This is a very important piece of legislation because we know that cyber attacks are a threat to our country and we need to strengthen our laws to ensure we are protecting our assets, our communication systems, and all of the infrastructure that is run by communications systems. We are working as a group. Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are original cosponsors. All of us are the ranking members on the relevant committees that must deal with cybersecurity. Senator McCain, the lead sponsor, is, of course, the Armed Services ranking member. I am the ranking member of Commerce, Senator Chambliss of Intelligence, Senator Grassley certainly of Judiciary, and Senator Murkowski of Energy. It is very important that our relevant committees have come together with our ranking members, and we hope very much to gain support from the Democratic side as well on a bill that we think can get through all of Congress and be signed by the President because the parts of our bill that will strengthen our cybersecurity in this country are, I think, accepted by those who have expertise in this area. For instance, our bill will help prevent the spread of cyber attacks from network to network and across the Internet by removing barriers to sharing information about threats, attacks, and strategies for improvement of defenses. We remove these barriers through addressing the antitrust laws that would allow companies that are sharing information not to be threatened with antitrust suits, because this is a security issue, it is not a competitive issue. Secondly, we want to have liability protection for those who disclose cyber threat information with their peers. These are things that would be in everyone's interest for us to do, and we do need to address them in legislation. The liability and antitrust protections are available to all companies that would share information, not just those that share with the government but when they can talk to each other, to understand each other's systems. Further, the SECURE IT Act would require that Federal contractors providing electronic communication or cybersecurity services to Federal agencies share cyber threat information related to those contracts. Of course, when they have contracts with the government, that information is going to be very important so we would require the sharing of information about threats that might jeopardize the system's security. In addition, the government will develop procedures for the timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information to ensure that information needed to secure networks is fully accessible to trusted parties. We are concerned that there are other bills out there that will add another new bureaucracy, another layer of regulation that is not necessary and brings in another agency that would overlay the security agencies that already have systems in place. It would also allow the regulatory bodies for certain areas of interest to handle the cybersecurity rather than another overlay of a new department. I think so many people in our country who are in business feel they are overwhelmed with duplicative regulations and different agencies they have to report to. We want to streamline whom they have to report to and try to use existing structures and existing regulatory authorities to deal with each individual company or industry so that we don't have to give them yet another new bureaucracy that would then have regulations, if they are deemed to be critical infrastructure. That is when it becomes the regulatory threat. We believe the private sector is more aware of individual security needs and better equipped than the Department of Homeland Security to secure its own networks, working with its own regulators. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the government itself has had great difficulty in preventing attacks on Federal systems. So we do require that the reporting of Federal contractors go to the Federal security agencies, but we don't think the Federal agencies being in charge of everything is necessarily an improvement. We want to make sure the Federal Information Security Management Act, which is the law, is actually updated so that the new forms of cyber threats are accommodated in FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and to strengthen that with the updates. The legislation also updates the Criminal Code to address cyber crimes, strengthening penalties, improving the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute this kind of criminal who would take down whole systems of our government. Our bill will prioritize cybersecurity research and development so we can harness innovation to protect our country and our private industries from cyber attacks. I am very pleased that we have been able to introduce this legislation as an alternative to some of the other bills that have come out. I believe that if we can go forward with negotiating, perhaps we can come to an accommodation with the bills that have been introduced with other sponsors. But we don't think the bills that have been introduced address our concerns and we want to ensure that we do not have another big Federal bureaucracy, that we do not overlay the regulators who already have expertise in this area with new regulators whom we have to train and deal with. We think the defense agencies--the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, DHS--all of those with their cybersecurity assets already in place are the better place to put the strength, not reinventing the wheel but better utilizing the systems we already have. I think it is time for our Senate to address cyber security. I think we have good proposals out there; perhaps we can take the best of those. I think this is the right approach, and Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, and Murkowski were key to drafting this legislation that I think will get the support of all of the stakeholders, as well as the House of Representatives, to actually pass a bill to improve our systems and take it to the President for signature.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I see the Senator from Arkansas on the Senate floor. I will follow the Senator from Arkansas on another piece of legislation about which I hope to speak, but I do want to take about 5 minutes to read the letter William Barret Travis sent from the Alamo. 