Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately following the Senator from Iowa.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I come to the floor today as the ranking member of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee. I am going to encourage my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. I have been working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee to develop a bill that we can all agree on. On the main parts of the Commerce Committee bill, and the main parts of the Finance Committee bill, we have come to agreement. There is one major part that was put in at the last minute that I think will bring everything down if we are not able to negotiate it. I am going to discuss that in a minute. But I believe we have been able, in the main Commerce committee bill, of which Senator Rockefeller is the chairman, I am the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee that put together the package, and in the main part of that bill, we have struck a balance that would finance the modernization of the FAA airport development, rural air service that is so important in our country, and the labor-related provision. If we want a final bill, I tell my colleagues that we must keep that balance. We cannot load up this bill with controversial provisions, many of which are in the House bill, which is the bill we are going to go to cloture on, after which there will be the substitute on with the Commerce bill. The House FAA bill already has a veto threat against it, and the prospects of a multiyear reauthorization for the FAA will diminish quickly if we do not resist the temptation to make this a political document. We have the opportunity to pass critical funding increases for the modernization projects, timely improvements for the safety programs at FAA, improvements to small community air service, and consumer and passenger protections. Senator Boxer and I have worked on the passenger protections, especially when an airplane is sitting on the runway unable to take off. In the bill we have before us, which we will talk more about when the substitute is put forward, there is a 3-hour limit on how long an airplane can stay on the ground without letting passengers off. We think this is a major step in the right direction. What I am going to be looking at, as we go through the week, is that we cannot do further harm to the aviation industry in this country. Rising fuel prices, tight credit markets, and the slowing economy are wreaking havoc on our U.S. carriers. There is not one that is saying: We are doing well. As we move forward, I hope we will keep that in mind, rather than adding burdens that cannot be maintained. If this bill is going to throw any one of our airlines into a bankruptcy position, we will have failed. Now, I am very concerned about the pension provision that was put in at the last, I guess in the last couple of days, that would take away a careful balance that was passed by this Congress last year. We worked very hard to make sure that the airlines that have kept their defined benefit plans, meaning they give full pensions to their members, are not held in a position that would be detrimental versus carriers that have gone to a defined contribution or 401(k) plan. The new pension provision that was put in the Finance section of the FAA reauthorization bill does create an inequity for carriers trying to maintain their defined benefit plan. The language would create a disincentive for the airlines to fully fund their pension liabilities, because the new proposal would disallow past excess contributions being carried forward in future years as currently allowed. To put this in perspective, for instance, American Airlines currently has about a 93-percent funding level in their defined benefit plan. However, the required level of funding for their plan is 80 percent. So they have a significantly higher level of funding than is required. In difficult times, which everyone should see all of the airlines are in, they would be allowed, under present law, to use the excess funding level to meet their ongoing obligations like a downpayment. Unfortunately, the language that was put in the Finance Committee bill strips that ability to use these excess contributions and instead forces them to fully fund their ongoing obligations at 100 percent. So rather than owing roughly $80 million for their annual contribution, they would instead owe $350 million. Over 3 years, that would be almost about $1 billion, even though they are 93 percent funded on their obligations. This penalizes companies for having done the right thing in providing significant prior funding for their pensions, and it changes the rules of a carefully balanced congressional directive. I hope we can work this out before we come to the point at which we are trying to put the Finance Committee portion of this bill with the Commerce Committee portion. I very much hope our members will become very educated on this issue, because if we are going to do this kind of harm, we should not be passing an authorization bill at all and instead do a long-term extension of the FAA authorization bill, and try to work these issues out so that no airline will be harmed or put in a significantly disadvantaged position relative to their competitors. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have always supported efforts to ensure fair pay and fair process. I would support a longer statute of limitation for gender discrimination in the workplace, but the bill before us eliminates any statute of limitation. A reasonable statute might be 1 or 2 years after the discovery of the inequity. The purpose of statutes of limitation is to ensure that witnesses are available and defendants have records to defend themselves fairly. That is the reason that statutes of limitation are an integral part of our legal system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President? I would like to ask the Senator from Illinois if germane amendments include a substitute amendment? I have heard the debate, or at least the statements of the two Senators. But the issue is not going to the bill. We have not filibustered the motion to proceed. It was unanimous. The question is are the minority rights going to be recognized? Will we be able to offer amendments, germane amendments, substitutes? I would like to know, before we proceed further to the bill, if we are going to be able to have enough amendments so the minority rights are protected. That would be my question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia is also waiting to speak, so I would like to be notified at 4\1/2\ minutes, and I will split it down the middle with the Senator from Georgia. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about General Petraeus' testimony. I was able to watch a little bit of it before I came over here. I was beginning to see, of course, the questioning from the Armed Services Committee. I think it is so important that we look at the big picture and what General Petraeus is saying. Also, of course, we have Ambassador Crocker who is doing a terrific job over there. I was there at the end of February, just 6 weeks ago. I met with both of them. But what I saw was an incredible change from the other time I had been in Iraq. As General Petraeus said himself, from June 2007 through February 2008 deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Bagdad have fallen 90 percent. American casualties have fallen sharply, down by 70 percent. In the last year, the number of high-profile attacks have fallen by 50 percent. All of us believe one American death is not worth the price we would pay if we had a choice. But every one of those who are there understand our mission and how important it is. Every one of those with whom I have met, both the people who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and the families of those who have lost loved ones, say: Do not leave. Do not leave without a victory, without seeing through the successes that we have gained. They understand this mission. