Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the devastation inflicted by Hurricane Ike. It is the worst hurricane to hit Texas in almost 50 years and probably the fourth costliest hurricane of all time. Last week, when Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico and started moving toward Texas, State, local, and Federal officials came together and moved into action. We had reason to fear the worst. In the year 1900, the island of Galveston was destroyed by a hurricane that claimed over 6,000 lives, the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history. I was born on Galveston Island. I was raised in Galveston County. When I was growing up, I heard stories about 1900. There have been books written about that hurricane of 1900. And we also faced on a yearly basis hurricane warnings. Of course, some of them hit. While preparing for this storm, the people of Texas had fresh memories from Hurricane Rita, another violent hurricane that came ashore around Sabine Pass in 2005. While Hurricane Rita only caused seven direct fatalities, the evacuation and recovery efforts along the gulf coast were not without difficulties, and for that reason, everyone who could possibly be helpful in this wanted to improve the emergency preparedness in advance of the next storm. So in the days leading up to Hurricane Ike, Texas was prepared. Over 1 million Texans successfully evacuated from their homes. However, when the skies cleared on Saturday afternoon, it was clear that Hurricane Ike had caused an appalling amount of property damage. From the early estimates, the cost of Hurricane Ike could reach almost $30 billion. Forty-nine people are now confirmed dead. That number will surely rise. Thousands are homeless. Many communities remain under water and are completely inaccessible due to the significant amount of debris. Yesterday, 2.2 million Texans still lacked electricity. Emergency workers are struggling to distribute food, water, and ice. Offshore oil platforms are damaged and many refineries are without electricity. So it is likely that before the region's oil and gas industry return to capacity, we will see some shortages in gasoline and, therefore, some higher prices. Gulf refineries and ports are the source of 50 percent of the fuel and crude used in the eastern half of the United States. Disruption of that infrastructure underscores the urgent need for us to expand refinery capacity. Indeed, we need to expand our entire energy supply so that America's economy is never undermined by acts of nature or foreign adversaries. On Sunday, I joined with Senator John Cornyn, my colleague, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and many members of our congressional delegation to survey the hardest-hit regions. We came to listen to the concerns raised by the mayors and the county judges, after we had been on the telephone with them for the 4 days before, trying to determine that people were as prepared as they could be in an instance such as this and, of course, we wanted to try to correct any concerns that had been raised. Some were raised. I will say that the mayors of our cities and the county judges have done a terrific job of representing their constituents at the local level. I met with Mayor Bill White of Houston, Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas from Galveston, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, I talked on the phone with the mayor of Port Arthur, Beaumont, the county judge of Orange County, trying to help in every way we could from the Federal level. Yesterday, I joined with the members of the Texas delegation who were here. Many were still in Houston touring with the President to see the damage and determine what more could be done. I talked to Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter yesterday about their concerns about Hurricane Ike which hit them very hard. We all know Louisiana has suffered so much in the last few years with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Texas joined them in suffering from the evacuees in Katrina and then Rita, and now we have Ike. We jointly must have the support of all of our colleagues in Congress to help our constituents. We are working together--our Texas delegation, our Louisiana delegation--to have a supplemental appropriation so that FEMA will be fully funded to address the concerns. The Corps of Engineers will have repairs to make throughout the gulf coast. There are shelters that are going to be needed for families who have nothing to go back to. As I passed over Bolivar Peninsula and I saw what used to be a wonderful group of homes on stilts, today they are stilts. The homes are completely gone--completely gone--as if there was never anything there but sticks. It was amazing to me because I have been there so many times and seen these communities. So we are going to come together and we are going to help the people who have been afflicted. I wish to speak for a moment about the people of Texas. We are known, I guess, around the country for being a hearty bunch and usually a happy bunch and always resilient. We have a great spirit in Texas. I never have seen it any more so than right now. Colleagues in Galveston and Bolivar Peninsula, Port Arthur, Beaumont, Orange, Harris County, Houston, many are down because they have not been able to get back in to see their homes. On Galveston Island the health conditions are so bad that they are not letting people come back on the island, so people have not even seen their homes. They are very frustrated. But the generous spirit of Texans is surrounding those who are afflicted. The