Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate very much that the Senator is on the Intelligence Committee and that he knows the sensitivities and all of the stakeholders we must work with in order to do the right thing for our country, both in the private sector as well in our government infrastructure. As always, the Senator from North Dakota is a person who is a visionary and one who looks out for the best interest of our country, and I hope we come together on this bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the sponsors of the bill working with us. Just as an example, the Ogallala Aquifer has gone down 100 feet since irrigation has been allowed from this water source. It is a source for cities such as the city of San Antonio and other cities around New Mexico and Texas. That is just one example. It is happening all over our country. So conservation has to be a part of keeping our farms and ranches alive, and that is the purpose of the amendment. We appreciate the managers working with us and hope we can go forward and highlight the importance of conservation to keep our water resources for our farmers and ranchers.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I share the concern of the Senator from New Mexico. A large area in western Texas overlies the Ogallala Aquifer as well. We, too, have seen alarmingly high levels of groundwater depletion. Water is a precious resource in our part of the country, and the Ogallala is a major source of water for agriculture, our communities, and industrial development.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand that the Regional Conservation Partnership Program is intended to address water quantity as well as water quality issues, so funding under the program could be directed to address situations where high historic levels of groundwater depletion have occurred due to agricultural use. Is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairwoman and ranking member.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger reached Galveston, Texas to announce that the Civil War had ended and that slaves had been emancipated. It was a bittersweet day; the news traveled slowly, reaching Galveston nearly 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. But it was a joyous occasion, a triumph of freedom that has been remembered since. In commemoration of that historic day, I am delighted to introduce a Joint Resolution designating June 19 as ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' a National Day of Observance. It is a day to reflect on history and to celebrate freedom. To remember, in the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, that ``The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.'' This resolution offers recognition of the role that Juneteenth Independence Day has played in African-American culture in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Enshrining Juneteenth in our national consciousness will confer the recognition it merits and serve as inspiration for all Americans. I am proud to be part of this bipartisan joint resolution to commemorate this day that reminds us that in America, we are all blessed to live in freedom. United States law provides for the declaration of selected public observances by the President of the United States as designated by Congress or at the discretion of the President. I believe that marking Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance will honor freedom and liberty, something that Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds can celebrate. This legislation is an important reminder of that extraordinary day in 1865, a day that carried liberty across America. My fellow Texan Barbara Jordan once said, ``A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good.'' There is no plainer common good than commemorating American freedom. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger reached Galveston, Texas to announce that the Civil War had ended and that slaves had been emancipated. It was a bittersweet day; the news traveled slowly, reaching Galveston nearly 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. But it was a joyous occasion, a triumph of freedom that has been remembered since. In commemoration of that historic day, I am delighted to introduce a Joint Resolution designating June 19 as ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' a National Day of Observance. It is a day to reflect on history and to celebrate freedom. To remember, in the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, that ``The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.'' This resolution offers recognition of the role that Juneteenth Independence Day has played in African-American culture in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Enshrining Juneteenth in our national consciousness will confer the recognition it merits and serve as inspiration for all Americans. I am proud to be part of this bipartisan joint resolution to commemorate this day that reminds us that in America, we are all blessed to live in freedom. United States law provides for the declaration of selected public observances by the President of the United States as designated by Congress or at the discretion of the President. I believe that marking Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance will honor freedom and liberty, something that Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds can celebrate. This legislation is an important reminder of that extraordinary day in 1865, a day that carried liberty across America. My fellow Texan Barbara Jordan once said, ``A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good.'' There is no plainer common good than commemorating American freedom. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I too object, along with Senator Rockefeller. I have been on the National Transportation Safety Board, and I know well the kinds of cases that are pilots' license revocations and the NTSB process for appeals of those. I understand Senator Inhofe's explanation for what happened with him and that he is in somewhat of a disagreement with some of the reporting of that incident. I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma's long-time record of being a pilot, and I respect that very much, but I am afraid that what he is not taking into consideration is most certainly a safety issue. We have tasked the FAA with air safety, and we have given them the responsibility for revoking pilots' licenses when there is a need to do that in their opinion, whether it be for a violation of landing on a runway that has an X, which pilots know means that runway cannot be used at that time. As happened with Senator Inhofe's case, he is saying that he had a clearance, but the X was there and the FAA cited him for that. They did not revoke his pilot's license at all, yet he is coming forward with a bill that not only addresses some of his legitimate concerns, which I agree with. The FAA's expertise and its mission, which is given to it by Congress, is to provide for safety and to revoke a private pilot's license or commercial pilot's license or aviation mechanic's license. Senator Inhofe's bill that would allow pilots to not have to go through the appellate process with the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the appellate authority, which also has the expertise and experience to know when a revocation would be questionable or if the FAA was right. They have the pilots, they have the expertise to make those decisions, and after the NTSB appeal, they then have the right to go to Federal court if they so choose. What Senator Inhofe's bill does is take away the NTSB portion of the appeals process. Let me say that I have offered to Senator Inhofe-- because he knew I objected to this bill--to do everything in his bill that he has addressed, including the openness, the requirement that an enforcement action that the FAA would grant the pilot all the relevant evidence in 30 days prior to a decision, that it would clarify the statutory deference as it relates to NTSB. NTSB is not a rubberstamp at all. I think they have been fair with their expertise. The FAA has the responsibility for aviation safety. Requiring the FAA to undertake a notice to the Airmen Improvement Program, I think, is certainly legitimate. Making flight service station communications available to all airmen is a legitimate piece of this legislation. What I object to and have asked Senator Inhofe to let us work together to do is not to bypass NTSB, but to let the appellate process go forward, and then at the end, if there is still a feeling of unfairness on the part of the pilot, that they would have access to the Federal courts. They can do that now. So I think Senator Inhofe insisting on bypassing NTSB is holding up the good parts of his bill because it is very important, in my opinion, that we keep the expertise for safety in the skies where it is, in the FAA, the NTSB, and then go to the Federal courts if rights are violated. In 2011, the NTSB had 350 appeal cases for administrative law judges and the number was similar in 2010. Cases are typically disposed of in 90 to 120 days, so there is not a long lag time in which the pilot doesn't have the access to his or her license. The NTSB held 62 appeals hearings in 2011 and 36 cases went to the full board. The breakdown of the cases was private pilots, 48 percent; airline mechanics or aviation mechanics, 13 percent; commercial pilots, 6 percent; air carriers, 8 percent; and medical with 25 percent. Senator Rockefeller and I, as the relevant chairman and ranking member on the Commerce Committee, have agreed to have a hearing on Senator Inhofe's bill so that this can be fully vetted, and most certainly I have on many occasions offered to work with Senator Inhofe to get the notification requirements, the openness requirements--every part of his bill that would require reforms of the process for fairness to the pilots--I would agree with and work to help him pass. But I think taking out the NTSB and going directly to Federal courts is not necessary, and I think it will hurt aviation safety. I also believe that a different, extraneous issue is that our Federal courts are pretty clogged already and the Federal courts do not have those with pilots' licenses on their staff clerkship rolls, to a great extent. Maybe they happen to be. But they don't have the familiarity with the requirements of FAA and the issues that FAA looks at, and they do have access to Federal courts in the end anyway. But I think the NTSB part is important so that the experienced pilots in the NTSB have the appellate authority, as they do now, to decipher what happened with the FAA and determine if fairness was given to the pilot. It is also to help determine if that pilot should continue to fly or if it would endanger aviation safety, which should not be the role of the Federal courts. So Senator Rockefeller and I do object. I hold my hand out to Senator Inhofe to work with him on the notification and fairness issues in his bill, which I support. I just don't think bypassing the expertise of the NTSB and adding another burden to the Federal courts where they do not have the expertise is in anyone's best interest in this country, and I am happy to work with anyone who is interested in this issue and hope we can resolve it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on the point of the hearing, Senator Rockefeller and I have agreed certainly with Senator Inhofe to hold a hearing, which we notified Senator Inhofe we would, and I expect it to be next month for the hearing schedule. I just hope we can pass a good part of his bill, which I would like to work with him on, but I think the motivation should be safety and assuring safety. I know the personal conflict Senator Inhofe has with what happened to him, and I am sympathetic, but I don't think passing legislation that could hurt the aviation safety community is the right approach to meet the objections of Senator Inhofe. I would love to have a hearing and have all the witnesses he would put forward to get an objective look at what this would do to taking the expertise and the mission from FAA and allow it to be bypassed at the NTSB level and go to Federal courts where there is not the experience and the aviation safety mission that is well protected today. I hope we can work together on this. I understand the Senator's frustration, but I don't think this is the right solution for what happened to him with one incident.