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the majority in the Congress see it as those who are on the ground and who have suffered the most do. As recently as February, the Senate leadership was trying to stop the surge by requiring an immediate and arbitrary withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq when we didn't even have the results. Yet those of us who have been there recently have seen the results. I went to a police station with our embedded forces and to a security regional center with embedded forces. I did that because I was very concerned. I wanted to see it myself. I was very pleased with the fact that our troops embedded there were causing the Iraqis to come forward and do more and help us. The Sons of Iraq, which are now 91,000 strong, are serving as neighborhood watches. They are manning the checkpoints. They are taking us to the weapons caches. Do you know that, since the beginning of this year, we have found, because of the Sons of Iraq's cooperation, more weapons than we discovered in all of 2006? We are making progress. Mr. President, 21,000 of the Sons of Iraq have now been accepted into security forces or government work. It is amazing that we are seeing military gains, and we are seeing political gains. It is not as fast as we would like to see it, of course, but it is progress. It is in the right direction. The consequences of leaving precipitously are consequences that would be unthinkable. People talk about the cost of Iraq, the cost of the war on terror, as if the costs are prohibitive. The costs are high. But the cost of leaving and letting al-Qaida have a base in Iraq are much more expensive. We are talking about 9/11 costing over $1 trillion, if you put it in monetary terms, which I don't think we should--this is not the thing that we should even be considering. We should be supporting our troops, and we should be supporting the effort that would require complete success for our country. This is the United States of America. I met with the Vets for Freedom who just met by Senator Bond as well. They are the patriots who have been there, who know what it is like, and who are saying stay and fight and win. It is the right thing for the United States of America to do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Senate budget resolution. This is going to be considered for an entire week. It does provide the American people with Congress's blueprint for spending and fiscal policies and priorities. And while not binding, it does establish the direction for later consideration of our appropriations bills. I, like many of my colleagues, have been reviewing the chairman's mark that came out of committee and the results from last week's markup. I am impressed with parts of this budget. There are some priorities in here that I share with the chairman and the committee. It fully funds the defense budget. It fully funds NASA, including the additional $1 billion that Senator Mikulski and I sought last year to reimburse the agency for the Columbia disaster, because we know NASA has been pulling from operating funds to repair the damage done from the Columbia disaster, and this has kept it from keeping up its research commitment. We cannot have an agency that is supposed to be doing the state-of- the-art research and pushing the envelope not only in aeronautics but in science and medicine. Yet we have a billion-dollar shortfall taken from the research that could fuel scientists for years to come. It funds the America COMPETES Act, which improves education, and that is such an important priority for us to remain competitive. We need more of our young people to go into science and engineering, the physical sciences, the hard sciences. We are losing our edge in this global marketplace. Congress, in a bipartisan way, did pass the America COMPETES Act, and there is funding for much of that in this bill. We must extend the sales tax deduction, which is a provision that is close to my heart because my State and seven others have a sales tax but no State income tax. So we believe it is a matter of equity that sales taxes be deductible, rather than just the State income taxes which is available to all of the other States but not available to the seven States that do not choose to fund their Government with an income tax. These parts of the budget deserve our attention and support. However, this budget has a major flaw. Before long the budget had increased $22 billion above the President's request. We have now found that over the period of time that it has languished in the Senate committee, we are now looking at what appears to be a ballooning of that increase in spending. Yet the budget projects a surplus of $177 billion in 2012, $160 billion in 2013, and yet the budget has increased by $210 billion over 5 years. Now, how can we have this increase in spending and yet still have surpluses? My economics 101 tells me there has to be a catch because we know there is no free lunch. So in addition to the large spending increases, the budget includes the largest tax increase in the history of America, $1.2 trillion. The budget allows the incredibly beneficial tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire. Now, these are the tax cuts that spurred our economy and created millions of new jobs in our country. It spurred the growth in our economy. When these tax provisions expire, 43 million families with children will have to pay an average of $2,300 more each year, and 18 million senior citizens will owe $2,200 more on average. Twenty-seven million small businesses, the engine of economic growth in America, will owe $4,100 more in taxes on average. Almost 8 million low-income workers will be added back to the tax rolls. Especially during this time of economic uncertainty, why would we ask our fellow citizens to pay more and rob the jobs that have been created with the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? The first thing we did when we saw the slowing economy was, on a bipartisan basis, have an economic stimulus package. And what was the crux of the stimulus package? It was to give money back to the people who have paid taxes in rebates to help spur the economy. So why would we turn around in this budget and increase taxes and ask the people to whom we just gave rebates, that will be in the mail in the next 6 weeks, to pay more? Consider what a $2,300 tax burden would pay if the average American family could keep the money they earned in that amount: groceries for about 8 months, health care expenses for about a year, electricity and home heating oil for about a year, and gasoline for the car that we know is now rising as we speak. How can we consider taking money away from families when we are seeing the strain of this economy be a burden on those same families? This budget makes great promises for American families, but it also pulls the rug out from under them by saying: Here is the burden we are going to give to you to pay for this big Government spending budget. So I hope as we consider the budget this week that we will take a serious look at keeping some of the major priorities, but having the good sense to cut in other places or to remain steady in other places where there is not the essential need right now. We do need a budget that looks out and says for the long-term competitiveness and vitality of our country and our society and our work concerns and our work force: We do need to spur investment. We need to spur research. We need to have more engineers and scientists graduating from our universities, and we can do that by funding NASA fully, by funding the American COMPETES Act. We must do that for the long term. But why not do what every family in America does when we have essential needs for long-term planning, but we are on a limited budget and we want to bring down that deficit? And that is, make choices. Can we not come together and make choices just as we came together for the stimulus package? The last thing we want to do, since we did pass a bipartisan stimulus package which the President's supported, is to wipe it all out and say: Well, we are going to give you back a little bit but we are going to take more. We are going to take more at a time when we know America is a little jittery about the economic condition and looking to the future of the economy and our country. I hope we will do what we can on a bipartisan basis and hash out what the priorities are and that we can have the priorities in spending without the ballooning budget and the tax increases they propose to pay for this ballooning budget. We do not need tax increases. We need to make the tax cuts permanent that have helped so many people get back to work, get on their feet, small businesses make investments, and keep our economy going when this home mortgage crisis is trying to sort itself out. Unless we can make some major changes in this budget, I cannot imagine supporting it. But we do have time. We do have time to do the right thing. I am hoping we go through the amendment process, that we make the choices that will take the taxes out, will put the priorities in, and will get our 10-year plan started that will create jobs, that will create more opportunities for scientists and engineers to graduate from our colleges and universities and have good careers, solid careers, because we have made the right investments in 2008. