Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think that is a good plan. I appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is the pending legislation my substitute for the Mikulski bill?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to talk about a couple of points that were made by the Senator from Maryland. First, I want to say how much I appreciate her talking about how much we have done together in the Senate for women. We have made significant legislation that has improved the lives of women. She mentioned many of the bills we cosponsored. The other one I want on the record, because I think it is so important for the homemakers of our country, is the homemaker IRA, which was the Hutchison-Mikulski bill that allows stay-at-home spouses, those who work inside the home, to put aside the same amount for retirement security that will accrue without being taxed as someone who works outside the home, which was not the case before Senator Mikulski and I passed our bill. It is one of the singular achievements, I think, in helping especially women who usually go in and out of the workplace to save, without being taxed every year, in a retirement account the same amount as if they work outside the home. We have worked together, and I know we will work together on many other issues. And I hope we will end up working together on this issue because we do have the same goal, and that is to provide a fair legal process for people to have the right to sue for discrimination and the employer that is accused to have the right of defense. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the report of the Heritage Foundation that was mentioned earlier.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, it is very important that we have the whole legal memorandum on the Ledbetter Act and my substitute amendment. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from it. The Heritage Foundation report says: Another option was proposed in the last Congress-- My bill-- as the ``Title VII Fairness Act.'' This legislation would maintain the current limitations period but augment it with a ``discovery rule'' so that the period begins running only when the employee reasonably suspects, or should reasonably suspect, that he or she has been discriminated against. This approach has the benefit of encouraging employees to investigate and take action on worthwhile claims, while keeping many stale claims out of court. Some courts, however, might twist the looser rule to allow stale claims brought by sympathetic plaintiffs, such as Lilly Ledbetter, who learned about the possible discrimination fully six years before filing a charge. It would also undermine, somewhat, the clear bright-line rule that a hard statute of limitations provides. Nonetheless, this approach would provide far more certainty, and prove far less disruptive, than eliminating the limitations period. Which the underlying bill does. I added for emphasis those last words. It goes on to say: Far beyond reversing the result of a single Supreme Court decision--one that, viewed fairly, was consistent with precedent and fairly represented Congress's intentions--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would open the door to a flood of lawsuits, some frivolous, that employers would find difficult or impossible to defend against, no matter their ultimate merit. Rather than help employees, the bill could end up hurting them by reducing wages and job opportunities-- at a time when unemployment is rising and many are nervous about their job prospects. Instead, Congress should recognize that statutes of limitations serve many important and legitimate purposes and reject proposals that would allow litigants to evade them. The full reading of this legal memorandum by the Heritage Foundation, I think, makes the case for my substitute as the right approach, giving more rights to the plaintiff but not eliminating or discriminating against the business to defend itself. Let me make two points. My amendment codifies the employee's right to establish what he or she didn't know. It is so necessary that we have this right, and it is necessary to know when the person should have known and make that part of the record. Otherwise, it would allow a person to knowingly sit on a claim, to run up the amount that might be added to the discriminatory act in punitive damages. That should not be a part of our legal system. There is one other point I want to make about the Supreme Court case that the Mikulski bill will overturn. The Supreme Court separated a discriminatory pay policy from a single discriminatory act. That was their intention. It is the law today, and it would be the law under my substitute, that if there is a policy of discriminatory pay, every paycheck would be a discriminatory act. So it would continue if it were a policy. That is the law, and it should be the law, and it will be the law if my substitute is adopted. What the Supreme Court did in the Ledbetter case was say when it is a single act of discrimination, not one that is discriminatory in policy, that should have a statute of limitations. But perhaps we could have a reasonable rebuttable presumption that the person should have known, and when the person brings the claim, that person can establish: I could not have known because we weren't allowed to talk about our pay. That could be a reason the court would say is legitimate, and it would uphold the statute of limitations. The Senator from Pennsylvania was here earlier. He has several amendments. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, has an amendment. I think we can make this a good bill that everyone will think is fair, that will give more rights to the plaintiff but does not keep the defense from having a fair chance to defend the business. And I believe that is the right approach. I hope we can pass my substitute. I hope we can continue to work on this bill so that everyone will feel good about voting for it and our businesses won't be subject to a lawsuit 10 years after an act is alleged to have occurred and have a bill run up, when maybe if we have a statute of limitations that is reasonable and you have the ability to bring it, it could even be settled right then and there so that the employer is not going to have a big expense that might even close the business and lay off more people, which is not a result any of us would want. So I hope we can write the law carefully to avoid that eventuality. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to speak. I will take a minute and say a couple of things. We are going to codify a right that is not in the law today. It is sometimes applied by judges and sometimes not. We do clarify so that there is fairness for the employee as well as for the small business owner to know if something is occurring. Our standard is, should have known, and that is what the person can show, that they had no way to know that a discrimination was occurring. We are clarifying and trying to make it more fair and more clear and more uniform across all the districts in our country. That is our goal, and I do hope we will be able to have this amendment that will make it a law that is better for employees who might have been discriminated against, but also give the fair right to an employer not to have a right sat on and built up so that it becomes something that could hurt the small business and be unexpected. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, my amendment, which I offer along with Senators Voinovich, Martinez, Grassley, Enzi, Corker, Alexander, Cornyn, Burr, Murkowski, and Thune, is a substitute for the underlying bill that is before us, S. 181. I hope we will, now that we have taken up the bill, fully discuss and hopefully have some amendments that will make the Fair Pay Act a bill that will serve all of the needs of our country. Paramount is the right of an employee to have redress, if that employee is experiencing discrimination. We also need to make sure that our small businesses and medium-sized businesses know what their underlying liabilities might be. That is part of business planning. I have certainly been a person who has known discrimination. I want everyone who believes they have a cause of action to have that right. I have also been a business owner. I know how important it is that our businesses know what their potential liabilities are. That is why statutes of limitation were put into the laws of the country, so that one could have a defense, so that there would be timely filings of claims, so that there would be witnesses who would have the memory or the records or the documents to defend against a claim. My substitute amendment allows the person who is aggrieved, when that person knows or should have known that there was discrimination, to have 180 days, approximately 6 months, to file that claim so that there will be records, there will be notice, and there will be the ability for a defense and for the person to have the fair trial with the people who would be relevant to her or his case. To do that, we have to have that time limit that the Supreme Court has said is a reasonable time limit, if it is 6 months after the person knew or should have known. We are putting back in or we are actually codifying for all of the districts of the country that standard. It is also important that we have the ability for that person to get into court, because that is the person who has the grievance. It is that person who should be testifying rather than someone who might have had an effect but is not the person who knows if they believe they were discriminated against. These are the things that my amendment addresses. We are not going to debate, although I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland is going to rebut, but I hope to have the time for us to fully debate this amendment when we take it up and when all of our Members are here. There will be Members on my side who want to speak, I am sure Members on her side who want to speak, so I wanted to lay the amendment down so everyone is on notice and has the document and can read the amendment. Then I look forward to discussing it when the majority leader decides we will take this bill up, hopefully, next week. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, can we amend the request to allow both sides to have an equal amount of added time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I think it is very important that we deal with this issue on the promise that I will be able to offer my substitute because I believe it is a substitute that gives the right for an aggrieved employee to bring an action within a timeframe that is reasonable for the business to be able to plan. I am a person who has known discrimination. I am also a former small business owner, and I know the importance of knowing what your liabilities are and having clarity. That is why in the law, in every cause of action, we do have statutes of limitation. I look forward to debating with my colleague and friend, the Senator from Maryland, to try to come to the right conclusion on a bipartisan basis. I am going to vote for cloture on the promise that we will have an open debate on this issue and try to come to a conclusion. The Senator from Wyoming makes a good point. For the future, I hope we will listen to what he is saying. Committees work around here. Committees are where