Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to make sure everyone knows we have 30 minutes allocated for Amtrak, and then the majority leader, Senator Reid, also intends to go back, before the vote starts, and use his leader time at his discretion. I rise to talk about the Amtrak reauthorization bill which will be the first vote tonight. I start out by thanking my colleague, Senator Smith from Oregon, for all of the good work he has done on the rail safety portion of this bill; also Senator Lautenberg, the majority member who has worked so hard on the Amtrak portion; and Senators Inouye and Senator Stevens, the chairman and ranking member of our committee during most of the negotiations on this big, very important bill. I think we have come to a very good position on Amtrak and on rail safety, and the legislation before us combines these two important bills that were written with separate subcommittees. I have worked on rail safety since I came to the Senate in 2004 when Union Pacific was going through a rash of accidents. The Department of Transportation initiated a compliance review at the request of myself and all the members of the Texas Congressional delegation. The rail safety component of this legislation will reduce driver fatigue by ensuring that train employees receive adequate rest between shifts. The recent accident in California has led many to call for the implementation of new safety technologies on trains. Our legislation requires the Department of Transportation to develop a plan for implementation of positive train control systems on trains by the end of 2015. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important bipartisan legislation. Financial Bailout Mr. President, the later votes we will take tonight are on another major piece of legislation. We have been hearing the debate on it all afternoon, really for the last 2 weeks. I want to start by saying that stabilizing our economy is the most important responsibility our Congress has right now. I did not vote for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout. I did not. I did not vote for that because I did not think there was enough taxpayer protection, nor were there limits on executive compensation packages. When Secretary Paulson came before us last week and said he wanted to have the power to spend up to $700 billion, I would not have supported that package, because, again, there were not enough taxpayer protections, there were not enough limits on executive compensation, and there was not enough oversight. But in my 15 years in the Senate, I have never seen a more bipartisan effort in Congress to sit down and come to a real conclusion for the good of our country, putting Republican and Democratic labels aside, to say: We know it is our responsibility to save the financial integrity of our country for every person who has a pension fund, for every person who has a lifetime savings in a bank, for every person who has worked hard all their lives to buy their homes, and to want to be able to own that home and pay off their mortgage. I am speaking for every person who has gone to the bank for a loan in the last 4 days, because they are being told there is no ability to loan right now. I am talking about a State that goes to the markets for municipal funding and does not get one bid despite a triple A rating. Do we have the option of sitting here and seeing this happen in our country and saying: You know, I do not like this part of that bill or that part of that bill, so I am going to vote no? I do not say that any person voting no is not doing it because of their own convictions, but I am saying that from my standpoint, the people who have elected me to represent them in the Senate, I have worked in every way I could to get the taxpayer protections, to get the oversight of Congress, to have the board that would make a difference in maybe what could be done by the Treasury, the way they put together these packages, to make sure there is an upside for the taxpayer, which there is in this bill, that the taxpayers will have an ownership stake if there is an upside, and that it will pay down debt. It is not going anywhere else but paying down debt to start getting our fiscal house in order. Then the House put in a provision that I thought was very sound. After 5 years, if the Government is facing a loss in the program, the President will be required to submit a plan to determine how we recoup from the financial companies that have been benefited, whatever the loss might be to the taxpayer. This legislation also increases the FDIC limits to protect those people who have their life savings in a bank, so they will not worry they might be wiped out when it is announced, when they wake up in the morning, that their bank has gone under. There is very important tax policy in this bill that was added since the House turned down the bill, that was agreed to by the bipartisan working group, very important tax policies. It will give relief of the AMT to 23 million more low- and middle-income taxpayers in our country. AMT is eating up the ability for families to be able to save for their college education for their children. It also extends the tax incentives that will spur energy production and innovation, wind energy, production tax credit, research and development tax credits, sales tax deductions for States that do not have an income tax. It also includes help for our disaster areas, to give tax credits to developers who will help build low-income housing in the 29 Texas counties that still have not even been able to clean up their streets yet from Hurricane Ike. We have added much to this bill from the original proposal. I agree with something the Senator from California said a few minutes ago: People think this is the same proffer that was made a week ago that had no oversight, no taxpayer protections, no upside for the taxpayer, no limits on executive compensation. That is not what we are talking up tonight. What we are talking up tonight does have improvements made by Congress, doing everything we can, that if this is passed and it is run right, the taxpayers will actually benefit, and we will start paying down the debt of our country. Senators Reid and McConnell, Senators Dodd and Judd