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Tennessee for bringing up this very important issue. We know from what has happened in Colombia in just the last 2 days that it is so important our country help them in every way as they struggle to get rid of the drug trafficking and trade that has plagued their country for so long. Free trade would be an excellent way for our country to help them build their economy and keep their democracy alive and stable. So I say thank the Senator from Tennessee for talking about that issue, which is very appropriate at this particular time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today because it is the 172nd anniversary of Texas Independence Day. I wish to take a moment to read a letter that is such an important part of the history of Texas. It is the letter of William Barrett Travis from the Alamo. This is a tradition I have continued that was started by my colleague and friend, Senator John Tower, to commemorate Texas Independence Day every year, which is March 2. Now, of course, March 2 was yesterday, which is Sunday, so I always try to do it as close to March 2 as I can, as Senator Tower did when he was serving in this body. The Texas Declaration of Independence was a document that was signed by, among others, my own great, great grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, as well as his great friend, Thomas Rusk, who became one of the first two Senators from Texas and whose seat I hold today. They both hailed from Nacogdoches, which is the oldest town in Texas. It is the town where my mother grew up and where my great, great grandfather was a delegate to the convention that declared independence from Mexico for the territory that was Texas. It is a historic time for Texas. We celebrate Texas Independence Day every single year because we know fighting for freedom has made a difference in what Texas is. We love our history. We fought for freedom and we were a republic, an independent nation for 10 years. Then, we came into the United States under a treaty as a State. The defense of the Alamo by 189 courageous men, who were outnumbered 10 to 1, was a key battle in the Texas revolution. The sacrifice of COL William Barrett Travis and his men made possible GEN Sam Houston's ultimate victory at San Jacinto, which secured independence for Texas. That is where Santa Anna, the general in charge of the Mexican Army, formally surrendered and that was end of the fight for Texas independence. Colonel Travis wrote to his countrymen a letter asking for reinforcements: Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion; otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demands with a cannon shot and our flag still waves proudly from the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to 3,000 or 4,000 in 4 or 5 days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--victory or death. William Barrett Travis, LT. COL. Commander. That was the letter he wrote from the Alamo. He did not get reinforcements. Those brave 189 men did, in fact, fight against what is estimated to be 4,000 or 5,000 Mexican soldiers, but they held long enough for GEN Sam Houston to muster his strength and add to his Army. Then, about a month later, in April, the San Jacinto battle did take place against the Mexican Army and Santa Anna surrendered. So it was an important part in Texas history which we value and celebrate very thoroughly every March 2nd. I will continue the tradition of Senator Tower as long as I am in the Senate, and I hope it can continue. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Webb's speech, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire be recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose any Senate amendment that would require the immediate and arbitrary withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This amendment is the latest attempt in a year-long effort to constrain the ability of our generals and our brave men and women in uniform to fight this war effectively. During the past year, the Senate has voted over 40 times on bills to limit the generals' war strategy. Not one has become law or even come close. Since this assembly line of votes started in February 2007, the situation in Iraq has changed considerably and it has changed for the better. While some Senators were insisting that the war was lost, General Petraeus was in the process of implementing a strategic readjustment that has produced remarkable progress on the battlefield. It has been said on this floor: We need to change the direction. We are changing the direction. We are changing the strategy. We are going in the right direction. I got back from Iraq 2 days ago. I saw for myself the enormous military gains we have achieved in that country. While in Baghdad, I put on a suit of body armor. I traveled in an MRAP vehicle with our troops through the streets of Baghdad. I was able to go to a police station where we have embedded troops there. I met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and troops from Reese Air Force Base, Ft. Hood, the Red River Army Depot, and others from the Texas National Guard. Because of the leadership of our commanders and the courage of our service men and women, there is new reason for optimism in Iraq. The numbers speak for themselves. The murder rate in Baghdad has plunged by 80 percent. Al-Qaida has been routed in every neighborhood. Iraqi forces have formally taken control of security across much of the country. Violence is at the lowest level since 2003. Roadside bomb attacks have receded to a 3-year low. Discovery of weapons caches has more than doubled in the last year. The Iraqi security forces have grown to 440,000 trained and equipped. At the police station where our Armed Forces are embedded with the Iraqi police, I can see that the Iraqis are taking more responsibility for their security. The Sons of Iraq are an example of that growth and responsibility. The Sons of Iraq, which is now over 90,000 strong, essentially serve as neighborhood watches and manned checkpoints. By providing forces for protecting key infrastructure and information about al-Qaida, the Sons of Iraq has enabled coalition forces to target al-Qaida precisely. This ensures the right people are targeted, and it helps avoid collateral damage, both of which are helping to strengthen confidence in the Iraqi Government. The transition in responsibility from the U.S. military to Iraqi authority is a major step toward decreasing the presence of the United States in Iraq. There are other reasons to be hopeful about the future. Our military gains are beginning to contribute to the political gains. Recently the Iraqi Parliament passed three laws that should begin to bring the Sunnis more fully into the governing process and achieve national reconciliation. First, Parliament passed a law that bolsters the power of the provinces to provide roads and utilities to the residents. Second, it has passed a partial amnesty for political prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunnis, in an effort to reduce the conflict and promote peace among different sects. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates Government revenue, 85 percent of which is from oil, to the provinces, allowing more local control and less dependence on the central government. Altogether the recent military and political news out of Iraq provides further evidence that our strategies must be determined by events in theater, not timetables set by politicians 6,000 miles away. In the past year so much has changed in Iraq. Yet here on the Senate floor, it seems nothing has changed at all. We are still voting on imprudent bills for premature withdrawal when, in fact, we should be providing a vote of confidence in our troops. The mission of our troops is vital to our security. If we abandon Iraq prematurely, it will become a sanctuary for terrorists to launch attacks against the American people. There is also a real danger that Iraq could become a satellite of Iran. The Iranian Government has a long record of sponsoring terrorism and arming the insurgents who are killing our brave soldiers in Iraq. And what about the practical realities of such an irresponsible act of Congress? I am told it would take over a year to retrieve our arms, equipment, and technology. I ask those who are voting for this resolution: Would they leave our arms there for the terrorists to be able to use? What about our advanced technological equipment? What about our surveillance equipment? What is the security threat to the troops left behind if the reduction in strength leaves them without enough protection? Those who are voting for this resolution, are they concerned about this enemy, this enemy that has no rules of engagement, an enemy that is not in the armed forces of any country, an enemy that executes hostages in front of television screens? Are they concerned that this enemy would be emboldened by an adversary that would abandon its commitment? Are they concerned that they might attack harder, especially if they could seize our weapons to use against us or make us leave faster so we would leave the weapons and technology? I ask the supporters of this resolution: What about the oil revenue? What if al-Qaida is able to get access to the millions that it is producing for Iraq? If Iraq collapses and the terrorists take hold with the oil revenue, how far could their heinous crimes go? How far could they spread? I have heard the arguments about the cost of the war. And the cost is huge. What about the cost of another terrorist attack on the United States of America? What about the cost in life and treasure of another terrorist attack on this country? Have we forgotten already the cost of 9/11, around 3,000 lives in America, billions to our economy, and the damages to clean up New York City? Are we not thinking of the consequences of this kind of action? This resolution may be an attempt to make a point. This is the United States Senate. I truly believe we should be more responsible. We are the leaders of our country. We should think of the consequences, the worst that could happen, not just the best. If we are able to pick up and leave, even though it would not be the honorable thing for the greatest Nation on the Earth to do, maybe it would be flawless. But we need to think through these consequences and we need to know what is the worst case if we are the leaders of this country. This resolution is not the act of a thoughtful, informed group of leaders. I urge my colleagues to stop voting on this kind of resolution. I urge the majority leader to stop scheduling the votes that at best serve no legitimate purpose, and at worst demoralize our troops and embolden our enemy. We have so much that is going for the better in Iraq. Is it as fast as we would like? Of course not. I would love to have our troops walking out right now. I met with hundreds of them this weekend. I know they are committed. But I also have met with the parents and the spouses of those who have lost their lives, who have given the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have said to me: Do not leave with the job undone, because then I will feel that my son or my daughter or my husband has lost his life or her life in vain. We cannot do that to those who have served so honorably and we cannot walk away from our commitment. We are the Senate. We should be able to take actions that are responsible, that are thoughtful, that will not put our troops in harm's way, that will not leave our equipment to be taken over by the terrorists, that will not leave a country that could turn into a terrorist haven and take revenue and spread their terrorism and their heinous crimes to other places in the world and to our country. We are here to protect our people. It is our job to act responsibly, and I hope we will do so by rejecting this resolution. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the outstanding service of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, as they complete their service in Iraq and return to their loving families. I am so proud of the brave servicemembers of the 4-1 Cavalry who have sacrificed so much to keep our Nation safe. I also appreciate the commitment of their family members, who have borne a heavy burden to advance the cause of liberty. All of them deserve our sincere appreciation and gratitude. Since September 11, 2001, our Nation has been at war with terrorists who are determined to kill innocent Americans and destroy freedom around the world. We cannot let that happen. Our country has the greatest capacity and will to fight for freedom. If freedom dies in America, it will die throughout the world. I have no doubt we will win this war because our Nation is blessed to have heroes like the courageous men and women of the 4-1 Cavalry. The 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division command team, consists of COL Stephen Twitty and CSM Stephan Frennier. The brigade combat team is a relatively new unit that activated on October 18, 2005, at Fort Bliss, TX. The subordinate units consist of the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, and the 27 Brigade Support Battalion. The 4th Brigade Combat Team received orders to deploy to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in July of 2006. Upon completion of mission readiness exercises and a rotation at the national training center, the 4-1 Cavalry began to deploy in September of 2006. By their first anniversary, the 4-1 Cavalry arrived in Ninewa Province, the second largest province in Iraq. The 2-12 Cavalry deployed to Baghdad to augment the 1st Infantry Division. The brigade headquarters was based in Mosul, Ninewa's provincial capital, which is the site of the biblical city of Ninewa. The province, slightly larger than the State of Maryland, is in the extreme northern part of Iraq. It borders Syria to the west and is comprised of Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Turkmen, and Christians. The mission of the 4- 1 Cavalry was to build capable Iraqi security forces, to conduct counterinsurgency operations in order to neutralize anti-Iraqi forces and to transition responsibility for defeating the insurgency to the Iraqi security forces, and the provincial government. They performed that mission superbly. Despite being subjected to IEDs, VBIEDs, and small arms fire, the members of the 4-1 Cavalry did an outstanding job protecting the people of Ninewa Province. Due to their professionalism and courage, attacks in the province went from 15 to 18 per day in December of 2006 to 7 to 9 attacks per day by September of 2007. In conjunction with their Iraqi counterparts, they also found several tons of military grade weapons and IED-making material and detained over 1,500 insurgents. Altogether, they overcame numerous challenges, and through courage and dedication, they succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. They have much to be proud of. On February 27, 2008, the city of El Paso will hold a parade to honor the brave men and women of the 4-1 Cavalry. Our Nation is a better place because of their service and sacrifice on behalf of a noble cause. We can never forget them or their family members. We honor their struggles and successes in that mission. It is with sincere gratitude that I recognize them today.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for a short-term extension of FAA collection, expenditure authority, and Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, contract authority through June 30, 2008. The previous extension was scheduled to expire on February 29, 2008. Short of congressional action, hundreds of airports across the Nation were at risk of losing an entire construction season and hindering much needed improvements to our aviation system. In addition, the FAA was at risk of not being able to fund this year's planned critical investments in the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System, NEXTGEN. Now, because of our efforts, those improvements can continue as planned. While I am pleased with our work today, I am disappointed we could not provide more stability in the system by completing a longer term extension through September 30, 2008, which is the end of the fiscal year. As legislators, it is our responsibility to create stability and predictability in our infrastructure system. We cannot allow our lack of action to disturb the modernization efforts and the flow of funds to our aviation system. Thankfully, the extension we passed today will provide immediate funding and spending authority as well as a valuable cushion for the Senate to work on the overarching FAA reauthorization bill. I am looking forward to working with my friend and distinguished colleague Senator Jay Rockefeller to complete a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. We have several challenges ahead of us, and we will attempt to come together in a bipartisan way to meet those challenges. The extension we passed today is just the first step in what will be a very important year for aviation policy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes and then for Senator Crapo to have up to 10 amendments to speak on the FISA bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Was there an amendment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do rise to speak on the FISA bill, which I certainly support, and also to oppose some of the amendments that will be coming forward. I hope very much that we will be able to start voting on amendments, because we now have an agreement for voting on amendments, and I hope we can clear the FISA bill in due course and in short order. It is important because there is a deadline. We are going to see the capability for our law enforcement officials and our intelligence officials, to monitor calls between known terrorists and suspected terrorists, whether it is into our country, or out of our country from foreign countries, we need to have this capability continue. We have it right now. The Senate passed a good bill about 6 months ago. It has now been extended. But we do have a deadline, and the deadline is on us in the middle of this month. So we do need to pass this bill. We need to make sure the technology of the day is covered by the foreign intelligence surveillance act and subject to the security needs of our country. There are amendments that would take away the immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with intelligence officials. One amendment, No. 3907, would strip the immunity from the bill completely. The Intelligence Committee is the key committee that has looked at all of the information and assessed the need for the ability to survey known terrorists and suspected terrorist helpers in our country and in foreign countries. It is important that we allow our intelligence agents to go to telecommunications companies and get the help they need to do this kind of surveillance. Amendment No. 3907 would take away immunization for companies that may have cooperated with government requests. The telecommunications companies allegedly assisted the intelligence community because of the need to assure that plots against our country and our citizens were uncovered before they are implemented. Now we have the potential for catastrophic liability from a number of lawsuits, and some of my colleagues want the country to turn away from providing protection for these companies. We will not allow these companies the freedom to provide the evidence in court because the intelligence community says the evidence is too sensitive to be allowed in court. We put the telecommunications companies in a situation in which they cooperate. They are sued. But they don't have the ability to defend themselves in court because they cannot produce the evidence. It is untenable, and I hope we will reject such an amendment. There is another amendment that would allow the Government to be substituted for the telecommunications companies as the defendant when they are sued. The problem with this amendment is that the companies would still have to spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars on these lawsuits. They would have to subject