you can do markups, where we work in a bipartisan way to make legislation better. We cannot write bills on the Senate floor. In the future, I hope all of us will work toward allowing the committee process to work. Today, we are going to take a leap of faith that we will have the amendments and that we will come to a good conclusion on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Presdient, I have really enjoyed working with John Sununu. John Sununu grew up in Salem, NH, and is one of eight children. He was first introduced to public service at a young age, when his mother served as chairman of the local school board. John attended public schools, graduated from Salem High School, and received bachelor's and master's degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. John also earned a master's degree in business administration from the Harvard Graduate School of Business. John Sununu first ran for public office in 1996, winning election in New Hampshire's 1st District and serving 3 terms in the U.S. House. In 2002, John defeated both an incumbent Senator and the sitting Governor to become the youngest Member of the U.S. Senate. As a Senator, John distinguished himself as an innovative legislator, bringing his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business to his work in Washington. Senator Sununu has been a staunch advocate for low taxes, smarter regulation, and civil liberties. Since he is still a young man at the age of 44, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more from John Sununu in the years to come. I wish him well in his future endeavors. Gordon Smith Mr. President, Gordon Smith has served the people of Oregon extremely well. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, he served as director of the family owned Smith frozen foods company in Weston, OR, where he created jobs and spurred economic growth. Gordon Smith entered politics with his election to the Oregon State Senate in 1992, and he became president of that body in 1995. Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Senator Smith has worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on critical issues. Senator Smith chaired the Special Committee on Aging, and he also served on the following Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance, and Indian Affairs. Senator Smith has also courageously led the effort to educate Americans on ways to prevent the tragedy of suicide of young men and women. In 2004, I was so proud when President Bush signed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, authorizing $82 million for suicide prevention and awareness programs at colleges. Because of his business experience, he was a Senate leader on issues and regulations that impede economic growth. Senator Smith also distinguished himself by championing rural Oregonians, including the many farmers and ranchers throughout the mountains and lake areas of his beautiful State. I thank Gordon Smith for his dedication and service, and I wish him well. Ted Stevens Mr. Presdient, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years, and is the longest-serving Republican Senator in history. On a personal note, I have enjoyed working with Senator Stevens, and it has been a true privilege to collaborate with him on some of the most important issues facing our great Nation--including energy, health care, and national defense. Senator Stevens' service to the United States didn't begin when he stepped inside this chamber. Rather, his service began decades earlier--during some of the most harrowing days of World War Two. Senator Stevens was part of the Greatest Generation who fought and won that global struggle for freedom--flying a C-47 in the China Burma India Theater. Incredibly, over 1,000 of Senator Stevens' fellow airmen died ``flying the hump'' and elsewhere in the Chinese Burma India Theater--a sobering reminder of the high price of freedom. For his heroic efforts, Senator Stevens later received two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China. After the war, Senator Stevens completed his education at UCLA and Harvard Law School, and then moved to Alaska, which was then a U.S. territory. In the city of Fairbanks, Senator Stevens practiced law for several years, until he came to Washington, DC, to serve in the Eisenhower administration, and also to lobby for Alaska's admittance into the Union--a mission that succeeded in 1959. When Senator Stevens returned to Alaska, he ran for--and won a seat in the Alaska House of Representatives, and later became House majority leader. Then, in December 1968, Governor Walter J. Hickel appointed him to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. In 1970, the voters of Alaska ratified that choice by electing Senator Stevens to finish that term in a special election, and then re- electing him six more times. Senator Stevens' achievements are legendary in this chamber-- including chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Commerce Committee and President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate--from January 2003 to January 2007. For his many decades of service, Senator Stevens has received and accepted numerous honors--including having the Anchorage International Airport named after him. Back in 1993, when I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I was one of only seven female Senators, and if the Senate was a men's club, then the Appropriations Committee was its inner sanctum. There was not a single woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but that is where I wanted to serve. I explained to Senator Stevens--who was then the ranking member of the committee--that Texas has more Army soldiers than