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I heard the remarks of my colleague from California, and I just cannot let the record stand that President Obama took over in the worst circumstances of our time. Really? The debt of this country was around $10 trillion when President Obama took office. In just 3\1/2\ years, that debt has almost doubled. We are now over $15 trillion and will soon be hitting the $16 trillion debt ceiling limit in just 3\1/2\ years. We are in a debt crisis not from the previous administration, we are in a debt crisis because we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the President keeps talking about more taxes. Just last Friday, the President came out and said: ``The private sector is doing [just] fine.'' It is government that is in a crisis. Well, yes, government is in a crisis. The private sector is not doing just fine, and the government crisis is not caused because we are losing government jobs. The government crisis is caused because we are spending too much, and we are going into debt that is unsustainable in this country. For the millions of Americans who are out of work in this country, the President's assessment of the private sector must be like salt poured in a wound. My goodness, we have seen job numbers of over 8 percent unemployment since the President took office. The last 3 months have been not so good. We are still over 8 percent, and we went up a little bit to 8.2 percent in May. So to the nearly 13 million Americans who are unemployed and the millions more who are underemployed or have left the labor force altogether because they have lost hope--Mr. President, things are not fine, and the private sector is not fine in this country, and the middle class is bearing the brunt. On top of the unemployment rate for those who are in poverty conditions, the people who hold jobs are also losing ground. On Monday, the Federal Reserve reported that the median net worth of American families fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2010. We have not seen these levels since 1992. During the same period, incomes also dropped sharply. Average household income fell 11 percent to $78,500, down from $88,300. The hardest hit? Families in the rapidly diminishing middle class. While these statistics are troubling, there is a concern that cannot be measured in dollars and cents; that is, that families are losing faith in a secure future. There was a time when every generation had a better quality of life and expected a better quality of life for their children than their parents had. That is not the case today. In 2010, 35 percent of families said they did not have a good idea of what their income would be just for the next year. That was 31.4 percent in 2007, 35 percent now. So the number of families who are losing the faith that their children are going to have a better life than they have had is diminishing. How could they be confident? The job creators in the private sector are the ones under siege. I cannot believe the President of the United States is so off base as to say the private sector is doing fine. Just this week, the National Federation of Independent Business released its monthly survey of small business optimism. Survey results continue to be historically low and consistent with the subpar performance of gross domestic product. According to this survey, levels of hiring and spending remained depressed in May. We all know that. More important, so did plans for the future. The same report states that expectations for increasing future sales continued to be weak in May, far below readings recorded in any other similar period since 1973. Many small business owners are reluctant to expand their businesses or hire more workers. Small business owners who expect the economy to further deteriorate outnumber those who think there will be an improvement. Small businesses are our Nation's primary job creators. Small business provided 55 percent of all jobs in the private sector. Small business has created two of every three net jobs in the United States since the early 1970s. So I would say to the President of the United States, it is small business that is the economic engine of America, not government. That is the fundamental disagreement we have with this administration. We must spur the private sector to create income, growth, and security in this country. The private sector is not doing fine. What should we be doing to help Americans get back to work? We need to address what is causing the uncertainty. Why are businesses not hiring? Because government spending that serves to crowd out the private sector is increasing. There are tax increases being talked about by the President constantly. So they are looking at looming tax increases, burdensome regulations that they see coming by the bills, such as this, out of the U.S. Government. Those regulations hamper job growth in this country. Then, on top of all that, on top of the talk of new taxes, on top of the burdensome regulations our small businesses face every day, in bigger numbers every day, it is the health care law that was passed 2 years ago this December. If we want people to be hired, we cannot saddle our entrepreneurs and small businesses with new taxes, more regulations, and the cost, the overwhelming burden of the Obama health care plan. President Obama, in an interview yesterday, dismissed questions from a small business owner about the negative impact of the health care law and what it is already doing to small businesses. Anybody who has paid their part of insurance, if they are lucky enough to be covered, knows that the premiums have increased and the coverage has decreased in anticipation of the Obama health care law, adding the new burden and cost on insurance companies, hospitals, doctors. The costs of doing business in health care are increasing in anticipation of that health care law taking full effect in the next year. I have heard so much opposition in my home State when I travel around from small businesses that are just throwing up their hands and saying: I cannot provide the government-approved health care for my employees, which is going to mean I will have a new tax burden for every one of them as they then have to go on the government plan and fend for themselves. Even families are going to have to do it or they will have to pay a tax. It is not just a good plan, it is the government-approved plan. So if they provide 35 percent of their employees' premiums, which is what they can afford, but the government requires more than that, they will still have to pay the fine. The small businesses are saying: I am going to pay the fine because that is my only alternative. Those with more than 50 employees, will have costly new Federal regulations to comply with. The financial penalty is so great we are seeing businesses stop at 49 so they will not have more workers and therefore have a bigger