their employees to depositions. They would need to participate in evidence gathering and the discovery process, which will drain their resources in an unnecessary lawsuit in which they would be peripheral. There is yet another amendment that would grant the immunity after review by the FISA Court. While certainly well intentioned, there are some problems with giving this to a court that doesn't have the capability to process this kind of request. They don't have statutory procedures. They don't have the administrative capacity to receive witnesses, to hear evidence, or to carry out the major provisions of the amendment. Furthermore, it is unclear that there is appellate authority from the immunity related rulings of the FISA Court this amendment creates. The FISA Court has operated in secret and has been more of an administrative court processing warrants. So this would put the court in a whole new administrative mode for which there are no precedent or appropriate regulations. There does not appear to be an appellate process from the FISA Court once it decides whether or not to grant a company immunity. I respect the work of my colleagues. They are trying to find good- faith compromises. However, I put my faith in the Intelligence Committee. This is a committee that passed this bill, with immunity provisions in it, out of committee by a vote of 13 to 2. It was bipartisan. This is the committee that had the hearings, heard all of the evidence, and knows more about the processes than people who are not on the committee. They have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the materials in these cases, including the Government's legal justifications for the program. We need to respect the judgment and expertise of our committees, particularly the intelligence committee. This is a committee that has done a very good job on a bipartisan basis to assure that we continue to protect our intelligence capabilities and to shield the companies necessary to gathering intelligence information from unfounded lawsuits. I hope my colleagues will vote for the bill the Intelligence Committee produced. Protecting the American people is our ultimate responsibility. This bill is absolutely essential for that responsibility to be implemented. We must protect the American people. We must protect the companies that have helped our law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies. We must make sure we proceed with a vision of foreign surveillance that would protect the American people from future attack. It is not an accident that we have not been attacked since 9/11. All of us know that our country was not prepared for this kind of warfare. But our country's eyes have been opened. We have been a sleeping giant in many ways, as was said about us before World War II. But we have now been awakened, and we are going to take the measures necessary within the framework of our Constitution, which this bill provides, to assure that we protect the American people from future attack. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. First, Mr. President, let me say, while the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee are both on the floor, that I believe the Intelligence Committee has done a fine job on this very important legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, that will modernize and allow our law enforcement officials to have the tools they need to protect our country. The Intelligence Committee voted the bill out on a bipartisan basis. It was certainly debated and balanced within the committee. I think this Senate should support the Intelligence Committee and all the work they have done to prepare this very important legislation. So to Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, I say thank you for doing a great job. I do rise today to support this bill. It is essential that we do so to protect our country. I was proud to join my colleagues last August in passing the Protect America Act. It will expire in 8 days--in 8 days. The majority leader has said we are going to pass this legislation this week out of the Senate. That is a good thing. The House needs a week to look at it and determine if they will pass it. I hope they will pass the same legislation that is before us from the Intelligence Committee and send it to the President without amendment. Our enemies are not going to expire in 8 days. Al-Qaida, we know, uses cell phones and wireless Internet networks and countless other technologies that were not in place when the original FISA passed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago, we did not have cell phones. Thirty years ago, you would go to a court and say: We want to tap the phone line of this number. Today, a cell phone can be thrown away before you can go to get a court order. So in the act we passed last year, we determined that you could get a court order to intercept the communications between suspected terrorists and you can go to the person rather than to a phone number, which would be unusable by the time you could get a court order. So that is one way we have begun to upgrade the technology to match the threat. Because our enemy is very technologically capable. We must be able to meet that with law enforcement. Delays could mean the difference between life and death. Unless we take action, this protection of our ability to intercept potential plots against our country will go out of existence. We cannot, in good conscience, let that happen. Let's talk about the litigation aspects because that is going to be the first amendment we vote on. The first amendment we vote on is going to be out of the Judiciary Committee. There will be other amendments, I know, that have already been discussed on the floor regarding litigation against telecom companies. After 9/11, the Federal Government requested that America's telecom companies share proprietary information to help prevent future terrorist attacks. After the existence of the national security program was illegally leaked 2 years ago, America's telecom companies began to get hit with dozens of class action lawsuits that could expose them to catastrophic liabilities. Originally, the telecom companies had nothing to fear from those lawsuits because they had evidence that what they did was at the request of our law enforcement officials. But due to the sensitive nature of the Government's request of these companies, the law enforcement officials barred the telecom companies from the release of certain documents that they needed for their trials. So we have created a situation in which companies have cooperated with law enforcement to keep our country safe, and then, when the lawsuits arose, they were not allowed to defend themselves. Now, some of my colleagues say: Well, that is tough. They should have known better. We are talking about the security of our country. The people who are in the business of telecommunications were asked to be patriotic Americans. And they said yes. So if we do not give them protection for these actions, as well as those going forward, we are going to put our businesses in an untenable situation. Either they can help law enforcement, be sued and hampered in their legal defense because they are not able to introduce certain types of evidence because of security reasons, or they can say no to law enforcement and put our country in jeopardy. Now, I will tell you that I have talked to the CEO of one of our major telecommunications companies. He has said: Senator, I am going to do what is right for America. That is my first responsibility as a citizen of this country. But, Senator, I don't think I should be put in jeopardy for my shareholders and my consumers while being a patriotic American. The Senate must act responsibly. We must be able to go to a company and say: help our country. Because in the past a terrorist could communicate between two countries overseas, and we would have the right to intercept those messages. I wish I could say we have no enemies inside our country who would communicate with a terrorist outside our country, but we all know that is not the case. We all know there are people in our country today plotting to kill innocent Americans. We know because plots have been uncovered. And we know because that is what happened on 9/11. There were people inside our country who were aiding and abetting, living in our country, and planning to kill innocent Americans. So we must have the capability to give protection to a telecommunications company that would cooperate with our Federal law enforcement officials to intercept messages between al-Qaida in Pakistan or Afghanistan or anywhere in the world communicating with a terrorist sympathizer in our own country. It is our responsibility to do this for the safety and security of Americans. We must pass this bill. We must pass it in the form that the Intelligence Committee did on a bipartisan basis. We must respect the work that has been done by those who have heard hours and hours and hours of testimony and seen classified information about the threats to our country. We must do our part, along with the President, with the Members of the House of Representatives, and with our law enforcement officials to ensure that no stone is left unturned to uncover a plot against innocent Americans. If that is not the duty of the U.S. Senate, Mr. President, I ask you, what is? That is our responsibility. That is why we