Gregg, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Frank, Congressman Boehner, Congressman Blunt, have been a bipartisan working group with the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, to attempt to do all that we laid out to the Secretary that we wanted to see in the legislation that was not there when he first came forward. He has bent over backwards to try to make sure that we have those protections in place. I urge my colleagues to remember they have been elected by the people of their State to make the tough decisions. They have been elected not to go on what would be their preference for one part of the bill that might not have gotten in. None of us would have written this exactly the way it is written. But we all did have the basic standards of taxpayer protection, giving the taxpayers an upside, of limiting executive compensation when somebody has run a financial institution into the ground, increasing the FDIC limits so that people who have their life savings in a bank will be able to know that is safe. If anything, the Government of the United States of America ought to be able to stabilize its financial markets to show the world that we are the most stable and leading democracy in the world, and that we can get our house in order. I hope every one of us will think carefully about a tough vote, yes, but a vote that is right for the long term of our country. If the program is done correctly, it provides every possibility for taxpayers to have an upside. It also provides every possibility that there will be the oversight that will make sure everything is done with transparency. This isn't a $700 billion package. This is a $250 billion package with contingencies and strings, if we have to go beyond that, strings the President would have to agree to, strings Congress would have to agree to. That is a much more measured and responsible approach than what was presented by the Secretary early on--a $700 billion bailout. It is not that anymore. It is a responsible, bipartisan effort to stand up for the economy of the United States and for every banker and every small investor and every saver and every working person who depends on that stability and depends on their elected officials to do the right thing in the toughest of times. That is what we promised when every one of us ran for election. I hope we will deliver it tonight. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there time left on the majority side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to reiterate something the Senator from California mentioned, and that is, the rail safety part of this bill is actually a bill that was negotiated separately from the Amtrak bill. We put them together because time was of the essence. After that terrible crash in California, I think it spurred us to be able to put these together and go forward. The positive train control that will be required for every rail carrier by the year 2015 is going to also have a major impact on safety and stop the crashes that are preventable that we have seen in the past. So I think there are a number of rail safety issues that are so important here that can make a difference. At this time, Mr. President, I wish to yield up to 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 minutes for Senator DeMint. I overlooked his coming to the floor. It is my fault. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes and also to give the other side 2 additional minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the rail safety and Amtrak authorization bill. This is a bill that I think will move forward a major alternative option for our passengers and for the mobility of our country--Amtrak. Most people think of Amtrak as the Northeast corridor, and going from Boston all the way through New York and Washington and on down through Florida. That is a very important route. In fact, that route has more than 2,600 trains operating every day. So it is a major part of our transportation infrastructure in what is called the Northeast corridor. However, we have a national system for Amtrak as well. It is a national system that goes, of course, down the east coast, as I mentioned, but it also goes down the west coast. It goes all the way up and down the west coast. It has lines that go across the top of our country, across the bottom of our country east to west, and right down the middle, what is called the Texas Eagle, which goes from Chicago, down through St. Louis, down into Texas, and across to San Antonio, where it meets the Sunset Limited, which goes from California to Florida. So we have the skeleton of a national system. It is a system we must preserve. It is a system that has become more and more of an option as gasoline prices have increased. We saw how many people went to train use after 9/11, when the aviation industry was shut down. It is something we must support and keep. Now we are increasing ridership every year. During fiscal year 2007, 25.8 million passengers, representing the fifth straight fiscal year of record ridership, boarded Amtrak. Ridership is up 7 percent more over this time last year, as people have gone to the trains because of the high gasoline prices. This bill authorizes $2.6 billion annually over 5 years. It authorizes that amount. In Congress we authorize, and then the appropriations come later on an annual basis. And $2.6 billion would be the ceiling for the next 5 years for Amtrak. But to put this in perspective, when we are talking about alternatives in our transportation system, we have authorized, in SAFETEA-LU, the highway authorization bill, $40 billion. The FAA bill, introduced in this Congress, proposes to invest $17 billion annually in aviation. Last year we passed a Water Resources Development Act authorizing $23 billion over the next 2 years. We are talking about $13 billion over 5 years--$2.6 billion each year, which is the very least of the authorizations of any of our transportation systems. If included with the number of passengers served by our aviation industry, in 2007, Amtrak would rank eighth in the number of passengers served, with a market share of right at 4 percent. There are nearly twice as many passengers on an Amtrak train as on a domestic airline flight. So we have crafted a bill--and I have to tell you honestly, this is