responsibility. I received a letter from a small business owner in Arlington who said it best: ``Did Congress and the President know they were going to freeze our country's businesses' ability to help grow this economy when they passed this bill?'' I will point out that not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for this bill in Congress. So I would have to say to my small business constituent in Arlington: This was the Democrats in Congress and the President's bill. Not one Republican would support it because of the fear of exactly what is happening; that is, small business owners are losing faith that they will be able to grow, and that is what is causing the economic crisis we are in with unemployment over 8 percent. A small business owner in Corpus Christi, TX, who has 34 employees told my office that his company's cheapest option for health insurance would boost premiums by 44 percent over last year. How can they do it? It is happening everywhere. I hear it everywhere I go. Clearly, this is not the incentive our economy needs right now. We need government to get out of the way of the job creators in this country not block their path with miles of regulations, new burdens and costs--new regulations, new costs--and then the talk of new taxes which is prevalent everywhere. Our best hope is that the Supreme Court will see this has a constitutional problem. Then we can start again and take a step-by-step reform. That will do what all of us want to do. Everyone in Congress and the President had the same goal; that is, to have more Americans with affordable coverage and options. But that is not the bill that was passed, and it is why Republicans could not possibly support it, because they saw the burdens on families, on businesses, and they knew it was not going to encourage hiring, which is what we need in this country. We have a chance to start a process that will be positive. We need to do something to spur small business in this economy. One thing that could be done, which is in discussions right now, is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would create a $7 billion, shovel- ready, privately funded project that would transport over 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada to the United States. It has been estimated it would create 20,000 construction jobs and as many as 100,000 jobs at refineries and other businesses. By the way, we would be trading with a friendly partner, Canada, so we would not have to import more from unfriendly parts of the Middle East, and we would also be able to know that these are privately funded jobs, not one government cent. In fact, it would create taxes being paid to the government because people would be working, and that is the way we should be growing our revenue in this country. But the President suggested a different solution. He said the answer is not to spur the private sector because they are doing just fine. He said let's spend more money bailing out the States because they are having a hard time. They are having a hard time. We can do something for the States, and it is not bailing them out with more borrowed Federal dollars that will continue to weigh down the dollar itself. No. We can do something for State governments; that is, stop sending Federal mandates that we do not pay for that we require them to do, put a moratorium on Federal mandates on States today. Let's start repealing these Federal mandates we are requiring States to absorb. It is killing their economies. Medicaid and the lack of flexibility in Medicaid is the biggest expense most States have. It is a Federal mandate unpaid for and inflexible, not the choice States could make to cover the people who need the help. We can help the States but not at the expense of our dollar and our debt. So the President is suggesting more spending and bailing out States, and we are offering a solution that says let's create jobs in the private sector. Keystone XL is ready to go right now, private sector, 100,000 future jobs, not one penny from the Federal Government. Let's take these Federal regulations and let's put a moratorium on them right now and free our small businesses to be the entrepreneurs that built this country. It was the entrepreneurs who built this country in freedom. This country has been a magnet for people coming from all over the world because they could do their research in freedom. They could grow in freedom. They could keep the fruits of their labor and give their kids a better chance than they had, which they could not get in their home country. That is what built this country. We can get right back there, but it is not by borrowing more, spending more, taxing more, and regulating our small businesses out of existence. We can do something positive, and it is time we got started. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today, I want to congratulate and acknowledge the University of Texas at Austin's Department of History for creating an interactive website that offers a unique outlet for promoting information and enhancing understanding about U.S. and world history. This new site puts the expertise of the University of Texas world-renowned faculty at the service of the general citizenry, and provides a public forum for the discussion of historical and contemporary events. The title of the website, www.notevenpast.org, ``Not Even Past,'' (NEP) derives its name from William Faulkner's famous line that, ``The past is never dead. It's not even past.'' It acknowledges the professional and ethical commitment to understanding history as a public conversation about the importance of the past for our actions, values, and beliefs in the present, and for the decisions we make today that will affect our lives tomorrow. I would like to congratulate particularly the efforts of Professor Joan Neuberger, Chairman Alan Tully, the department's 60-person faculty, and the input of graduate students for establishing this project in 2010. NEP brings together a diverse group of historians in every major historical field by using modern technology as a vehicle to share their perspectives on topics related to Texas, the United States, and world history. The website allows people from around the world with an interest in history and historical events to take advantage of the University of Texas' new resource. This unique and innovative website offers book and film recommendations, movie clips, podcasts, links to historical documents and artifacts, as well as a fact-checker series and free virtual courses. The development of NEP reinforces the reputation of the University of Texas Department of History. I believe this website is an invaluable resource of remarkable range and interest, and will advance the university's goal of undertaking programs of civil, educational and social services. Since NEP was launched in January 2011, the website has enabled hosting and sponsoring events devoted to the history curriculum, organization of a book club with award-winning professors and students of history, accumulation of an extensive library of podcasts, short articles and recommended movies related to all aspects of history, and even virtual history courses that are offered through the University of Texas. In June 2012, NEP will also begin posting university, high school, and middle school students' history projects. Congratulations to the University of Texas Department of History for creating this interactive website.