spirit, the pride, the resilience is there. I have seen our citizens do everything they can on a personal level. One of my regional directors of Harris County, Jason Fuller, has 12 Texans living with him right now, including three new dogs and a cat. He is doing his part on a personal level. He is also going out to the shelters and representing our constituents and trying to make sure that the points of distribution are open, things he can do. Some communities that don't have power organized block parties and they are having barbeques and cookouts because they have no electricity in their homes. Local churches, the Baptist Men, the Second Baptist Church in Houston has an incredible outpouring. The local churches are providing staff support. Volunteers are distributing the water and ice and food to surrounding communities. There are so many good things happening. Neighbors are coming together to help neighbors. I wish to ask my colleagues to help us. Because we do have an emergency disaster bill coming through for many areas of the Midwest that have suffered from previous disasters, I am going to ask, along with my colleague John Cornyn and my colleagues Mary Landrieu and David Vitter that we be included in this. We don't have the exact assessments yet, but we know it is going to be big. We know we have given for Katrina. We have given to other disasters. What we ask is to be treated in the same way so we can recover and get our economies going again, get our jobs going again, get our schools open, which are not yet done in many parts of our State, so that we can recover, clean up, and begin contributing again to the economy as we have done so much in the past. I thank my colleagues for listening. My heart goes out to my constituents who are suffering right now in Texas. I am going to stay in constant contact with them. I wish to say particularly how much I appreciate our Secretary of Homeland Security who has so many responsibilities, who has already been to Texas and Louisiana once, who is going back today as we speak, and will be there to try to solve any problems that have arisen. As well prepared as we were, there were things that had not been done. Some lack of coordination has occurred. He is going down there personally to try to fix that. We appreciate that very much and we want to work with him hand in hand to assure that our communities get up and going and that my beloved Galveston Island will once again be able to bring in tourists because of its beauty and its historic value, its ports and its beautiful beaches. I am going to work tirelessly to make sure that happens, along with all of the other areas of our coast that have been damaged. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. First, I have to say he was dogged in his determination to work out this bill. It was a very long conference, with many issues. It was complicated. The importance of it was paramount in both of our minds. I also want to say that on something this hard, the leadership of our committee was the driving force. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, the chairman and vice chairman of our committee, worked so hard, along with their staffs, to make sure the process kept going, that we never gave up. The conference lasted for months. I cannot say enough about Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and the partnership on this committee that produced this great bill. Then Senator Pryor and Senator Sununu, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, also worked diligently and hard to make sure we took everyone's views into consideration. We tried to make compromises, even on some of the very toughest issues. That was just in the Senate. And then we also had the House. I feel very good about this result. Again, the approval of this bill by very diverse groups shows this is a very good bill. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association all were at the table working with us to try to make sure we accommodated the safety needs of consumers--especially the parents of small children--and the needs of retailers and manufacturers to be able to produce products that consumers can safely purchase. In this bill, we have a considerable emphasis on children's toys. That is what caused us to start looking at whether we had enough manpower in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So I think children's toys are a very big part of the emphasis in this bill. Let me talk about another few points in the bill. We authorize significant upgrading and modernization of the equipment and labs used by the commission to provide for more personnel, including more personnel at ports of entry and in foreign countries, to improve inspection of manufacturing facilities abroad and the products brought into our country from abroad. We establish the most comprehensive lead safety standards that we have seen to date for toys and the paint manufacturers use on toys. These standards are implemented responsibly to give manufacturers time to adapt, without compromising safety. The standards also allow for use of alternative detection and measurement methods to improve the accuracy and efficiency of testing paint on small surfaces. We also strengthen enforcement by increasing civil and criminal penalties and providing a limited role for State attorneys general to work in concert with the commission to enforce commission actions in the States. This is a huge improvement--one that Senator Pryor, a former attorney general, was very aware that we could have better information, because the attorneys general in all of the States know, perhaps