any other State, more Air Force airmen and women stationed in Texas than any other State, and our defense industry builds everything from fighter aircraft to Army trucks to artillery systems to sophisticated electronics equipment for the Pentagon. Therefore, I hoped to be able to serve on that committee. After some careful thought, Senator Stevens agreed, and welcomed me to the Committee. Senator Stevens has been known to show dramatic performances on the Senate floor, keeping wandering eyes focused on the urgent issues that need to be addressed. One day, during a mark-up in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired the committee at the time, grew very animated and laid down the law. When a frustrated senior Senator told Senator Stevens that ``there was no reason to lose your temper,'' Senator Stevens glared back and responded, ``I never lose my temper. I always know exactly where I left it.'' Senator Stevens acknowledges his quick temper; but those who know him see the other side--a compassionate heart. I will never forget when a group of protestors gathered outside of the Appropriations Committee conference to demand increased funding for breast cancer research. One particularly agitated advocate got in Senator Stevens' face and said, ``If men were dying of breast cancer, you wouldn't think twice about increasing the funding.'' Needless to say, those words made quite an impact on Senator Stevens, but probably not what this advocate anticipated. When Senator Stevens walked back into the conference, he repeated the charge and then looked around at his mostly male colleagues. He knew that at least 6 of them suffered from prostate cancer. He also noticed that the bill they were considering didn't fund prostate cancer research. But thanks to the excellent suggestion of the woman in the hallway, he became an advocate for breast cancer research and prostate cancer research. Senator Stevens became a leader on these issues. He has been a champion of a strong national defense and of the men and women who serve in the military. I wish him and his family the best.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are we on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or is this morning business?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, tomorrow, it is my understanding we will be--or sometime in the next period of a day or so, I think--we will be on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A number of my colleagues have spoken on the floor today about it, and I wish to talk about that bill because I want there to be a full record before we go forward to vote on a cloture motion on that act. I am a woman who has experienced gender discrimination. I have experienced it firsthand. I know how hard it can be to deal with for a woman, or any person who has been discriminated against for any reason in the workplace. I am pleased we are going to address this issue. I think it is very important that we have all of the considerations around this bill as we go forward so that we do not have unintended consequences. I have been a small business owner. I know the importance of clarity, of knowing if you have made a mistake or a potential mistake, or if you are accused of making a mistake and the liability that might go along with that. I think it is important that we recognize this is not just a woman's issue, it is an issue for every person, whether it is age discrimination or some other kind of discrimination that might be used against a person in the workplace. We want to have fair pay in our country. That is something I think all of us can agree is very important for America, but this bill should be fully vetted. One of the problems I have with it is the process. We have not ever gone to committee with this bill. In our committees, as they have functioned in the past, we have been able to have numerous amendments, we have been able to hear from all sides of an issue, and generally, in committees, when a bill is coming out, there has been much work done on it and it is a much better bill before it hits the floor. I think everyone with any experience in this body can see the difference between a bill that has not gone through committee, not had the proper input, not had the hearings, not had the debate in the markup, versus a bill we try to write on the floor with 100 people who may or may not know all of the businesses or women or ethnic groups that might have a say that is important to hear on an issue such as this. We had a cloture vote on this bill last Congress, and in the intervening months we could have had a committee hearing, we could have had witnesses come forward on both sides, but we didn't. Senator Enzi has made a very strong point--because he is the ranking member on the relevant committee--that their committee has acted in a very bipartisan way, when he was chairman or when he has been ranking member. There has been cooperation. This could be a bill that would get 100 votes in this body. But that is not the bill that is going to come before us. I have introduced a substitute--I introduced it last year and I have introduced it again this year--with cosponsors Enzi, Voinovich, Alexander, Cornyn, Burr, and Murkowski, because we want a responsible approach to address employment discrimination. I hope we will be able to have amendments on this bill. I am told the majority leader has agreed that we will, and our Republican leader has said he wants to work with the majority leader to assure that we do have some reasonable number of amendments that might make this a better bill that we could all support and know that it will make fairness in the workplace better. The bill that will be before us is