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Representative Ralph Hall be printed in the Record on the tenacity of Cary M. Maguire, founder, Chair and President of the Dallas-based Mcguire Oil Company and Maguire Energy Company. The remarks follow. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cary M. Maguire, a fellow Texan who exemplifies fortitude, American entrepreneurship, and community service. Over the past twenty years, Cary's strength of character was tested and proven as he fought for justice in a property rights dispute against the Houston, Texas city government. Despite being dealt a bad hand, court after court, Cary never surrendered. He showed courage and faith that justice would prevail, and his perseverance was ultimately rewarded. Cary is the founder, Chair, and President of the Dallas- based Maguire Oil Company and Maguire Energy Company. In 1991, Cary's company was given a permit by the city of Houston to drill near the banks of Lake Houston. However, when his crew began the project a city officer patrolling the area stopped the team, citing a city ordinance that prohibited drilling within 1,000 feet of the shore. The city revoked Maguire Oil's permit, and a lengthy court battle began. The case was shuffled around for fourteen years as courts argued over jurisdiction and how to proceed. In 2009, a Harris County court-at-law awarded Maguire $2 million in damages, plus $2.2 million in interest. The City appealed this ruling before agreeing on a settlement, settling a lawsuit that spanned two trials, four appeals and the administrations of four mayors. While acknowledging that the amount spent in legal fees exceeded the amount of the settlement, Cary stated that he continued the case because he thought it was important to defend the principle that while government has the right to take property for the public good, it does not have the right to do so without compensating the property owner. Cary proceeded to donate the settlement money to found the Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility that bears his name at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, where he serves as Trustee Emeritus in recognition for his outstanding service to the University as a member of the Board of Trustees from 1976 to 2000. In addition to his founding grant to create the Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility, Cary also endowed a university-wide professorship in ethics at SMU. He has provided additional funds for programs and facilities in SMU's Edwin L. Cox School of Business, including the Maguire Energy Institute, the Maguire Chair in oil and gas management, and the Maguire Building housing undergraduate programs in the Cox School. In 1995 he and his wife, Ann, were among the first recipients of SMU's Mustang Award honoring individuals whose longtime service and philanthropy have had a lasting impact on the University. His national leadership positions include service on The National Petroleum Council, the Executive Committee of Mid- Continental Oil and Gas Association, and membership of the Madison Council of the Library of Congress, where he funded the Maguire Chair in Ethics and American History. Mr. Speaker, Cary Maguire's professional and philanthropic contributions will have a lasting value not only in the great State of Texas, but our nation. He embodies many outstanding qualities that define the American spirit. As we adjourn the House of Representatives today, let us do so in appreciation of this American leader, Mr. Cary Maguire.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. It is interesting, because there are four of us on the floor right now-- the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Wyoming, and myself. We have one thing in common. Every one of us has run a business. Every one of us was in business before we came to the Senate. So we know when we are talking about new taxes--which is all we hear from the administration--that is not going to help this economy grow, because our small businesses are scared to death out there. I know because I have heard the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Wisconsin, who came straight out of a business and who ran for the Senate because he was so frustrated in business--we know that small business people out there today are looking at the increased taxes that are already in place with the Obamacare added taxes and surtaxes that have already been passed by the Democrats in Congress, without one single Republican vote. Those taxes are already on board to increase, plus you have the fines they are facing if they don't have the government-prescribed plan for the Obama health care plan. They are going to have to pay fines on top of the surtaxes to pay for the bill they are not going to be able to use. Then they are looking at the regulations that are coming out of this administration and saying: And Congress wants to spend another trillion dollars this year? Every one of us knows we are looking at hitting the debt ceiling again--over $16 trillion--this fall, because this administration will not even consider lower taxes and lower spending levels. So I look at all of us on the Senate floor right now who have been in business, who have run a business, who have met that payroll, who have met the regulatory environment, and I think: Why on Earth don't we listen to the small businesspeople of this country and in this body and do what they do every year--pass a budget? The Senator from Wyoming is here, and I would just ask if he has an idea of when was the last time the Senate passed a budget resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Well, of course. And the spending issue is very interesting. I look to my colleague from Tennessee, who is really one of the deficit hawks in the Senate, and when I look at the statistics that are being put out about the entitlement spending, the entitlement spending today is over 50 percent of our spending every year--mandatory spending. In 10 years it is going to be 75 percent of the spending in this country. So I would ask my friend from Tennessee--because he has been pure on this issue, being the deficit hawk he is--how would we be able to solve the spending problem of this country without addressing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--mandatory spending--which will be at 75 percent of the budget in 10 years if we continue at this rate?