more urgently and more rapidly, when a product is deficient. So when they can step in and take an action based on the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations, that is very helpful to expanding the reach. We can also point to other areas where we made compromises. The bottom line is this is a very good bill. Maybe you don't like everything in it. I agree. I didn't get everything I wanted in the conference, nor did anyone else. But as I said, this was a months-long conference committee. It was a bill that passed the Senate with many amendments. The Senate bill was vastly improved in the conference. We could not have done that without many hours--and weekend hours--of staff support. The Senator from Arkansas pointed out the number of staff who did such a great job. I want to say that on our side, Christine Kurth, Paul Nagle, Megan Beechener, Rebecca Hooks, and my own staffer, Bryan Hendricks, did a great job of working with the Democratic staff to forge the compromises. On the Democratic side, I thank David Strickland, Andy York, Price Feland, and Jana Fong Swamidoss. I think we did a great job with the help of the experts on our staffs. Mr. President, with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also have 5 minutes under the previous order, is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Domenici on our side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the housing bill that's before the Senate. Like all of my colleagues, I am concerned about the current housing crisis. The American people are anxious that the equity they have paid into their homes may not provide the financial security that home ownership once guaranteed. Worst of all, many homeowners across the Nation, struggling with higher energy and food costs, are at risk of losing their homes through foreclosure. The legislation before us has positive aspects--including modernizing the Federal Housing Administration to provide better, fixed rate lending options to those who previously resorted to risky subprime loans. This will expand homeownership. I am pleased that the bill also includes assistance for first-time homebuyers and property tax relief for current homeowners. The standard deduction for property taxes, included in this bill, would be $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers and that is important. I am also pleased that the bill before us provides some reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With a new, independent regulator, I hope we can prevent some of the irresponsible behavior these enterprises have engaged in over the last few years. But, it is how we are responding to that irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead me to vote in opposition to this bill. I am troubled by the inclusion of an unlimited U.S. Treasury credit line for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the authority for the U.S. Government to purchase stock in these private companies without the necessary intervention in their governance. With our anticipated action today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have the full faith and credit of the United States. However, they have demonstrated spending habits that should not be underwritten by American taxpayers. Furthermore, I am concerned that with this new authority we will set a dangerous precedent and provide incentives for other private financial institutions to ignore risks in the future. Privatize profits for socialized risk to a slippery slope. This addition to the previous bill we passed will increase the statutory limit of the current national debt to $10.6 trillion, an $800 billion increase. We could improve this bill substantially if individual Senators were allowed to offer amendments on which the Senate could vote. But we are being prevented from doing that. Senator DeMint has introduced a commonsense amendment to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from lobbying Congress or making political contributions. According to The Politico: Over the past decade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. These activities shouldn't be allowed to continue. I would support the DeMint amendment. I also believe that we need checks on executive compensation and perks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with this kind of infusion of taxpayer backing. In 2003, the CEO of Fannie Mae, who left during an investigation of accounting irregularities, was paid $20 million. In 2007, the current Chairman of Freddie Mac pocketed nearly $19.8 million. Considering that this bill permits the Federal Government to become a shareholder in Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac--and thus, operated with U.S. tax dollars--that level of pay is simply unacceptable. The U.S. Senate can, and should, spend time debating these issues and improving the bill instead of rubberstamping additions that pose a taxpayer liability of billions, and maybe trillions. But instead, the bill is being rushed through the Senate without the careful consideration and deliberation it deserves. This is irresponsible. While I think it is important to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and alleviate the housing crisis in our country, I think we should do better. I cannot support the housing bill in its current form. I have supported this bill twice before when it came through the Senate without the keys to the Treasury being handed to Freddie and Fannie. With this addition and without adequate reforms to protect taxpayers, it is a step too far. This bill may ultimately create more problems than it solves. Newspapers