a bill that I think has not been fully explained. The supporters say the legislation will restore the state of employment discrimination law to the place where it rested before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. In fact, it was said on the floor here earlier that we should overturn the Supreme Court ruling. This statement has largely gone unchallenged, but in truth this bill does more than what the supporters are suggesting. The practical effect is to eliminate any meaningful statute of limitations on the validity of claims, meaning that employees could sue on alleged discrimination that occurred years ago, even decades ago. The bill accomplishes this by treating every paycheck as a new trigger to start a new filing period. The result of this would basically do two things: One is if a discriminatory act occurs, the employer would be liable for that action indefinitely. They could be sued for it any time as long as the employee continues to receive the paychecks. It wouldn't matter that the passage of a significant amount of time, perhaps decades, could make it virtually impossible for the business to expect this legal expense and prepare for it and impossible to offer a defense or to learn what happened. In Lilly Ledbetter's own case so much time had passed between the actual act of discrimination that was alleged and the filing of the claim that the supervisor who was accused of the past discrimination was deceased. There was no one there who could have testified that there had been some motivation or no motivation. There was no ability because the person had long since left the company and was deceased. In addition, I think for fairness to all sides, there has to be a time in which a claim is brought or lapses. In almost every area of the law--I cannot remember that there is any other area--claims become invalid after a period of time. That provides certainty. That is essential to our justice system. Witnesses have to be available with a reasonable amount of recordkeeping or records or some way to ask questions of a person who is accused of some wrongdoing. I think it is so important that in our justice system we have the ability for a fair trial--for the person who is claiming a discrimination and the person who is defending against that discrimination to have the right to make a case. That is what our justice system has protected through statutes of limitations or having a time period in which you must make a claim or that right lapses. Another problem with the bill is the addition of three words, which sound kind of innocuous, I guess. According to the bill, it is not only the person who is discriminated against who has the right for a claim, but a third party who claims to be affected by that discrimination. With such broad language, you are opening the field to innumerable lawsuits. Wouldn't it be irrational to have a law in which an heir of a deceased person could potentially have the ability to file a suit, saying that, as a third party, they are affected by a discrimination? I think we are going down a very treacherous road here. I think if we had a committee hearing and the ability to go to markup, this could be a good bill, because I definitely want to make sure that we have fair pay for all of the people in our country. I have heard from many small and mid-sized businesses around the country, saying they are not opposed to giving workers a fair shake, but they oppose this bill because they are concerned about the catastrophic increase in legal costs resulting from an undisciplined system that allows liability to continue indefinitely. The explosion of litigation from allegations possibly many years old could be an enormous strain on a small or mid-sized business, and could actually result in reduced employment. Certainly at this particular time, when we know we should be creating jobs in America, we should not be creating more burdens on the businesses that are providing jobs. The bill I have introduced goes beyond simply providing additional time for workers to file claims. It would have the consequence of allowing a person to file if they knew or should have known of the act of discrimination, and they would have the 180 days to do that. It would make it a uniform codified law that everyone in America would be treated the same. Some districts in America do say that you have a burden to show you didn't know if there was a discrimination and that is why you are bringing the case beyond the 180 days. But if you knew or should have known, then you can say, I couldn't possibly have known, and the judge can make the determination if your claim is reasonable. That is what we would codify, that an employee would have the opportunity to say they were not aware, nor could they have been aware, that there was a discrimination. Now, if you are fired or demoted, that is clearly a triggering action in which you should know that there might be discrimination. If you believe you have been unjustly demoted or fired, as an employee, you are then on notice that a discriminatory act has been taken against you. Then it is a harder case for the employee to say they needed more than 180 days. But the area where we want them to conserve the employee's ability to file a lawsuit is in pay discrimination, because often it is difficult for the employee to know that maybe they were not getting what their coworker was getting. So I think my bill, which I hope to be able to offer as a substitute amendment, would be a fair way to say to the employee, if they feel they have been discriminated against because of their gender or their age, they will have the ability to come forward and say, it is within the 6 months that I have