were elected: to protect our country. I hope this body, of which I am so proud to be a Member, will do the right thing and extend this act and give our law enforcement the tools they need to do the job we are asking them to do to protect America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I filed today, the Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act of 2008. This bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to forgive certain debts by our service members who have already paid the ultimate price in combat. This bill is about honoring our fallen heroes by treating the families they left behind with dignity, and by showing them we truly mean it when we tell them our Nation is grateful. If a member of our Armed Forces is killed and owes the Department of Veterans Affairs any outstanding debts, the Secretary of VA is required by law to notify the deceased family of the debt. I am appalled at this. I am saddened. If a service member is killed in combat, his or her family has already paid enough. I cannot think of anything more insulting than to tell a family who has just lost a loved one that they owe a couple of hundred dollars to the Government. I for one will not stand for this. Let me explain the scope of this problem to illustrate how simple it should be to fix. There are 22 service members who were killed in combat fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who have debts to the VA. If you combined the debts of those 22 service members, the total amount of their debt would come to $56,366. In most cases the service member's debt came in the form of educational benefit payments so they could go to college. During their enrollment at school, they were called into service, and they were killed. Later on, the VA was forced to contact the families of the deceased and notify them of those outstanding debts. How tragic is this? Three of the 22 cases occurred in my home State of Texas, which is more than any other State. One fallen hero, a brave young man from Raymondville, TX, joined the Army in 1997, right out of high school where he was both an academic star, and an athletic star. He had been accepted to a prestigious university, but put service to his country first. He was on his 3rd tour in Iraq when he was killed by a sniper's bullet. When he died, he owed the Government $389 in education assistance payments. The Secretary of VA was required by law to contact that family and ask for $389. I cannot imagine a more insensitive requirement. The family paid this debt in full because they believed it was the right thing to do. But did we do the right thing? I regret to say we did not. I am embarrassed that this happened and I beseech my colleagues to fix this problem today. A second case involved an Army Sergeant from Missouri City, TX. After serving in the Marine Corps for a number of years, this young man enlisted in the Army. After high school he attended 2 different colleges utilizing VA education benefits. When he was deployed, he dropped out of school to serve his country. He served one tour in Afghanistan and was on his 2nd tour in Iraq when he was killed by a bomb explosion. Because he had dropped out of school, the deceased owed the VA $2,282. He is survived by a wife and 4 children. The family paid the VA because they also believed it was the right thing to do. The third Texas case involved a Marine reservist. He graduated from Texas A&M University and intended to be a cardiovascular surgeon. He had received education assistance to go to the University. He was also killed in an explosion in Iraq. He was married and had 2 small children. Two days before his death the VA sent him a letter saying he owed $845. This is not a bill that should in any way fall into politics. This bill should be passed quickly on a bipartisan basis. There are cases just like the ones I mentioned in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Connecticut, Nebraska, Colorado, Michigan, Washington, California, New York, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina. It is clear our entire Nation is affected and we have to do something now. I know bills are usually referred to the committee of jurisdiction for review. I have served in this distinguished body for 15 years. But I am convinced this is a special case, and so I am here today asking the distinguished Majority and Minority Leaders to bring this bill to the floor before another family suffers the indignity of the current law. The VA has no choice but to follow the law, but we, here in Congress, have the power to change it. We can and should correct this requirement and honor the memories and the families of our fallen heroes. I am calling on all of my colleagues to right this wrong immediately. We cannot let this law stand another day. Our soldiers and their families deserve better. Every day is crucial to passing this legislation and I ask my colleagues to join with me in this endeavor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I filed today, the Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act of 2008. This bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to forgive certain debts by our service members who have already paid the ultimate price in combat. This bill is about honoring our fallen heroes by treating the families they left behind with dignity, and by showing them we truly mean it when we tell them our Nation is grateful. If a member of our Armed Forces is killed and owes the Department of Veterans Affairs any outstanding debts, the Secretary of VA is required by law to notify the deceased family of the debt. I am appalled at this. I am saddened. If a service member is killed in combat, his or her family has already paid enough. I cannot think of anything more insulting than to tell a family who has just lost a loved one that they owe a couple of hundred dollars to the Government. I for one will not stand for this. Let me explain the scope of this problem to illustrate how simple it should be to fix. There are 22 service members who were killed in combat fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who have debts to the VA. If you combined the debts of those 22 service members, the total amount of their debt would come to $56,366. In most cases the service member's debt came in the form of educational benefit payments so they could go to college. During their enrollment at school, they were called into service, and they were killed. Later on, the VA was forced to contact the families of the deceased and notify them of those outstanding debts. How tragic is this? Three of the 22 cases occurred in my home State of Texas, which is more than any other State. One fallen hero, a brave young man from Raymondville, TX, joined the Army in 1997, right out of high school where he was both an academic star, and an athletic star. He had been accepted to a prestigious university, but put service to his country first. He was on his 3rd tour in Iraq when he was killed by a sniper's bullet. When he died, he owed the Government $389 in education assistance payments. The Secretary of VA was required by law to contact that family and ask for $389. I cannot imagine a more insensitive requirement. The family paid this debt in full because they believed it was the right thing to do. But did we do the right thing? I regret to say we did not. I am embarrassed that this happened and I beseech my colleagues to fix this problem today. A second case involved an Army Sergeant from Missouri City, TX. After serving in the Marine Corps for a number of years, this young man enlisted in the Army. After high school he attended 2 different colleges utilizing VA education benefits. When he was deployed, he dropped out of school to serve his country. He served one tour in Afghanistan and was on his 2nd tour in Iraq when he was killed by a bomb explosion. Because he had dropped out of school, the deceased owed the VA $2,282. He is survived by a wife and 4 children. The family paid the VA because they also believed it was the right thing to do. The third Texas case involved a Marine reservist. He graduated from Texas A&M University and intended to be a cardiovascular surgeon. He had received education assistance to go to the University. He was also killed in an explosion in Iraq. He was married and had 2 small children. Two days before his death the VA sent him a letter saying he owed $845. This is not a bill that should in any way fall into politics. This bill should be passed quickly on a bipartisan basis. There are cases just like the ones I mentioned in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Connecticut, Nebraska, Colorado, Michigan, Washington, California, New York, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina. It is clear our entire Nation is affected and we have to do something now. I know bills are usually referred to the committee of jurisdiction for review. I have served in this distinguished body for 15 years. But I am convinced this is a special case, and so I am here today asking the distinguished Majority and Minority Leaders to bring this bill to the floor before another family suffers the indignity of the current law. The VA has no choice but to follow the law, but we, here in Congress, have the power to change it. We can and should correct this requirement and honor the memories and the families of our fallen heroes. I am calling on all of my colleagues to right this