across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, have questioned the desirability of a GSE bailout. The Washington Post editorialized that the bill would ``potentially increase the very risks [the] plan is intended to mitigate,'' and asked ``wouldn't it be wiser to revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than construct an increasingly elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal-- the fact that it no longer works very well?'' There are potentially 800 billion reasons why we ought to take our time to consider this bill. I think we should help alleviate the housing crisis, but the American taxpayers have the right to expect a serious, long-term solution rather than a quick fix that puts them on the hook today and keeps them there tomorrow. Although I support many of the provisions in this bill, and supported previous versions the Senate considered, I will vote against this bill due in large part to these enormous taxpayer liabilities that this institution will not have the ability to amend. If this bill does become law, we should not abandon our oversight responsibility to ensure that any actions taken by the Treasury will be fair and responsible to America's taxpayers, homeowners, and financial institutions. We owe the taxpayers our vigilance.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute for both sides.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will not take from my colleagues' time, but I would like to offer that there be an additional minute for the Democratic side as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 1 minute be taken from leader time on the Republican side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, newspapers across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, have questioned the desirability of a GSE bailout. The Washington Post editorialized that the bill would ``potentially increase the very risks the plan is intended to mitigate'' and asked: ``Wouldn't it be wiser to revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than construct an increasingly elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal--the fact that it no longer works very well?'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the Wall Street Journal editorial of July 24.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there are 800 billion reasons why we ought to take our time to consider this bill. I think we should help alleviate the housing crisis, and I think most of this bill is good and solid, but it adds to the regulatory burden.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we will take time to consider it better. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is this the beginning of the Republican time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, am I correct that the next 30 minutes is Republican time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak because I think the Senate has a duty. We have a duty to the American people to take positive, logical, decisive action to deal with the energy crisis we are facing. Since control of Congress changed hands last year, the price of gasoline has soared from an average of $2.33 a gallon to $4.06 a gallon. That is a 75-percent increase. In my State of Texas, my husband took our van to fill it this weekend and he came home with sticker shock, similar to every husband or wife in every family in this country. It is $100 to fill a tank in many places in our country. So the American people have a right to look to Congress for leadership, but what have they gotten in response? The bill that is before us today does not reduce a single drop of oil, not a cubic foot of natural gas, and not a single watt of electricity. There is nothing in this bill before us that will address the issue of producing more and using less. What we have is addressing one very small portion of what might be a part of the problem, and that is speculators. We should be looking at speculators, I agree. We all support transparency in speculation. But we have an energy bill and an opportunity on the floor today. Why don't we open this bill so we actually are doing something about the price of energy? The long-term solution is the short-term solution. Bringing down the price of oil and gas at the pump is a long-term solution that will have short-term consequences that will help every American small business and every family in this country. We could be looking at conservation. We have already done something in the last Energy bill we passed. We increased CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. That is conservation, and it will make a big difference. We have time to get to that point. We have included in the Gas Price Reduction Act that the Republicans put forward a provision that will help America's transportation sector transition into advanced hybrid and electric vehicle technology more quickly. But what is missing? What have we not addressed that would make a difference? Increased production, that is what. By refusing to pass any bill that would produce more energy inside our country, we are left to wonder: Do our colleagues want to bring down cost? Do they understand the plight of the American people? Or is it an exercise to deal with something that is very much on the fringes and which is not going to make a consequential difference and certainly not a long-term solution. Does anyone think Congress can take an action on a speculation bill and say: Oh good, we have done something for the American people? The Republicans do not believe that is the case. Here is what Republicans want to do: We want to apply