learned of my discrimination. Or here is why I couldn't know of that discrimination, and either way, they would have the ability to have that decided by the judge or the EEOC. I think that is a reasonable approach so that the business will know what their range of liability potentially is, which every small or mid- sized business needs to know. We want to make sure there is a fairness for the defense and fairness for the plaintiff in these cases. We want to make sure we have a reasonable standard, and I think my bill provides that. It provides more leeway and a standard which everyone would know is the same across our country. I think the underlying bill is flawed in that it gives third parties who are not the person who is discriminated against a right of action. I think that opens the door much too wide and offers the potential for abuse if the person who actually had the discrimination might not have wanted to bring a case or felt discriminated against--but to give a third party the right to sue and claim they are affected I think is going way beyond our concept of discrimination. Second, I do think it is very important that we have a standard here that is the standard throughout our justice system and that is you need to bring a case in a timely way, for the rights of everyone--for defendants as well as the memories of people who would want to be making the case that there is a discriminatory act. I want fair pay. I want to eliminate discrimination in our workplace. I want people to have the right to sue. I want there to be a reasonable time in which they can do this, and I think that is what the bill that I hope to be able to offer as a substitute will do. Mine is the Title VII Fairness Act, which has been introduced with cosponsors. I think if we can write this bill in a way that can bring fairness to all sides. It would not overburden businesses with undefendable lawsuits and would give more leeway to the people who have discovered that they were discriminated against and need more time to bring a case, that, in fact, would be the best result for our country. I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I certainly will have the opportunity to speak, I hope, again when I am able to offer my amendment. I hope the Senate will function going into the future, where we have committee hearings, committee markups on bills so we can have the maximum input to go forward and have good legislation and not legislation that has unintended consequences that would hurt the workplace and the rights of people in our country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006 Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years. Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006 Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years. Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, even before she came to the U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Dole was already a trailblazer and one of the most accomplished women in American history. At a time when women who attended prestigious colleges and universities were rare, Senator Dole received an undergraduate degree from Duke University, as well as two degrees from Harvard University: a master's degree in education and government, and a law degree. She was one of only 24 women in her Harvard Law School class of 550. She then began a public service career that paved the way for millions of women who have admired and followed her. After serving as the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs in the Nixon administration, Elizabeth Dole was appointed as a member of the Federal Trade Commission. From 1981-83, she served in the Reagan administration as assistant to the President for Public Liaison. From 1983-87, she served as Secretary of Transportation, the first woman to hold that position. She joined the administration of President George H.W. Bush as Secretary of Labor from 1989-90. From 1991-98, Elizabeth Dole was the President of the American Red Cross, the world's largest humanitarian organization. Finally, in 2002, she won election to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina. As the senior Senator from the Tar Heel State, Elizabeth Dole has fought for lower taxes, choice in Social Security, and comprehensive energy reform. Senator Dole, and her wonderful husband, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, have made a tremendous impact on American history. I will miss working with Senator Elizabeth Dole, and I wish her all the best. Gordon Smith

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Gordon Smith has served the people of Oregon extremely well. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, he served as director of the family-owned Smith frozen foods company in Weston, Oregon, where he created jobs and spurred economic growth. Gordon Smith entered politics with his election to the Oregon State Senate in 1992, and he became president of that body in 1995. Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Senator Smith has worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on critical issues. Senator Smith chaired the Special Committee on Aging, and he also served on the following Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance, and Indian Affairs. Senator Smith has also courageously used family tragedy as a way to educate and encourage Americans on a very important subject: suicide prevention for young men and women. In 2004, I was so proud when President Bush signed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, authorizing $82 million for suicide-prevention and awareness programs at colleges. Senator Smith also distinguished himself by championing rural Oregonians, including the many farmers and ranchers throughout the mountains and lake areas of his beautiful State. I thank Gordon Smith for his dedication and service, and I wish him well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have really enjoyed working with John Sununu. John Sununu grew up in Salem, NH, and is one of eight children. He was first introduced to public service at a young age, when his mother served as chairman of the local school board. John attended public schools, graduated from Salem High School, and received bachelor's and master's degrees in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. John also earned a master's degree in business administration from the Harvard Graduate School of Business. John Sununu first ran for public office in 1996, winning election in New Hampshire's 1st District and serving three terms in the U.S. House. In 2002, John defeated both an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor to become the youngest member of the U.S. Senate. As a Senator, John distinguished himself as an innovative legislator, bringing his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business to his work in Washington. Senator Sununu has been a staunch advocate for low taxes, smarter regulation, and civil liberties. Senator Sununu is also a man of heart. I will never forget that in July 2005, to show solidarity with Senator Specter, who had lost his hair due to chemotherapy, Senator Sununu shaved his head. Since he is still a young man at the age of 44, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more from John Sununu in the years to come. I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about my great friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years and is the longest-serving Republican Senator in history. On a personal note, I have always enjoyed working with Senator Stevens, and it has been a true privilege to collaborate with him on some of the most important issues facing our great Nation--including energy, health care, and national defense. Senator Stevens' service to the United States didn't begin when he stepped inside this Chamber. Rather, his service began decades earlier--during some of the most harrowing days of World War II. Senator Stevens was part of the Greatest Generation who fought and won that global struggle for freedom--flying a C-47 in the China-Burma- India theater. Incredibly, over 1,000 of Senator Stevens' fellow airmen died ``flying the hump'' and elsewhere in the China-Burma-India theater--a sobering reminder of the high price of freedom. For his heroic efforts, Senator Stevens later received two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China. After the war, Senator Stevens completed his education at UCLA and Harvard Law School, and then moved to Alaska, which was then a U.S. territory. In the city of Fairbanks, Senator Stevens practiced law for several years, until he came to Washington, DC to serve in the Eisenhower administration, and also to lobby for Alaska's admittance into the Union--a mission that succeeded in 1959. When Senator Stevens returned to Alaska, he ran for--and won--a seat in the Alaska House of Representatives, and later became House Majority Leader. Then, in December 1968, Governor Walter J. Hickel appointed him to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. In 1970, the voters of Alaska ratified that choice by electing Senator Stevens to finish that term in a special election, and then re- electing him six more times, always by overwhelming margins. Senator Stevens' achievements are legendary in this Chamber-- including (but not limited to) Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate--putting him third in line for the Presidency from January 2003 to January 2007. For his many decades of service, Senator Stevens has received and accepted numerous honors--including having the Anchorage International Airport named after him. Our entire country has been enriched and improved by his hard work, dedication, and leadership. I say this, not as a distant observer, but as an up-close witness to his achievements. Back in 1993, when I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I was one of only seven female Senators, and if the Senate was a men's club, then the Appropriations Committee was its inner sanctum. There was not a single woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but that's where I wanted to serve. I explained to Senator Stevens--who was then the ranking member of the committee--that Texas has more Army soldiers than any other State, more Air Force Airmen and women stationed in Texas than any other State, and our defense industry builds everything from fighter aircraft to Army trucks to artillery systems to sophisticated electronics equipment for the Pentagon. Therefore, it was absolutely essential that a Senator from Texas serve on that committee. After some careful thought, Senator Stevens agreed and welcomed me to the committee. And since that time, he has been a valuable mentor to me--not to mention a passionate advocate for Alaska and America. And when I say passion, I really do mean passion. Senator Stevens has been known to show dramatic performances on the Senate floor, keeping wandering eyes focused on the urgent issues that need to be addressed. One day, during a mark-up in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired the committee at the time, grew very animated and laid down the law. When a frustrated senior Senator told Senator Stevens that ``there was no reason to lose your temper,'' Senator Stevens glared back and responded, ``I never lose my temper. I always know exactly where I left it.'' But if Senator Stevens has a temper, he also has