not my bill. Actually, it started with Trent Lott. Senator Lautenberg on the majority side now has continued to be a leader in this field. I support the bill Frank Lautenberg and Trent Lott negotiated because it is right for our country. I have always said, for me, Amtrak is national or nothing. There was a time in this Congress when nobody ever talked national. They only talked about saving the Northeast corridor. Of course, that is the rail line that is owned by Amtrak. The other rail lines mostly are not separated, although I would like to see that changed. But we are using freight rail, and we are at the behest of the freight rail lines. So it is not as efficient. But it is very important we keep those relationships and work toward having the separate lines on those rail rights of way. Today, we are talking about a national system. There was a time when we only talked about the Northeast corridor. But many of us who are on the national lines, who have been supportive of the Northeast corridor, said: Wait a minute. We cannot create a stepchild in the rest of the country. If my taxpayers in Texas and Trent Lott's taxpayers--now Thad Cochran's and Roger Wicker's taxpayers--are subsidizing Amtrak in the Northeast corridor, we want to have a chance at the national system because it has so much potential to work with States and cities to use mass transit systems that feed into the national system, and it will help all of us with mobility. In fact, all of those who support the Northeast corridor have been very supportive also of the national system. We have had a partnership in Congress for the last 10 years that I have been here to make sure we are making Amtrak financially responsible with the least amount of Federal help of any of the transportation modes. Highways are $40 billion a year. We are $2.6 billion a year. So we have a bill that has been crafted, I think, in the very most responsible way. I recommend it, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to take this bill as we have crafted it, with a lot of give and take, and recommend to the Congress and the Senate we pass it today. Mr. President, I wish to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from the Acting President pro tempore's home Commonwealth of Virginia, one who I have to say has been a longtime supporter of Amtrak and has been such a leader in this Congress. This is his last term in Congress. He has decided not to seek reelection. He is someone who has been a leader not only on Amtrak but certainly on our military affairs for our country, the man whom we call the squire, the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I say to Senator Warner, thank you. It is my pleasure to have supported Amtrak from the day I walked in the door 15 years ago. I think the partnership between the Northeast corridor supporters of Amtrak and the rest of the country supporters has created a much stronger system. We are seeing that in the ridership. I think if we make the commitment to Amtrak we make to the other modes of transportation, it will be better for our whole country and give more options to the people of our country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to say on that point, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia has mentioned how important the Metro part of it is. I think he has represented so well the interests of all the people who live and work in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. It also applies, I would expand, to the visitors to our capital because the rail line on Amtrak that goes from Baltimore Airport to the District, our capital, and from Washington National Airport to our capital, has been so helped by having this kind of service from Amtrak at National Airport or Baltimore to be able to get on that train and come visit our capital. That is a mode of transportation that is used by the millions of visitors who come to visit our capital. This is part of the mobility we provide to people who bring their families here. It is the most efficient and least costly way to get into the District to show children the opportunity to see our capital. I appreciate the senior Senator from Virginia pointing out that this is part of our responsibility.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be given 2 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Allard has spent many years working for Colorado. He came to the Senate in 1996 after serving three terms in the U.S. House. As Colorado's senior Senator, he worked diligently to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, return power to State and local governments, and assure the security of America both at home and abroad. Consistent with his belief that elected officials should be citizen legislators, Senator Allard conducted more than 700 town meetings across Colorado, visiting each of Colorado's 64 counties. He was one of only two veterinarians in the Senate and provided leadership on small business issues from his practical experience. He also led by example, returning more than $4.2 million in unspent office funds to the U.S. Treasury. As the Republican leader of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Allard worked to shape the Nation's spending priorities. His work on the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act helped keep access to the Internet tax-free. He also worked to increase military benefits, including legislation to increase the death benefits for families of fallen heroes from $12,000 to $100,000. I will miss working with him in this Chamber, and I will miss his friendship and support on the issues that matter most to America. Larry Craig Mr. President, Larry Craig has a long history of service to the people of Idaho. In 1974, he was elected to the Idaho State Senate, where he served three terms before winning the 1980 race for Idaho's first congressional seat. He was re-elected four times before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1990. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he assured that the health care needs of our Nation's veterans were addressed, and he helped increase the number of claims processors to try to help veterans receive the benefits they deserve, with fewer delays. Throughout his career, Senator Craig has been a forceful advocate for commonsense, conservative solutions to our Nation's problems. He has been a leader in the battle for lower taxes, private property rights, and greater accountability in government. He has been recognized by national groups, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Watchdogs of the Treasury, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. He is also one of America's foremost defenders of the second amendment. I wish Senator Craig well in his retirement. Chuck Hagel Mr. PRESIDENT, I have really enjoyed working with Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel honorably served our country by enlisting in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war. While in Vietnam, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. After working as Deputy Administrator of the VA, he became a successful entrepreneur and business leader. In 1996, Chuck Hagel was elected to the U.S. Senate. Six years later, he was overwhelmingly reelected with over 83 percent of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history. His knowledge and experience building a business and creating jobs was invaluable to the Senate. He was a leader on the Foreign Relations Committee and represented the U.S. Senate admirably as chair of the Senate Global Climate Change Observer Group. On a personal note, he always sent me a souvenir from the College World Series in Omaha when the University of Texas or Rice University was in the Finals, which I am proud to say was almost every year. I will miss Chuck Hagel, and I wish him well. John Warner Mr. President, John Warner is a Senator who has served his country heroically. During World War II, at the age of 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. At the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950, Senator Warner interrupted his law studies and started a second tour of Active military duty. Senator Warner's next public service began with his Presidential appointment to be Under Secretary of Navy in 1969. He served as Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974. Following his work there, John Warner was appointed by the President to coordinate the celebration of America's bicentennial. Beginning in 1978, Senator Warner has been elected to the Senate five times. In 2005, Senator Warner became the second-longest serving U.S. Senator from Virginia in the 218-year history of the Senate. Now serving in his 30th year in the Senate, Senator Warner rose to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In that capacity, and throughout his career, he has shown unwavering support for the men and women of the Armed Forces. Every time I am with John Warner, I learn something new, valuable, insightful or humorous. He is truly a unique blend of a military leader, country gentleman, historian, great storyteller and statesman. His hard work and devotion will be missed by all his friends in the Senate. Pete Domenici Mr. President, last, but certainly not least, I would like to speak about my great friend, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. The longest serving U.S. Senator in New Mexico history, Pete has been a respected leader on some of the most important issues of our time, including energy security, nuclear proliferation, and fiscal responsibility. Pete was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 and is serving his sixth term. Pete is the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, having previously served as its chairman following a long tenure in charge of the Senate Budget Committee. When he became chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2003, Pete put his years of legislative experience to work to craft the first major comprehensive Energy bill since 1992. Many thought that the task was nearly impossible, but Senator Domenici gained bipartisan consensus and passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This new energy law created incentives to accelerate U.S. development of its own energy resources--including solar, wind, and nuclear power. Then, in late 2006, Domenici engineered the enactment of a new law that will open areas of the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration. This could yield 1.26 billion barrels of American-owned oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the near future. Senator Domenici's commitment to America's prosperity is also exemplified in his work to make the U.S. more competitive in the global marketplace. He is a coauthor of the America Competes Act, a landmark bill that will force substantial changes to promote science and technology education and ensure that the United States does not lose its place as the world's innovation leader. Senator Domenici is a nationally recognized advocate for people with mental illness, having written the 1996 Mental Health Parity law to ensure fair insurance coverage for people who suffer from that disease. Pete has also been a champion in promoting New Mexico's economy. He has worked to ensure equal opportunities for women and minorities. He has worked to find consensus on difficult environmental issues. It has been a true honor to serve with him. The Senate will truly miss his leadership, and I will miss his friendship. Indeed, we will miss all our departing friends. I wish them well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important issue, and that is gun rights, the second amendment gun rights for our country. As we are dealing with the financial stabilization program which is being negotiated, the continuing resolution, which will come over from the House shortly, we do have time to talk about some of the other issues that are so important for our country. I think the second amendment rights of people who live in the District of Columbia are very important. There was a Supreme Court case, a landmark ruling, that was made by the Supreme Court of the United States a couple months ago that said: The District of Columbia gun ban was unconstitutional. Many of us in Congress helped with an amicus brief, a brief to the Court signed by a majority of the Members of the House and the Senate, that asked that the Court overturn this DC gun ban because it was the most restrictive outright gun ban in all of America, and it clearly violated