Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Judge Jennifer Elrod to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Back in July, I was proud to introduce Judge Elrod, a fellow Texan, at her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Judge Elrod is a highly accomplished judicial nominee, with a distinguished record as a state court judge and as a practicing attorney. I am confident she will capably serve as a federal appelate judge for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Elrod has shown her judicial capability in the 190th District Court in Houston, TX, where she currently presides. At present, she manaages a docket of over 1,000 cases, and leads all Harris County civil district judges in the number of jury cases tried to verdict since 2005. Prior to serving on the bench, Judge Elrod practiced at Baker Botts LLP, a top national firm, where she worked for 8 years on litigation matters including antitrust, employment law, commercial litigation, toxic tort, general civil litigation, and personal injury defense. She also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sim Lake in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Elrod's outstanding intellect is evidenced by her exceptional academic credentials, graduating cum laude from Harvard Law School, and magna cum laude with distinction from Baylor University in Texas. Judge Elrod has long been dedicated to pro bono service and charitable causes, and she is the former chair of the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, the largst provider of pro bono legal assistance to indigent people in the Texas gulf coast region. She was recently commended by the Texas Access to Justice Commission for her service in facilitating the advocacy skills of lawyers who represent poor and low income Texans. Judge Elrod has also been an active member in both the Texas State Bar and the Houston Bar Association, with particular service in the areas of Continuing Legal Education and the Administration of Justice. She is two-time recipient of the President's Award fo Outstanding Service to the Houston Bar Association, and she was awarded the outstanding Young Lawyer of Houston in 2004 by the Houston Young Lawyers Association. I am honored to support the confirmation of Judge Jennifer Elrod because she meets the high standards to which we hold all judicial nominees. She has an impressive record of public service, work ethic, integrity, and she will bring great honor to the Federal bench. I encourage my colleagues to approve her nomination. We must also fill the other two vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. The President has nominated two highly accomplished individuals, Catharina Haynes, and Leslie Southwick, to fill those vacancies--and they deserve a fair and speedy confirmation process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment Senator Mikulski and I have worked on for a long time. After we lost the space shuttle Columbia over Texas and we were so involved in the cleanup of that tragic accident, all of us--Senator Shelby, Senator Mikulski, Senator Nelson from Florida, many of us--did try to make sure we had the funding that was needed, first of all, for a comprehensive review of what happened. We did have an incredibly good product from the Commission that was put together that did determine the cause. We did fund that at $100 million. But the added safeguards and safety measures that were required by that study and the Commission report were not funded. As Senator Mikulski said, we are about $2 billion to $3 billion in the hole. We cannot allow that to happen because here we are on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik and it is another sputnik moment. When all of us in America were shocked that Russia had put up the first spaceflight, we were left to say: Why weren't we first? Today, 50 years later, we are looking at a 5-year gap from the end of the space shuttle before the crew-return vehicle will be on line to put American astronauts back in space. That is another Sputnik moment. Are we going to rely on Russia after 2010 to put American astronauts in space? I hope not. I hope America never loses its commitment to be the first in technology, in knowing what can be done, in exploring issues we haven't even thought about because we know how much that exploration has already done for our country. In fact, what has happened is exactly as Senator Mikulski just explained. The accounts for NASA have been drained. We have drained from science, we have drained from the Hubble telescope, and we have drained from other aeronautics research to fund the Columbia accident report and safeguards, and we have not moved forward for the crew- return vehicle. It is estimated that if we can get this billion dollars and if we can fully fund the accounts that have been bled, we could chop at least 2 years off that gap. We are talking about a technological and educational issue at a time when India and China are doing more and more exploration into space, and we are talking about a national security issue that the United States would not have the capability for 5 years to put an American astronaut in space. Who can forget the beginning of the war against terror when we were putting missiles, guided through satellites, into windows from 2 miles away because we have that capability we have gained from the exploration in space. In addition, if we look at the science and innovation we must continue to pursue to make the investment in the space station worthwhile and to keep our commitment to our international