a compassionate heart. I will never forget when a group of protestors gathered outside of the Appropriations Committee conference to demand increased funding for breast cancer research. One particularly agitated advocate got in Senator Stevens' face and said, ``If men were dying of breast cancer, you wouldn't think twice about increasing the funding.'' Needless to say, those words made quite an impact on Senator Stevens, but probably not what this advocate anticipated. When Senator Stevens walked back into the conference, he repeated the charge and then looked around at his mostly male colleagues. He knew that at least six of them suffered from prostate cancer. He also noticed that the bill they were considering didn't fund prostate cancer research. But thanks to the excellent suggestion of the woman in the hallway, he was going to advocate breast cancer research and prostate cancer research. Senator Stevens was determined to become a leader on these issues, and over time, that is certainly what he's become. I congratulate Senator Stevens on all that he's accomplished for Alaska and America, and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so appreciate hearing the many stories that Ted Stevens has generated in this body. He has been a friend to everyone who has served all of the time with him. People say: Ted took care of Alaska. Ted did take care of Alaska. But from my standpoint, what I saw is that Ted made sure that every State was taken care of, that every Senator's priorities were met, if at all possible. He took care of the military. He took care of upgrading the military bases because, of course, he served in the military. And he wanted more than anything for our military people to have the quality of life they deserved. So I see him as someone who has been what people say is so rare in this city, and that is a true friend. It has been mentioned a couple of times that he has a gruff exterior. When I see pictures of him in the newspaper and he is looking like this, it is not the Ted Stevens we know. It is not the person who has endeared himself to our colleagues for years and years and years in the Senate. That is his manner, but I always said behind his back: He is all bark and no bite. He is the most loyal friend and the person you could go to when you needed advice, as I know his great colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has done many times, as have I, but also when you needed help. I, too, have traveled with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye because I was fortunate enough, with Ted's help, to get on the Defense Appropriations Committee. So we went to the garden spots of the world such as Bosnia, when the Serbs had been shooting from the hills, and when we went undercover with flight jackets, undercover of delivering 2,000 pounds of peas to the many refugees who were in Bosnia at the time. We came into the Sarajevo airport with our helmets on and our flight jackets. Of course, it was a war-torn city. We saw later, when we went there, the former Olympic fields that were burial grounds because they had no place else to put the people who had died in these terrible, tragic circumstances in Bosnia. I went with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye to Saudi Arabia where I was told later that it was actually discouraged that a woman would be in a delegation. But Ted Stevens said: No way was there ever going to be discrimination against a Senator. I was a part of that delegation. I went to our airbase there. I went and met with everyone we met with as a delegation. I spoke in my turn, just as every member of our delegation did, because Ted Stevens was always going to stand up for the right of every Senator to be a part of a foreign delegation. I went to the farm bureau air show with Ted Stevens. There is nothing more joyous than Ted Stevens when he is in an air museum or at an air show. He is an aviator to his core. He asked all the questions. He knew most of the answers already because he knows airplanes and he knows aviation. I know what this man has been through for the last few months. I know the toll it takes on himself and his family. I am proud to stand with Ted Stevens because I value his friendship and all he has done for me in my term in the Senate and what he has done for Texas every time I have needed for Texas to be taken care of. I will say two things in conclusion about Ted Stevens. His country has never called that he has not answered the call--from the military, to being in the Eisenhower administration, to fighting for Alaska to be a State, and then fighting to make Alaska a great State. It is a great State. It would not be the State it is without your leadership, Ted. But I want to say the most important thing I think you could say about anyone you know; that is, those who know him best love him most. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my friends from the Appropriations Committee along with Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye for their leadership and agreement on this issue. In the absence of explicit authority and in response to the GAO determination, I join my colleagues in urging DOT to cease action on any current auction proposal. I believe market based solutions should play a role in the future of our congested airports, but the path the Department has taken is shortsighted, untimely and according to the GAO, apparently illegal. Instead, the Department should further focus on mitigating delays through capacity enhancements at congested airports.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve that time and put it into the next bill coming forward, the Amtrak bill, so we would then have 16 minutes.