the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. The Court agreed. Now many of us who were hoping to pursue this right for the people of the District of Columbia, which is under the auspices of Congress, waited to see what the District City Council would do. We hoped they would do the right thing and adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed that their ban on the ownership of handguns was unconstitutional. The District then came out with an almost incomprehensible ordinance that does continue to make it very difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun. The District allows registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the applicant's home. So it does not allow the ownership of a handgun in a person's business, to have self-defense in their business, but it does allow it in the home. But then the ordinance goes on to say that it is a policy of the District of Columbia that firearms should be stored unloaded and either disassembled or locked, which is the complete opposite result of the original ruling. I do not think anyone in America would consider an unlocked, unloaded gun to be potentially used for self-defense if someone is entering their home illegally. The firearm registration requirements are onerous. As a condition for registration, the District requires applicants to pay separate, unlimited fees for filing their registration, applicants have their mandatory fingerprints processed, and have their handguns run through a ballistic imaging process. What we are trying to do now is say you would have the ability to own a handgun for your personal use in your home for self-defense for you and your family. We also want to authorize DC residents to buy handguns from licensed dealers in Maryland or Virginia because, of course, there is only one gun dealer in the District of Columbia because there has been such a shortage of guns that a gun owner would sell because you could not have one. Because there is a current Federal law against interstate handgun sales, only Congress can authorize this. So the only way a person will have the ability to buy from a licensed dealer--and a licensed dealer must pass a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; all of that would be enforced, but we do need to have the ability for someone to have a reasonable place to go if they are going to buy a gun to protect themselves and their family. The bottom line is, as soon as we have representation on the floor by both parties, I intend to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of the bill. Now, the bill is H.R. 6842. It passed the House overwhelmingly last week. We want to take up that bill. In fact, I have a letter to Senator Reid signed by 47 Members of the Senate, and I am asking that be submitted for the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Forty-seven of our Members have asked the majority leader to allow this bill to be taken up so we can pass it and send it to the President and assure that the people of the District of Columbia have the same second amendment right that is allowed to every other person in our country. So I would ask whether the Chair is able to speak for the majority or if you prefer I wait for another person to come to the floor. I can do that or I can do it now. I will withhold. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as the leader is finished, I be recognized again to make my motion.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6842, a bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. This is the bill that was passed by the House last week by an overwhelming margin, and I move my unanimous consent request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just respond by saying that it is the prerogative of Congress to make laws that are directly appropriate for the District of Columbia. I have been on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee; I actually was chairman when Senator Durbin was ranking member, so he knows well that we pass laws for the District of Columbia because it is the District of Columbia, and we all appropriate money for the city to function. We have introduced this bill because the District of Columbia failed to protect the second amendment rights of the citizens of the city over which Congress has the ultimate responsibility. It is entirely within the role of Congress to address an issue where a city is not protecting the constitutional rights of its constituents, over which the Congress has the authority. It would not be the same in the city of Chicago or the city of Dallas or other cities in our country. The District of Columbia is a unique city in that it is overseen by Congress. Congress has acted in the past over many issues where the District has fallen short, and I would say Senator Durbin and I have done quite a bit to strengthen the government of the District of Columbia and make it more financially responsible. So I am disappointed that the Senator has objected. I have submitted for the Record a letter to Senator Reid from 47 of our Members who asked Senator Reid to let this bill come forward because, in fact, the District of Columbia acted--and I waited. I did not pursue this until the District of Columbia City Council acted because I hoped they would do the right thing. Unfortunately, they put up so many barriers to a person's right to self-defense in their home by requiring that a handgun be locked and unloaded, and that is not protection--not in Chicago, not in Dallas, not in Houston, and not in the District of Columbia--nor can we overcome the Federal law that does not allow interstate sales of guns across State borders because in the District of Columbia, one should be able to go to Maryland or Virginia and buy from a licensed gun dealer to be able to pursue their right to protect their home and their family in the District of Columbia. So the bill is necessary for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia over which Congress does have ultimate responsibility, and it is my hope that we will do what the House did overwhelmingly and pass this bill and send it to the President. I will continue to pursue opportunities to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it was not quite accurate to suggest that repealing the DC's gun ban