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to ask the Senator from Tennessee, because he brought this up, not only is it so clear there is more going out than coming back in, what would he say to the fact we also--not we, because he, along with myself and the Senator from Wyoming--voted against the Obama health care bill, but interestingly, with those numbers the Senator just quoted, that bill cuts $500 billion more out of Medicare to pay for that overdraft the Senator is talking about. He was talking about a generational change as well. Oh, my goodness.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am so pleased the Senator from Tennessee brought that up because there is a way for us to at least fix one of the entitlements in a relatively painless way, and that is Social Security. It is going to have a few changes that some people will not like, but it could be so gradual if we do it now. We could simply raise the age 3 months a year. In the bill I have proposed--and there are others that are equally as good, although none of them have been taken up--it would say: If you are 59 years old, you wouldn't have any change at all. If you are 58, you would retire 3 months later. So it would be very gradual. If we do that, and adjust the cost-of-living increase, we would not have to raise any social security taxes, we would not cut the core benefits at all, and we could gradually ease into a system that would be solvent for 75 years. Then our elderly, who need Social Security, will have it there. That is a proposal on the table now. But what is happening in Congress? And where is the leadership from the White House? Nothing. Nothing. I am going to turn to the Senator from Wyoming because he is one of the two actual physicians in the Senate, and he knows more about the Obama health care system. When we look at what the Obama health care system is doing to Medicare--cutting it $\1/2\ trillion--and then this Social Security issue we have discussed, the overall Medicare issue the Senator from Tennessee addressed, and what the Senator from Wisconsin has brought out in his charts--and he has been the real hands-on, most recently experienced small businessperson--I would ask the real doctor in this body: What is going to happen if the Supreme Court doesn't save America by throwing out the individual mandate on constitutional grounds and we actually have the implementation of ObamaCare, with the taxes and fines that are going to come in on January 1 of next year if we don't act? Where are we going to be in health care in this country?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of my substitute amendment along with Senator Grassley and other cosponsors, and I call up the amendment, No. 2095.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the substitute amendment is a bill that takes the good parts and the important parts of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that I think are universal--the parts that have passed unanimously through Congress in recent years, starting 16 years ago--but the substitute also strengthens the bill. I am glad we are going to get a chance to vote on something that will strengthen it because there are some areas where the underlying bill is not as strong as our substitute bill, amendment No. 2095, would be, especially in the area of abuse of children and child pornography and child sex trafficking. This is our most vulnerable victim: the child who is abused. I want to read from some of the national organizations for victims as they write about this important aspect which is included in our bill but not covered as well in the underlying bill. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with whom I have worked to try to get the AMBER Alert system to be relevant across State lines--where we have actually saved, we believe, 550 children who have been abducted and taken across State lines--because of the quick action of the AMBER Alert system, they have been able to be safely brought back home. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says: . . . possession of child pornography is a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, we support a reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this offense. As we have . . . testified, child protection measures must also include the ability to locate non-compliant registered sex offenders. . . . The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives. Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to serve administrative subpoenas. . . . Now, that is key because it is covered in our substitute. It is covered in Senator Cornyn's amendment. It is not covered in either the underlying Leahy bill nor in Senator Klobuchar's side-by-side. So this is a major area of strengthening that this very important victims' rights organization is supporting. Shared Hope International is another children's advocate organization that says: Child pornography is one form of child sex trafficking and is too often intertwined with the other forms of sexual exploitation, which include prostitution and sexual performance. Stiffer penalties will bring greater deterrence and justice for the victims. Then, RAINN, which is the largest victims' rights organization for sexual assault, says: Thank you . . . for including the SAFER Act-- Which is Senator Cornyn's amendment. . . . . We are grateful for your leadership in the battle to prevent sexual violence and prosecute its perpetrators. Then, PROTECT also says: . . . the apologists for child pornography traffickers deny the pain and harm done by possessors of these images. They go on further