wrong immediately. We cannot let this law stand another day. Our soldiers and their families deserve better. Every day is crucial to passing this legislation and I ask my colleagues to join with me in this endeavor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Senator Trent Lott, on his 35 years of service to the people of Mississippi in both Houses of Congress, and also to wish him well as he leaves the Senate, and begins the next chapter of his incredible life. Senator Lott was born in Grenada, MS, in 1941. His father was a shipyard worker, and his mother was a schoolteacher. He went to the University of Mississippi in Oxford, where he earned an undergraduate degree in public administration, and a law degree. After finishing his education, he went to work for his local Congressman, William Colmer, for 4 years. When Congressman Colmer announced his retirement in 1972, he endorsed Trent Lott as his successor--even though Colmer was a Democrat, and Lott ran as a Republican. Trent Lott won that election. And he was reelected to Congress seven times. As a congressman, Trent Lott had a major, positive impact on his colleagues, and also on the economic vitality of America. After the 1980 election, he was elected to serve as House minority whip, and he became the first southern Republican to ever hold that position. Counting votes, building coalitions, and moving legislation were things he seemed born to do, and he genuinely enjoyed the process. In 1981, he helped forge the bipartisan alliance that enacted President Ronald Reagan's historic, across-the-board tax cuts. Those tax cuts have been extremely successful. Since they went into full effect, the U.S. economy has almost quintupled in size, the Dow Jones has surged from less than 1,000 to over 13,000, and a wave of revolutionary technologies, including cell phones and the Internet, have strengthened America's position in the global marketplace. In 1988, Trent Lott ran for, and won, a seat in the U.S. Senate. Since he arrived, Trent has earned strong marks from the people of Mississippi, and they have reelected him to the Senate three times. Senator Lott has never forgotten the needs and concerns of his constituents. I know about his compassion, dedication, and hard work because I have seen it firsthand. In 2005, as we all know, Senator Lott's house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina--a storm that created so much destruction throughout the gulf coast. Since then, Senator Lott--along with his partner from Mississippi, Senator Cochran--have helped lead the fight to make sure that Washington meets its obligations to the people of the Gulf Coast states, who are rebuilding still today. His commitment during this time is a good part of why he decided to run for reelection. Throughout his tenure in the U.S Senate, Trent Lott has demonstrated tremendous leadership ability. After the 1994 election, he was elected Senate Republican whip, and in 1996, he succeeded another Senate legend, Bob Dole, as Republican leader. During the next 6 years, Senator Lott was a strong leader for several pieces of legislation that improved life in America in a wide variety of ways. First and foremost was the landmark welfare reform bill of 1996. The next year, Senator Lott worked to produce a bipartisan agreement that cut taxes, cut spending, and most importantly, balanced the Federal budget for the first time in almost 30 years. Then, in 2001, Senator Lott led the fight for President Bush's tax cut package. Combined with the tax cuts that followed in 2003, lower taxes have once again recharged America's economy, even as the global economy grows more competitive Since 2003, we have created 8.3 million jobs, which is more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries in the world combined. The economic growth caused by those tax cuts has also led to record tax revenue. Federal tax receipts are up more than 37 percent over the past 3 years. This has enabled us to cut the budget deficit in half, and if trends continue, we will be able to eliminate the deficit as soon as 2012. During recent years, Senator Lott has also taken a leadership role on other issues, including improving education and strengthening homeland security. In fact, he brokered the compromise that created the Department of Homeland Security. He was also instrumental in passing the Rail Security Act. Senator Lott's ability to round up votes and get results is clear for anyone to see. That is why his Republican colleagues elected him assistant Republican leader again last year. I have had the privilege to serve with Senator Lott as a member of the Republican leadership and have watched him affect the outcome of every major piece of legislation that has gone before Congress. Last month, when Senator Lott announced his intent to resign from the Senate, I was saddened--like all of my colleagues--to hear of his plans. However, like all of my colleagues, I also understand his desire to have time for himself and his family. After 35 years of public service, he deserves that and more. America is a better place--and has a brighter future--because of Trent Lott. I wish Trent and Tricia, and their family all the best in the future.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to support this energy legislation but not without reservation. I will begin by saying that I think there are some very good provisions in this bill. This Congress is taking a major step by increasing the CAFE standards. This increase calls for a 35-mile-per- gallon standard in every car by 2020. This is a huge conservation victory. In fact, it is a 40-percent increase from our current standard. I am also pleased that we have included the measures to increase energy efficiency in Federal buildings. The Federal Government should be a leader in promoting and adopting efficiency. We are addressing new technologies and emerging science in environmental areas such as carbon sequestration. We were able to remove the onerous tax provisions that would have made America only more dependent upon foreign sources of energy and made high prices even higher. However, I do remain concerned with the renewable fuel standard. The proposal before us will increase the renewable fuel standard from the current requirement of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This renewable fuel standard is noble in its objective, but it is a reckless way to draft this legislation, and here is why. It does not have a safety valve to address shortfalls in feedstocks which will be required to meet the renewable fuel standards mandate. I have been working with Texas livestock producers and food processors for months to try to create a safety valve that would have, in conjunction with the waiver provision currently in the bill, a prospective protection from harming these industries. I believe the existing waiver provision and the safety valve could function and coexist without resulting in market uncertainty for the RFS increase. I believe livestock and poultry producers and food processors are going to face uncertainty under these mandates. For this reason, I have worked with these industries and my colleagues in the Senate to strike a balance to provide some level of prospective analysis and relief if experts conclude that there will be a shortfall that leads to price spikes in items such as corn, cereal, chicken, and beef. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain this safety valve, and I am very concerned that we are going to have problems down the road and millions of Americans are going to pay higher grocery bills because of unanticipated events, such as droughts or floods, which impact crop yields. I have tried to be reasonable in creating this safety valve, and we must watch this closely if we pass this bill, and I think we will. We must give relief to the livestock producers and the consumers in this country if, in fact, we cannot produce this mandate that is in this bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues not to vote for this bill and to insist that we have an energy bill that will create more energy for our country. The Energy bill before us today for a cloture vote will not increase the supply of energy. There are some good parts of this bill. The House and Senate could pass a bill that would do major things for renewable energy sources, for clean energy sources, and for an increase in the supply of energy sources, but the bill that is being brought up today-- and I hope it will not get cloture--is a bill that will not increase supply. We have two problems we need to address in an energy policy. One is the cost of energy. We need to provide more supply in order to bring the cost down. The second is, we are 60 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs, which is an economic and security risk for America. I cannot imagine the Congress trying to continue to pass a bill that will decrease supply and increase our dependence on foreign sources for our energy needs. We are the greatest nation on Earth. We should be addressing this aggressively to increase supply. The good part of this bill is the CAFE standards which have been agreed to in a bipartisan way. That will go a long way toward conservation and beginning to make our automobiles more efficient and environmentally friendly. But the $20 billion in taxes on oil supply takes away the increase in supply that is so important to bring down