common sense and expand access to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. According to the Minerals Management Service, the OCS--the Outer Continental Shelf--could produce 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. Advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf that is out of sight of tourists, and it protects against oil spills. States should have the option of opening the OCS resources off their own shores, and the Federal Government should allow States to have a share in the leasing revenues. State leaders in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia have expressed support for this concept. Why won't Congress give it to them? Because we are being blocked by the Democratic majority, I am sad to say. We can do this, and we can do it right now. There are four provisions that prevent us from using those resources. All we have to do is delete that moratorium that has been put in place by Congress. The President has asked Congress to do this, and we could move forward. I was disappointed yesterday to learn that the Senate Appropriations Committee canceled the markup on the bill that was scheduled to be marked up tomorrow, the Interior Appropriations bill, and it appears the reason is that last week, Senator Domenici, Senator Bond, and myself announced we would have an amendment that would strike the congressional moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf options for States. The markup on an Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior was canceled because they didn't want to vote on an amendment that would open the Outer Continental Shelf based on a State option. The initiative also would tap the potential of oil shale. Now, I heard the Senator from Colorado say we shouldn't be acting because we don't know enough yet. The other Senator from Colorado says: Yes, we should act because we know there is shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that is controlled by the Federal Government, and the estimates by the experts are there is 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, which would be three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Again, the President has called on Congress to lift the moratorium. If we don't take the first step, we will never know. We will never know how much is there, and we will not be able to start the process of increasing supply so the price will come down. For those who say we can't drill our way out of the energy problem, I agree. We can't drill our way out of it. But drilling should be part of the solution. The oil and gas we have in places such as the OCS can be used as a bridge to cross into the next generation of energy technologies, including solar power, wind, and nuclear power. The American people see this. Thank goodness the American people have the common sense to see through the argument it will take too long to do it; that we shouldn't be looking at our own natural resources, that we should be ranting about other countries not using their natural resources for our benefit. We should take control of our own resources and we should solve this problem the way Americans have always solved the problems of our country over the last 200 years and that is to look to ourselves--look to our natural resources, which are abundant, let's use technology, let's use our brains, let's use solar, wind, and the new energies we know can be found if we put our minds to it--and oil and natural gas are the first step. They are the transition. They are what we know now, and we know we can do this in an environmentally safe way. Some question: Well, what about the environmental impact of drilling offshore? We had one of the worst hurricanes, with the worst damage aftermath in the history of our country--Katrina--in 2005, which was followed immediately by Hurricane Rita, and it struck the gulf coast hard. We have oil rigs in the gulf coast. Yet there was not one major spill. There was no damage to the environment. The technology has improved so much for offshore drilling, that we know we can do it and protect our environment and also help our people, our economy, and our national security by controlling our own energy supply and destiny. Our country will spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year to import energy from foreign countries, many of which do not wish us well and could shut us off in a moment. Those dollars should be spent right here in America, giving jobs to Americans and giving an energy supply to American small businesses and families that will bring the price down. That is what the Republicans are offering. It is time for Congress to act in a bipartisan way with a policy that is balanced, that will give us a transition into the next generation of energy. We have the chance. I implore the majority to give us that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the distinguished minority leader yield for a question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have been listening to the colloquy and the questions and the urging all of us have been making to have an open amendment process. I wonder if the Republican leader, the Senator from Kentucky, is aware that we actually have a vehicle that would increase production, and the process could be done immediately, and that is through the appropriations bills that have been steadily marked up by the Appropriations Committee. But is the leader aware that the markup for Thursday was canceled? It was canceled because the Interior appropriations bill, which has the moratorium against offshore drilling and shale production, is in that bill, and there was going to be an amendment offered by myself and Senators Domenici and Bond to take that moratorium off so that we could do something for the American people to bring the price down and start production and use our own resources. But that markup was canceled. I wanted to see if the leader was aware of that and what possible reasons could there be for not having the opportunity, again, to address this issue of production.