and all of the onerous restrictions put on it weren't replaced in the law to require that there be licensed gun dealers from which you could purchase a gun. Of course, they would be licensed with all the Federal requirements, all the State requirements in Maryland and the State of Virginia. Of course, that would be a part of this law. I have to say, I am not understanding why the distinguished Senator from Illinois continues to say the Congress does not have a right to impose our will on the District of Columbia. I have the Constitution of the United States. Article I gives the exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia to the Congress ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .'' The District of Columbia was created to be the seat of government over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. It would not apply to any other State where the Constitution says the States rights prevail. But the District of Columbia is a special city, which I know the Senator from Illinois knows. It is not 535 people trying to usurp the rights of the mayor. It is 535 people who are trying to exercise our responsibility to have laws in the District of Columbia that would adhere to the constitutional rights of the citizens here. It is our responsibility, and that is what we are trying to do. Of course, I know the Senator from Illinois knows it has been clearly upheld that preventing certain areas for the carriage of guns, qualifications on sales, bans on automatics have been declared reasonable. I know the Senator from Illinois knows that. Those would be provided for, of course, because it is Federal law. What we are trying to do is give the basic rights, which is our responsibility as Congress, to the citizens of this District to keep and bear arms, to have the individual right to have a handgun in their home to protect their families, not a handgun that is locked and unloaded, which is what the District of Columbia Council has put out as its response to the Supreme Court case that declared their ban unconstitutional; not to provide so many restrictions and costs on registering a gun that it becomes very difficult and creates a restriction on those second amendment rights; and last but not least, giving them the right in this one instance to buy a gun across State lines because this District is bordered by Virginia and Maryland, where there are gun dealers who are licensed, who do have the correct restrictions and background checks in place to be able to do that because there are not gun dealers in the District of Columbia who would give the proper access to people who would want to protect themselves and their homes. When I look at the statistics in the District of Columbia, I look at the person who is robbed and murdered in their home. I look at the policeman who is shot in the face doing his duty in this District. I think people should have the right in this District to protect their businesses with a handgun, which is barred by the District of Columbia, and to have a firearm in their homes unlocked and able to protect their families from an intruder. We did not get to bring up this legislation today. When the House of Representatives passes something 266 to 152, that makes a clear statement that this Congress is trying to do the right thing to help the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. I hope at some point the Senate will take up this bill that has been passed by the House overwhelmingly and send it to the President, who I know will sign it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make sure the record shows that, No. 1, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to assure that the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. That is our highest calling. It is our highest responsibility. It is not usurping anyone's right in the District of Columbia City Council. It is standing for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia, which is our responsibility to do. Secondly, I want the record to be very clear that every gun dealer in the District of Columbia--there is one--in the State of Virginia, and in the State of Maryland all have the same requirements that are Federal law that would have to be adhered to that would require a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There would be no exceptions to that. Having the background check would be essential for anyone to purchase a gun under our law or any law of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have been in meetings all morning trying to work through the hurricane relief package that is certainly important to my home State of Texas, meeting with the mayors of Houston and Galveston as they go to their hearings for oversight for FEMA and disaster relief. I know we are learning much about what can be done, but I think we are doing so much better than with any previous hurricane relief. But I am also absorbed in the financial crisis that is certainly present in our country today and is affecting so many people, so many jobs, so many families, and so many lives. All of us are going to be making some very tough decisions this week, and I wished to talk about the parameters I am going to put around any package that is put before us for passage that would help us get through this historical time in our country with regard to our economy. Here is what I am looking for. I am looking for a package that, first and foremost, protects the American family who is doing the best they can and doing the right thing; the family who has put their money in a money market fund, as well as bank deposits. We need to protect them. We are hearing that will be done without any further action. So we need to do that. We need to protect those money market funds so no one will lose their life savings because they are doing what is right for their families--saving for their retirement or for their futures or for their emergency needs or people trying to keep their homes. If they are keeping their mortgages current or they are working with their bank to try to extend or lower interest rates, and they have an agreement in order to keep that mortgage going, we want to make sure they are able to do that. That is what we are looking for in a package that we would pass. It is the most important