to say: . . . ``simple processors''-- Which would mean people who have this and have it on their computers and sell it-- fuel the market for more and more crime scene recordings of children being raped, tortured and degraded. Now, these are people who are for the Cornyn amendment, and they are for the protection we have in the substitute. It is so important we strengthen this area to try to protect our most vulnerable victims. That is one area where strengthening can make such a difference. The Marshals Service being able to have administrative subpoenas will allow them to track even known sexual predators who have fled and you have a hard time finding them. I gave an illustration this morning of two children who were abducted by a known sexual predator, but they did not have the administrative ability to find that sexual predator, and he ended up killing one of the children, the children's mother, the mother's boyfriend, and another relative. In the underlying bill, the mandatory sentences are days. We have a minimum mandatory 1-year sentence for a crime of having pornography that shows 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Now, I would think a 1- year minimum sentence for that kind of promotion of this degradation of children would be something all of us could support. I heard people on the floor say our substitute does not fully cover some areas, such as Indian women. Well, our bill assures that Indian women are going to have the protections in a constitutional way so the bill is not thrown out. Indian women on reservations are particularly vulnerable, and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, has told me that in Alaska they do not have reservations to a great extent, but they do have a record of abuse of Indian women, and we need to protect them. We do it in a constitutional way in our substitute, and I think that protection is very important. It has been determined by several organizations--criminal justice organizations--that the underlying bill is not constitutional and would not work for Indian women. It has been asserted on the Senate floor that we do not protect victims of same-sex sexual violence, but we do. We neutralize in our bill any reference or discrimination. In fact, I will read the language of our bill: No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under [this act]. We cover every person who is a victim under this bill. I have been made aware through very sad stories of the need to protect men as well, as victims of same-sex domestic violence. Men who have been gang raped are less likely to report it because of a shame they feel, and it is a different aspect than we have dealt with in previous Violence Against Women Act bills. But it is real and we do need to cover that. We do in the substitute bill, absolutely fully. We cover victims of domestic violence in our bill, and that is what is important to all of us. Immigrant women who are illegal have the same protections they have had in every Violence Against Women Act that has been passed over the last 16 years. So we do not change that. We do not change the authorization levels. So all of these--along with our strengthening of the bill with the Marshals Service's ability to get administrative subpoenas, as well as the minimum sentences that are so very important--make our bill the right alternative. I have said before that I feel so strongly about this issue that I intend to vote for, of course, my amendment, which I think is strengthening; most certainly for Senator Cornyn's amendment, which is a strengthening amendment to the underlying bill--it is included in our substitute as well; Senator Cornyn is another cosponsor, as is Senator McConnell, of the substitute--but I intend to vote for the underlying bill even with its flaws because I wish to make sure there is no cutting off of the aspect of this most important legislation because of the time limit of our action.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator wishes to speak further, I am happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my pleasure to be able to introduce our guest Chaplain, Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston. He is a native Texan and attended Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK. For 17 years, Pastor Osteen worked behind the scenes for his father John, who founded Lakewood Church in 1959. In 1999, after his father passed away, Pastor Osteen accepted God's call to service in the church and took over the reins as senior pastor, despite having only preached once in his life. It was soon clear that this new, young preacher had a natural gift for speaking and was able to personally connect with diverse audiences with the inspirational message of God's love. Since that time, he and his wife and copastor Victoria have led Lakewood through extraordinary growth. In 2005, the Osteens moved Lakewood Church from its original home in northeast Houston to the former home of the Houston Rockets basketball team. With this space, Pastor Osteen now delivers a message of hope and encouragement to 38,000 people a week, with millions more across the country tuning in on their televisions. Pastor Osteen has reached millions more as a best-selling author. His first book, ``Your Best Life Now,'' was released in 2004 and remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 2 years. His most recent book, ``Every Day a Friday,'' offers commonsense advice on how to be happy by applying the principles of God's word to your daily life. Pastor Osteen has spoken throughout the world, and that is what brings him to the Capitol today. On Saturday the Osteens will lead thousands in what is billed as ``a night of hope'' at Nationals Park in Washington. That message of hope and encouragement is what has attracted me and my family to watch Pastor Osteen on Sunday morning. I have been to his church. He welcomed me and my daughter, Bailey--whose 11th birthday is today--at Lakewood Church 2 years ago, and I got to see this awesome place that he fills every single Sunday--sometimes more than the Houston Rockets ever did, I have to say. I do want to say that the Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Barry Black, who works with us every week in the Senate, with all of our staffs, was wonderful to help in assisting to bring Pastor Osteen to the podium to open our Senate this morning. It is a wonderful Senate tradition that we start our day by thanking God for this wonderful world and also remembering the mantle of leadership and responsibility that is on our shoulders and trying to do the very best we can with that message. Again, I thank Pastor Osteen and his wife Victoria, who are wonderful people whom I have gotten to know through the years. They have inspired so many of us in our travails of life. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to talk about the important work on this bill that has been done by Senators on both sides. Republicans and Democrats agree that we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and that we should have the very best legislative product possible. This should be done with input from both parties. That is what our Chamber does. We deliberate and then we produce legislation. Yesterday I was talking to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, talking about what his bill does, and I want to say clearly today that the amendment I am producing with Senator Grassley and many other cosponsors builds on the sentiments the chairman expressed yesterday. It seems very simple to me that what the Republicans are asking is that our substitute, which has many cosponsors--we believe it improves on the underlying bill. And one amendment by Senator Cornyn adds much to the bill, helping to get the backlog of these rape kits put forward so that we can stop people who are perpetrating these crimes from being out loose doing it again, when we have the proof that has not yet been tested because of the backlog. There are some things that can be done to improve this bill. Senator Mikulski and I worked together on funding the Justice Department. In our bill, we do add to the capability for the Justice department to give the grants that would make that backlog smaller. Senator Cornyn's amendment even improves upon that. So what is not to like about two other approaches that would add to this bill so that we can get this bill passed--or one version of it--go to conference with the House, and really address the issues? No one is arguing that we should not pass a Violence Against Women Act. The question is, Can we make it even better? And if so, why not? Why not have the kind of debate that we have on this floor that does that? So I think it is important that we produce the best possible product. Yesterday the chairman spoke repeatedly about a victim is a victim is a victim. He spoke about how the police never ask if the victim is a Republican or a Democrat, is the victim gay or straight, but that a victim is a victim. And I have--

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 want to make sure everyone knows that the Republicans have an addition to the Violence Against Women Act that we think will strengthen it. For instance, there are a couple of additions from what we talked about yesterday. We got a letter today from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this letter says that they strongly support two provisions in our substitute bill. It says we have a mandatory minimum for protection of child pornography, and they feel strongly that possession of child pornography is a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, a reasonable mandatory minimum for this offense would be in order. I stated yesterday, about a situation where a judge gave a 1-day sentence to an individual who was in possession of hundreds of images and videos of 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Really, 1 day? Mr. President, this is America. I can't even imagine that would be the case. Our amendment strengthens the underlying bill by saying we would have a mandatory minimum of 1 year. My goodness, I think that is a minimum this body would want to adopt. We also want to make sure we can locate registered sex offenders who abscond. The letter we have put into the Record says law enforcement's efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to determine the fugitives' physical location and apprehend them. Here are two stories, and our bill would strengthen the ability to help these situations. Johnny Burgos was convicted in New York for rape and assault of a minor. Following his release from prison, he registered as a sex offender in New York, but he left. Although he seemed to be constantly on the move, the U.S. Marshals in the New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force believed he was living in Pennsylvania. They attempted to obtain the records from cell phone companies, insurance companies, and the New York and Pennsylvania Departments of Motor Vehicles. But because it was necessary to get grand jury subpoenas for these records, the process took too long and the investigation suffered. In the interim, he is believed to have committed another sexual assault in Maryland. Our bill would strengthen the capabilities for the U.S. Marshals Service to get that information on a timely basis. This story is even worse, Mr. President. Joseph Duncan, shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from Minnesota and traveled across country to Idaho, where he kidnapped Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across State lines into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later killed Dylan--a child. He was essentially lost by three States, and no one even knew where he was to look for him. Our bill strengthens the U.S. Marshals Service's capabilities to attach to wherever these thugs might be who are doing these heinous crimes. I also add that our bill has a strengthening of the rape kit issue that Senator Cornyn is trying to get to be able to offer as an amendment to Senator Leahy's bill, the majority's bill. Senator Cornyn has been trying for a long time to strengthen the ability to stop this backlog and get the rape kit issue addressed so we can have the evidence to get the perpetrators so they will not commit these crimes against other innocent people such as Dylan and Shasta Groene. I hope we will be able to have a modest one amendment, and my substitute, so we will be able to go to conference with a strong strengthening of the underlying bill, which I intend to support. I am going to support the Violence Against Women Act, even if it falls short in these areas. But why not strengthen it in these areas so that all of us know we have done the best we can to send a bill to the House for its consideration, and then a conference committee where we can pass this bill without further delay. When the regular order comes back, I want to speak in favor of the two Texas judges on whom we are going to vote.