176 years ago tomorrow, March 2, 1836, is the anniversary date of Texas' independence. I am going to read this letter in commemoration of Texas Independence Day because it was on that date that Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Fifty-nine brave men signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, putting their lives, and the lives of their families, on the line to declare that ``the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic.'' I am proud that my great-great grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, was willing to sign that document that declared our freedom. In fact my son Houston is named Houston Taylor Hutchison for that Texas patriot. I am humbled to hold the seat that was first held by another signer, and one of Charles S. Taylor's best friends, and that was Thomas Rusk, who was the Secretary of War who defended the Declaration of Independence by fighting at the Battle of San Jacinto. As was the case in the American Revolution, our freedom was ultimately secured through the actions of the brave Texans who fought and died on the battlefield. The late Senator John Tower started the tradition of a Texas Senator reading the Travis letter, and it was continued by Phil Gramm, and I took it over in 1994. This is something we do to tell America and to assure that Texans always remember this day in our history because after this, of course, we became a republic and we were a republic for 10 years before we became a part of the United States. So it is with pride that I read--for the last time as a Senator representing Texas--the wonderful letter that was written by COL William Barret Travis. He said: To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world-- Fellow citizens and compatriots--I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor and that of his country. Victory or Death. William Barret Travis Lt. Col. Comdt. True to his word, he did not surrender. The Mexicans did have thousands of reinforcements. He drew a line in the sand at the Alamo. All but one man bravely crossed that line or was carried over it on a stretcher to accept the challenge to stay and fight. These men knew they would never leave the Alamo alive, but they heroically defended the Alamo for 13 days; the 13 days of glory, as it is known, against a force that eventually outnumbered them by more than 10 to 1. William Barrett Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and the rest of the 189 men at the Alamo gave their lives fighting for something greater than themselves. It was that delay that gave GEN Sam Houston the time to organize his men and retreat to a point they could defend, which eventually became the Battle of San Jacinto. Just seven weeks later, on April 21, 1836, Sam Houston--because of that delay that was given to them by William Barret Travis and the 189 men at the Alamo--was able to take a stand at the Battle of San Jacinto, and Texas was a republic from that time forward, for 10 years. Texas is the only State that was a republic when it entered the United States. With that distinction, we like to share our vivid history. It has been a wonderful opportunity for me to be able to read this letter every year. I feel sure it will be continued by Senator Cornyn or my successor in this seat. We will always make sure people know we fought for our freedom just as the American patriots did, and we are very proud to have that rich and colorful history. So I thank the Senator from Arkansas, and I look forward to serving the rest of my term, but this will be the last time I get to share this piece of history. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Arkansas for his kind remarks. I have so enjoyed serving with his father before him and then him. It is a point of history for Arkansas that this Senator Pryor followed his father into the Senate. I appreciate so much that we are contiguous with the State of Arkansas and that so many of the people who settled the West did come through Arkansas. Some stayed there and some came on to Texas. Our whole history of the West is so exciting, and I am glad people remember it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 2151 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is obvious all around our country that Americans are struggling right now with gasoline prices. The average American family spent more than $4,000 on gasoline last year, and it will be more this year, with the additional devastating price increases we are seeing now that will wreak havoc on our economy. The national average price of a gallon of gasoline has gone up every single day for the last 3 weeks. In many parts of our country, prices at the pump are around $4 a gallon. But instead of encouraging an ``all-of-the-above'' approach, which the administration has said it is doing, the administration, instead, has been frustrating every domestic source of energy production that does not conform to a narrow view of alternative fuels. The President is opposed to increased drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and opening additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the Alaskan coast. The people of Alaska have voted to support the ANWR drilling because they know ANWR is an area that is the size, approximately, of the State of South Carolina, and the part that would be drilled is approximately the size of Washington National Airport. So they know this would be good jobs for Alaska, and it would not harm the environment at all because the drilling area is so very small in this vast wildlife reserve. The President has also restricted drilling on Federal lands, opposes the development of shale gas and coal, and will not open additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 States. Even though some State legislatures, such as Virginia, have said they would like to do it, the President has shut that down. The President opposes further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and nuclear energy is also now on the list, I guess, of moratoria. He has rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. What the President does favor is the Saudis increasing oil production and increased use of solar, wind, and algae at home. Does that substitute for an energy policy? Is that something Americans can count on to increase the supply of energy in our country? Last week, the President said: We cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. This statement is inaccurate. Increased domestic production will go a long way toward stabilizing gas prices. Why does this President want to turn his back on critical sources of domestic energy which seems incomprehensible to anyone looking at this issue? So I have colleagues on the Senate floor who come from different States--States where unemployment is high and people are looking for jobs and looking for alternatives. I would like to turn to the Senator from the great State of Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and ask the Senator from Missouri if he has a view. Is he hearing from his constituents in Missouri?