prices. We are a country that ought to be the model for the world in stability in oil and tax policy. Instead, our country has the reputation for not being stable in tax policy, for changing tax policy every 2 years or every 4 years, so businesses sometimes would rather do their exploration, their production, their refining, their manufacturing overseas because they know they can count on stability in tax policy and regulatory policy. That is absolutely the opposite of what people should be saying about America. America should be the one that our businesses say they can rely on for stable policy. Yet the bill before us will change the incentives we gave for refineries to increase just 2 years after we gave them. It was beginning to work. Big oil companies that had not invested in refinery capacity for 20 years, because of the regulatory hurdles, were willing to go in and have already announced expansions. I know a big expansion would be going on in Mississippi, a big one in Texas that would add to our refinery capacity so that we would have more supply more cheaply. We would have more dependence on ourselves for our energy needs, and we would bring prices down. This takes away those incentives for refinery capacity to increase. It also will drive overseas the production of oil because we are penalizing our oil companies with this $20 billion in taxes. What this will do is decrease supply and increase price. I cannot think of a worse message to send and a worse tax policy that would say to the world and to any business that wants to do business in our country that you can count on tax policy for a year or two, but you cannot make long-term plans in America because we may change policy if we change Congress. We have changed Congress, all right. What we are seeing is a tax-and- spend Congress that we haven't seen in 15 years. Once again, we are going to increase spending and we are going to increase taxes. That is not what we should be doing in an environment in which our economy is fragile. Raising taxes in this economy is going to increase the price of energy, which has a ripple effect throughout our economy. It means every farmer is going to have to pay more for fuel. It means every businessperson, especially small businesspeople, is going to have to pay more for fuel. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of legislation that the President has said he will veto. Let's stop the games in Congress. Let's do something that will help our energy supply, that will bring prices down. Let's take the good parts of this bill, such as the CAFE standards and the incentives for renewable energy and clean energy. All of those things are very good. I want clean energy. I want solar power. I want wind power. I want biofuels. I want cellulosic ethanol and corn-based ethanol. But to take one segment of our energy, which happens to be the biggest source today, and increase the price on that, decrease the incentives for the refinery capacity which we must have--these companies do not have to invest and go through all of the regulatory procedures and millions of dollars off their bottom line to go into refinery expansions. They don't have to do it. They had tax incentives to do it 2 years ago. Taking that away pulls the rug out from under those who have already made those investments. It is counterproductive for the economy. I hope we will provide adult leadership in the Congress. Let's not pass cloture on this bill. Let's do an energy bill that the President will sign, that will have bipartisan support, that will make CAFE standards much more environmentally friendly, and that will increase our supply of renewable and environmentally friendly energy needs. Let's keep the bread-and-butter energy supply we have by increasing refinery capacity so that we bring the cost down to consumers and keep our economy on a more even keel. I hope my colleagues will vote no today so we can pass an energy bill that will have the support of a bipartisan majority in Congress and get the President's signature. That should be the goal, not political game- playing, which we are seeing this week at the very last minute in Congress. It is not going to do what is right for the country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment that is pending because I do believe that if we can have some malpractice reform, we can get more OB/GYN doctors, pediatricians, and doctors in general, in our rural areas. As I travel in my State, I hear the complaints, and have for the last number of years, about lack of health care in our rural areas. It is one of our largest issues in this country today. I want to talk a little bit about our situation in Texas because the amendment before us is modeled somewhat on the law that did provide medical malpractice reform in Texas. Before 2003, according to the Texas Department of Health, 158 counties had no obstetricians, 24 counties had no primary care physicians at all, and 138 counties had no pediatricians. Texas ranked 48 of the 50 States in physician manpower for our population. Why were we having such trouble? Because the cost of providing health care before 2003 was unsustainable, largely due to increased litigation activity which drove the medical malpractice insurance rate so high that doctors were being driven out of Texas. In fact, the insurance companies also left Texas because the claims were so high. In 1991, Texas averaged 13 claims per 100 physicians. By 2000, Texas averaged 30 claims per 100 physicians. Of these claims, there was a disproportionate growth in noneconomic damages, damages such as pain and suffering. It was this growth, in contrast to awards of economic damages such as lost wages and medical care costs, that really spurred the increase in the medical malpractice premium. In 1991, noneconomic damages averaged 35 percent of total verdicts. By 1999, they averaged 65 percent. So the noneconomic damages--the pain and suffering damages--really doubled just in that 8-year period, not even taking into account the economic damages, which are certainly warranted damages when there is any kind of malpractice. From 1999 to 2003, the average malpractice premium increase in Texas was almost 74 percent. The Texas Medical Liability Trust, which covered about one-third of the State's doctors in 2003, increased rates by 147.6 percent between 1999 and 2003. We are talking 4 years. In the Rio Grande Valley, physicians in general surgery and OB/GYN practices ranked sixth and seventh in the Nation for the highest premiums in 2002. The impact of litigation on Texas's health care system was undeniable and unsustainable. Medical liability reform came about in 2003. There were bold changes in the tort system in an attempt to restore access to care. We have seen a dramatic change. According to the Texas Medical Board, physician applications for State licensure have doubled from 2003 to 2007. The Texas Medical Board reports that since passing liability reform in Texas, Texas has experienced a gain of 195 OB/GYNs, 505 pediatricians, 169 orthopedic surgeons, 554 anesthesiologists, 36 neurosurgeons, 497 emergency medicine physicians, and 37 pediatric cardiologists. Prior to reform, Texas had five liability carriers. Since reform, Texas has added 3 new rate-regulated carriers and 13 new unregulated insurers. The five largest insurers announced rate cuts in 2005, with an average premium reduction of 11.7 percent. These reductions produced $48 million in annual premium savings. Medical liability reform does work. We have attempted, on the floor of the Senate, for many years to have a national medical liability reform, even just focusing it on OB/GYN doctors and emergency room doctors because there are shortages all over the country of these kinds of services. There are shortages of physicians who are willing and able to perform these services because of the high medical malpractice insurance rates. Everyone in our country, and certainly in the Senate, wants to make sure that if there is a medical error that causes an injury to a baby, to a mother, to anyone who is getting health care, certainly there should be penalties. There should be payment for economic damages. There should be payment for loss of wages and payment for pain and suffering. But if you have lawsuits where the pain and suffering start driving it rather than the economic damages and it starts to encroach on the ability of doctors, even if they have a clean record, to afford the rise in liability premiums, then I think we have to take a look. It is particularly acute in our rural areas, where we have so many farmers, which is, I am sure, why Senator Gregg brought forward this amendment. I think it would be a great amendment to the farm bill to provide better access to health care for our farmers in this country. That is why, I am sure, Senator Gregg chose this bill, because we have not had the opportunity to address medical malpractice reform since we made the attempt last year in the Senate, which was utterly unsuccessful, to be honest. Because the problem has gotten worse in many States and because the record in Texas after medical liability reform has caused so much better care, more access to care, and more satisfaction with care in Texas since the reform, I would like to see that model able to be reproduced around our country and especially in our rural areas, which is the subject of the bill before us today. I yield the floor.