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just say that the Appropriations Committee and this Senate have had a tradition of bipartisan participation, and there is a great bipartisan bill for the Interior to be able to go forward, and we have the chance to address the issues of the congressional moratorium in a bipartisan way. There is no other bar to being able to let the States explore on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the States that have oil shale reserves, to be able to open those, and that bipartisan spirit has been in the Appropriations Committee. So I just saw that we have this opportunity on the Senate floor right now to work all weekend, with amendments, deciding what the majority of the Senate wants to do. We have something that is an opportunity that I hope we will take, and that is to let the American people see the debate and let the American people decide if we have some proposals that would increase production, and would that in fact bring down the price of oil and gasoline at the pump right now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008. This legislation will address one of the most serious threats facing our communities--drug trafficking. The magnitude of narcotics trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border is staggering. According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 alone, Mexico, with close cooperation from U.S. and regional law enforcement, confiscated 48.5 metric tons of cocaine, 2,171 metric tons of marijuana, and 25.7 tons of precursor chemicals for methamphetamines. On the American side of the border, in fiscal year 2007, on a typical day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated 2,250 pounds of narcotics in 69 seizures at ports of entry and 5,138 pounds of narcotics in 29 seizures between ports of entry and conducted 70 criminal arrests. While new funding for the Merida Initiative in the Supplemental Appropriations bill will help the Mexican government attack the problem, the funding is currently unbalanced, as it does not address the U.S. side of the border and the battle that our hometown law enforcement officials are waging against the exact same threat. We should not fail to recognize that the narco-terrorists in Mexico have grown increasingly violent, killing 300 policemen last year and the head of the Mexican federal police force in May. However, the violence is not confined to Mexico. In 2007, a councilman from Acuna was killed on U.S. soil in Del Rio, TX, and seven border patrol agents were killed on the frontlines. Two agents have been killed so far this year. The total number of assaults against officers has increased from 335 in 2001 to 987 in 2007. We must take a balanced approach to this growing problem, which is why I am introducing the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act today. This bill would create a grant program to help certain local law enforcement agencies obtain equipment, upgrade technology, hire additional personnel and cover transportation costs associated with criminal activity along the border. Both northern and southern border law enforcement agencies would be eligible, as well as counties that the Attorney General designates as ``High Impact Areas'' for drug trafficking. While we have taken steps to provide our Federal officials with necessary resources, we have not done enough to sufficiently arm our local law enforcement officials with the equipment and resources they need to address an increasingly sophisticated and lethal enemy. Our local law enforcement across the country serve as a front-line defense, and Congress must ensure they have the necessary resources to stay ahead of the cartels and protect our communities from narcotics trafficking and associated violence. I ask my colleagues to signal their support for our local law enforcement in their fight against narco-terrorism by supporting this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2008. This legislation will address one of the most serious threats facing our communities--drug trafficking. The magnitude of narcotics trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border is staggering. According to the U.S. State Department, in 2007 alone, Mexico, with close cooperation from U.S. and regional law enforcement, confiscated 48.5 metric tons of cocaine, 2,171 metric tons of marijuana, and 25.7 tons of precursor chemicals for methamphetamines. On the American side of the border, in fiscal year 2007, on a typical day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated 2,250 pounds of narcotics in 69 seizures at ports of entry and 5,138 pounds of narcotics in 29 seizures between ports of entry and conducted 70 criminal arrests. While new funding for the Merida Initiative in the Supplemental Appropriations bill will help the Mexican government attack the problem, the funding is currently unbalanced, as it does not address the U.S. side of the border and the battle that our hometown law enforcement officials are waging against the exact same threat. We should not fail to recognize that the narco-terrorists in Mexico have grown increasingly violent, killing 300 policemen last year and the head of