thing that every American is looking toward Congress to do. We want to work together in a bipartisan way--the Congress, the administration, the Federal Reserve--to address this financial issue in a way that protects every family and every person who is doing what is right for their futures and their families. The second major part of any package has to be protection of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are going to basically underwrite what we decide is the right thing to do. So if we are going to underwrite, we want the taxpayers to also have an upside. We want the taxpayers to be protected. We want the taxpayers to have the regulatory underpinnings that would assure they are protected and we want them to have the upside. There is an upside in the AIG bailout that the Federal Reserve has put in place, and that is good, because I believe there is a great chance that will turn out to be a profit for the taxpayers if that is done correctly. I think that should be the model for the package coming forth this week upon which we will decide; that there will be an upside position for the taxpayer, so that when the packages are put together and the bad loans--or the nonperforming loans--are taken off the books, there is an upside to that if those loans perform or if the company succeeds after the bad loans are out. Going down the road, I do think Senator Gregg is saying it best. I think he will probably be able to come out and talk about his view, but it is that we put everything that comes back--in the stabilization that we would provide--to debt reduction. Instead of taking the debt up to possibly $1 trillion, we would pay down the debt so there would be relatively no cost to the taxpayer and we would begin the very long process of not only putting our financial house in order, but we would also start putting our monetary system and our debt repayment back in order. Before 9/11, this country had wiped out the deficit. Congress had wiped out the deficit. We had wiped out the deficit and were paying down the debt. That is where all of us want to be again--that we would wipe out deficits by careful, prudent spending and that we would start paying down that debt so the interest payments do not overwhelm us. Those are the basic parameters I believe Congress should put in the mix, as we are being asked to vote for a very important stabilization of the financial institutions and the families of this country. Congress can put its stamp on this package in our fiduciary responsibility and we can do this right and assure that we do it right. That is our job. That is our responsibility--to carefully look at the package that will be put forward, to have input from Congress and the key people in Congress who are working with the Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to do what is right for our country. Politics should be thrown out the window right now. We should be talking about what is our role, our fiduciary responsibility as elected officials, elected by the taxpayers, and we should be doing it on a bipartisan basis. We should be inclusive, not exclusive. I think we are going to do it. We have an opportunity here to give the taxpayers and American people the confidence that we will do this in their best interests and do it right. That is my hope. I do have the confidence we can do it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague from Texas that we have been working together all day on the tax extender package, because there are many facets that affect Texas in this tax extender package. Then, on a separate note, I am certainly working with our whole delegation on the appropriations part of the continuing resolution we expect to see next week. I so appreciate working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well as Senator Grassley. Both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have been very helpful in trying to fashion an addition, actually, to the tax extender bill because, of course, as Senator Cornyn has said, this hurricane hit our State last weekend. We have seen the pictures-- all America has seen the pictures--of the streets of Galveston, the former streets of many of our areas, and the residents who still cannot get back into their homes, including 2 million people who still don't have power. So we know the devastation that has hit our area, but we don't know yet what the total cost is going to be, because we can't even get into Galveston to start making assessments. Certainly Port Arthur, Orange, Beaumont, the lower parts of Harris County--all the way through our area, we are seeing the effects of this storm that are not yet calculable. The Finance Committee has agreed to add into the bill, that was already on the way, the help that Texas and Louisiana are going to need because of Ike in the tax part of the extender package. The disaster part that will be added in is going to be very helpful to the private sector and the ability to start getting the housing up and going in these areas that have been completely wiped out. I think that later, when Senator Baucus comes to the floor, we will want to talk about it to make sure it is clearly understood exactly what the effects will be on Texas and Louisiana. But our delegations have worked very closely together with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley to achieve what I think is a good result. In addition to the disaster part of the bill, there are important parts of the tax extender package that will affect all of our communities. Certainly in Texas, the sales tax extension that is a matter of equity for States that don't have income tax, to be able to have the same deduction for our sales taxes that income tax State taxpayers have for theirs is a very important component of the tax extender package. Then, again, since Senator Baucus has just walked on the floor, I wish to say that I think what has been worked out on the oil and refinery tax issue from the manufacturing standpoint, along with the additional two years of the expansion of refinery tax credit, we are going to be able to continue to build out the refineries that will affect the price of gasoline all over our country, because as we are seeing right now, due to Hurricane Ike, the shutting down of refineries affects the price of gasoline everywhere. If we can add to the capacity of our refineries all over the country--this is not only Texas and Louisiana; this is Michigan and everywhere where there are refineries--if we can add to that capacity, it adds to supply, and it will bring down the price of gasoline. The extension of 2 years is going to be very helpful for refineries to have an incentive to do even more than they have already been committed to do. Certainly, I think the addition of the manufacturing tax credit, even at the lower level, will also add to the capability as these Gulf of Mexico rigs and refineries are spending millions of dollars, not only on cleaning up the damage and trying to get back up and operating, but they are also helping their employees at a time such as this with the problems they are having with their homes being gone and their living conditions being unable to be sustained. I thank the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for working with us on that. I ask if the Senator is ready to go with a colloquy, or should we wait. I don't know what the status of the tax extender package is at this point, but perhaps he would be able to tell us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the key provisions that the Senator outlined are exactly what we have agreed to in that we would get extra amounts that would be allocated for the five coastal counties in Texas and into Louisiana. Because the amount is higher, the Governor would have discretion, within the other disaster areas, to allocate that excess. That is indeed part of this because there are areas in Houston, Harris County, Galveston, Port Arthur, and Beaumont that will be in the main bill. There are counties such as Orange, Tyler, Polk, and others in the disaster-declared areas that could make the added excess, and so it would be allocated throughout the area according to the discretion of the Governor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The tax-exempt bonding authority, as well, and the low-income housing tax credits will bring that housing back on line, which is so important.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Senator Cornyn had mentioned earlier that he might want to address the additional potential, since we all know this happened just a week ago, and we don't have final actual numbers. I ask him if he wants to speak on something that he had been very active in doing.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to just say to Senator Cornyn and to Senator Baucus, as we said earlier, there are actually 29 counties that will be in this affected area. What I appreciate so much is that Senator Baucus realized that it would be very difficult for us to pass a disaster package and leave out Texas and Louisiana when the devastation is so bad. It is the beginning, and I am sure there will be more. But the fact that Senators Baucus and Grassley have understood the enormity of our situation, it gives us great comfort. I talked to the mayor of Houston, also, about this issue. We have been talking to the other mayors, and they so appreciate the Senator's accommodation. We are all going to be able to continue to work together, just as we have in so many of these disasters that keep on having issues, and we want to do it in the right way because that is the American way. I thank the Senator from Montana. I also thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. We will continue to work with them.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think he understands exactly where we are now. He told me he had a good conversation with the Senator from Montana. We are all working on this together and taking 1 day at a time. We appreciate it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2009 Defense authorization bill. I will vote in favor of this legislation primarily because I support pay raises for our troops, but I have some very serious concerns about how this bill came to the floor. This $612.5 billion measure will authorize spending for national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. That includes $70 billion to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. I proudly support those appropriations. In the last year and a half, we have made incredible progress in our war against the terrorists, and in building a sustainable democracy in the heart of the Arab world. Since General Petraeus became the U.S. Senior Commander in Iraq. al-Qaida has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq have fallen by nearly 90 percent. The Iraqis-- through organizations such as ``The Sons of Iraq''--are taking more responsibility for their security. General Petraeus recently left his position as Commanding General in Iraq to become the Commander of U.S. Central Command. The task of leading U.S. forces in Iraq now rests in the capable hands of GEN Ray Odierno. I commend General Odierno on his promotion, and on behalf of all America, I wish him success in completing the ``surge strategy.'' We must resist calls for premature withdrawal from Iraq and maintain our presence there until victory is secure. Today's appropriations bill gives us the resources to continue that mission. However, the U.S. Senate has a long history of allowing members of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments, debate changes, and ensure that the concerns and ideas of every Senator are addressed. Traditionally a majority of Senators will decide an issue after bipartisan deliberation. But in this case, the Senate majority leader decided the issue with no input from the minority. The 110th Congress has experienced a record number of cloture votes-- due in no small part to the tactics employed by the majority. The methods by which this bill came to the floor are not in the best long- term interests of the Senate. They are not in the best interests of the American people. The citizens of our country deserve better. I am glad that our brave service members will have the armaments and equipment they need, and that our veterans will have the health care and other benefits they deserve. Once again, I will vote for this legislation because the risk to our soldiers and veterans is too great. Time simply ran out. But we should all be concerned by the manner in which this bill was presented.