the Mexican federal police force in May. However, the violence is not confined to Mexico. In 2007, a councilman from Acuna was killed on U.S. soil in Del Rio, TX, and seven border patrol agents were killed on the frontlines. Two agents have been killed so far this year. The total number of assaults against officers has increased from 335 in 2001 to 987 in 2007. We must take a balanced approach to this growing problem, which is why I am introducing the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act today. This bill would create a grant program to help certain local law enforcement agencies obtain equipment, upgrade technology, hire additional personnel and cover transportation costs associated with criminal activity along the border. Both northern and southern border law enforcement agencies would be eligible, as well as counties that the Attorney General designates as ``High Impact Areas'' for drug trafficking. While we have taken steps to provide our Federal officials with necessary resources, we have not done enough to sufficiently arm our local law enforcement officials with the equipment and resources they need to address an increasingly sophisticated and lethal enemy. Our local law enforcement across the country serve as a front-line defense, and Congress must ensure they have the necessary resources to stay ahead of the cartels and protect our communities from narcotics trafficking and associated violence. I ask my colleagues to signal their support for our local law enforcement in their fight against narco-terrorism by supporting this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to say that we have had a very dramatic moment here on the floor of the Senate, and I think there wasn't a person in the room or the gallery who wasn't thrilled to see Senator Kennedy back and looking so good, to do what he always does, and that is have the commitment and go the extra mile to keep that commitment. I wanted to say, though, that I don't think this was the Senate's finest hour. I want us to all remember that in the Senate we have had a long tradition of bringing up legislation, having amendments, and then voting on legislation. That was not the case in the bill that was before us today. There was an attempt to pass a bill that had no ability for amendments--not one. I voted for the bill. It is not the way I would have written it, but I thought the risk was so great that the doctor fix in Medicare might actually lapse and the upheaval for our senior citizens and voters would be a risk too great to take. But it didn't have to be that way. It did not have to be a shutout of Republicans in order to ram something through, when 100 percent of us wanted to fix the doctors; when 100 percent of us had an agreement on 90 percent of the bill that was before us. But there were legitimate differences. Although I chose to make sure there would not be a cut in service to our seniors and our veterans, I don't think we had to do it that way. Any of my colleagues who didn't vote that way were voting conscience, and it was a tough vote for them as well. They had no input. Several of us who voted ``yes'' believed we could have changed the bill for the better, or at least if we had the opportunity for an amendment we would have known that we had our say and the majority would have ruled, and the result would have been the same. I do not think this is the way we want to continue proceeding in the Senate, and though it was a great victory for the Democrats, and it was certainly something that is going to save a cataclysmic event, I hope that going forward we will not allow this kind of tension to be in this body because it is not necessary. This is not the House. The House does operate that way. I do not want that to happen in the Senate. It is my plea to the majority leader that he is the leader of the Senate, not just the leader of the Democrats. I hope going forward he will give us the opportunity for bipartisan solutions. That is something I think all of us would feel better about. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the memory of our former colleague, Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away, fittingly on Independence Day, a day which meant so much to him. A great deal has been written and said about Senator Helms. He was a man who provoked strong feelings--both pro and con--and he enjoyed being the subject of spirited discussions. It is well known and well told that Senator Helms could be, and often was, a tough opponent but also could be and often was an invaluable ally. He was a man of strongly held, deeply held views and was never hesitant to share those views with the rest of the Senate. But it is less well known that Jesse Helms was a kind and considerate colleague. Fifteen years ago, he welcomed a new Member from Texas into the Senate. I always appreciated his advice and his love of the Senate as an institution. Jesse Helms began as an editor at a newspaper in North Carolina and then went to a television station in Raleigh. It was the notoriety which he gained from being a TV commentator which led him to the U.S. Senate. Today we have many former colleagues who started in the U.S. Senate and are now TV commentators. It was typical of Jesse to do it the opposite way. He once said of his career in the Senate, ``I would like to be remembered as a fella who did the best he could and didn't back down when he thought he was right.'' Jesse Helms was a man who had the courage to stand against the often transient winds of political convenience. He wasn't always right. He was right a good part of the time, but he was always Jesse.