partners, we have to be willing to put the amount that is required from America with our international partners into the space station. That, too, has been robbed. Just think, last month Senator Mikulski and I went to a signing between the National Institutes of Health and NASA of an agreement that the National Institutes of Health would be a partner in the international space station lab, that it would begin to do some of the far-reaching medical research that could only be done in the space station because of the microgravity conditions, and NIH signed the agreement. Are we going to continue to rob the accounts for scientific research at a time when we are on the cusp of doing the research about which we have been talking--research into breast cancer, research into osteoporosis--where we can see the cells grow because there is no gravity that is pulling against the growth? What about Dr. Samuel Ting, the Nobel laureate from MIT who testified before our committee? I am the ranking member--former chairman--of the NASA, space, and science subcommittee. He came to our committee and wowed all of us with the potential for scientific research on the space station. He is a Nobel laureate in physics. He said cosmic rays are the most intense in space. On the space station, we can begin to find what cosmic rays do in that intensity and perhaps even begin to find a new energy source from being able to harness those cosmic rays and create a form of energy which he says can only and best be done on the space station. I ask my colleagues, in a time when we are all trying to find ways to cut back on expenditures that are not necessary, to look at this amendment carefully because it is an investment in the future. It is an investment to make sure our technology transfers are continued. As an example, look at the items on Earth that have been discovered or enhanced by space research: international TV broadcasts, pacemakers, automatic insulin pumps, car phones, CAT scans, infrared thermometers, long-range weather forecasting which has revolutionized not only our agriculture industry but the ability to predict hurricanes. We have so many quality-of-life issues that have been enhanced or discovered because we were willing to do this research. I ask my colleagues to look at this investment. Do we want to see this go to the Chinese or to India or to Russia, or do we want to continue to make sure that America is the creator, America is the innovator, that it is Americans who take the discoveries and turn them into products that can change our lives, especially in medical science? I ask my colleagues to look at what we have gained in superiority in defense because we have invested in space. Yet, at a time when we are at war, when we know we have used the satellites to the most effective point they have ever been used for intelligence gathering, for the ability to do intelligence gathering without harming Americans, without putting Americans in a plane because we can take from the satellites the information so that the pilot is not in danger of being shot down because there is no pilot. We can gather intelligence, we can retain our superiority and technology and creativity, but it will take the investment. If we are going to pay for an emergency out of operating funds, we are eating our seed corn. Madam President, surely America and our Congress and this Senate understand that issue. The leadership of the appropriations and authorizing committees, Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, myself, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, are the four chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees. All of us have asked to meet with the President to talk about this priority that we must continue exploration in space and determine how we would go forward in a bipartisan way to assure America's leadership in this important endeavor. I hope the President will support this amendment, will meet with us to have a joint effort to do this amendment. The President himself has already laid out the vision. He has said we are going to put people on the Moon again, we are going to establish a base on the Moon, and from there we are going to go to Mars. The President has laid out the vision, but we must have the capability to fulfill the mission by having the scientific research that will keep us in the technological lead by continuing to make sure we are looking at all of the energy sources we can use, by creating the medical capabilities that can only be done in the microgravity conditions. I join with so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in asking that we adopt this amendment, that we get 60 votes, if that is what we need, to assure that this goes forward, not as another appropriation but as an investment to assure that America's leadership continues. Madam President, I wrote a piece for the Hill, which is one of the local Capitol magazines. It goes into more detail about why this is so very important. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski-Hutchison amendment that has bipartisan support of all of the four members of the relevant committees' leadership. I hope together we can take this step to assure America's leadership. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Biden amendment, and I hope we are going to proceed with a vote on this amendment. I am an original cosponsor. I appreciate what Senator Biden has brought forward. He has talked about the semiautonomous region in Iraq for a long time--for over a year. Mr. President, so have I. I, too, have written an op-ed piece that says let's look at a long-term solution. I think we saw from General Petraeus in the last couple of weeks that we should be so proud of our military and what we have done to give security to the Iraqi people. It is not perfect, and it is not finished, but it is so much better than it has been before. Violence is down. Mr. President, everybody who has been to Iraq, including myself and most Members of the Senate, can see clearly that American forces securing Iraq is not a long-term solution. We must have an Iraq that has an economic and a political solution. I don't think you can have a political solution if you don't have an economy, if people don't have jobs, if they cannot start small businesses, if they cannot take their children to school. You are not going to be able to have a long-term solution without the building of an economy and a political base. That is why I support this amendment, why I am an original cosponsor with so many Republicans and Democrats coming together. When I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about their view of the war, I differ with them about what we should do militarily. But I do think all of us are coming together to say we should have a long-term solution with fewer American troops in a support role, not a frontline role. The way to do that is to have an economy and political stability. That is what I think the Biden amendment would suggest. We are not telling the Iraqi people what to do. They passed their own law to implement it. They have a much longer history there than we do. I think we should continue to promote this as a solution. I think we need to do a few other things in conjunction with this. I think we should work more closely with Iraq's neighbors. I think the Bush administration is doing that now. I think the Secretary of State is doing a great job of bringing the neighbors in and saying: You have a stake here, and certainly it is in everyone's interest in the region to have a stable Iraq that is not a terrorist breeding ground. That should be pursued with the idea that they could also be helpful in regions that would work in a semiautonomous way. It is federalism with states that have their own self-governance. Dr. Henry Kissinger, in an appearance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said: I am sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely that this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing. Secretary Kissenger went on to say, in a Washington Post op-ed last week: It is possible that the present structure in Baghdad is incapable of national reconciliation because its elected constituents were elected on a sectarian basis. A wiser course would be to concentrate on the three principal regions and promote technocratic, efficient and humane administration in each. . . . More efficient regional government leading to substantial decrease in the level of violence, to progress towards the rule of law and to functioning markets could then, over a period of time, give the Iraqi people an opportunity for national reconciliation. Mr. President, our efforts in the Balkans are instructive here. A little over 10 years ago, from 1992 to 1995, the war in the Balkans left 250,000 people dead and millions homeless. The Dayton Peace Accords ended that conflict. The agreement retained Bosnia and Herzegovina's international boundaries and created a joint multiethnic and democratic government charged with a very narrow power--to conduct foreign, diplomatic, and fiscal policy. That is the overarching national government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a second tier of government there now, comprised of two entities that are roughly equal in size. The Bosniak/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb-led Republica Srpska. The Federation and the Srpska governments oversee most government functions. Since the Dayton Peace Accords was signed, the guns of Bosnia have been silent. More than a million people have returned to their prewar homes. The success in Bosnia has enabled the number of U.S. troops in the region to decline substantially. At the end of 1995, there were 20,000 U.S. combat troops in the Bosnia region. I visited those troops seven times. The first time I went into Bosnia it was undercover. We had on flack jackets and helmets because the Serbs were shooting from the hills. In 2006, there were 600 American troops in Bosnia. Today, there are no combat troops in Bosnia. Mr. President, I think this should be a model for Iraq. I think we could have a national government that divides the oil royalties, that has the diplomatic function that represents Iraq internationally, and the national government could be a mixture, as it is today. But then you would have semiautonomous regions. We talked about it. You have Kurdistan in the north, the Shia area in the south, and the middle doesn't have to be one region. I have heard the disagreements about the ability to put that middle into one region because there are Shia and Sunnis in neighborhood to neighborhood. It will be more difficult, but it is also the best opportunity for a long-term solution. So why not have smaller units across the middle of Baghdad? Why not have some smaller government with an educational system, with the religious sect that is the majority in that sector? Mr. President, it is so important that we produce more options. Many of the best scholars in this country, the best writers in newspapers in our country, and many of the best diplomats in our country have said this is a potential solution. Some people in this category have said this isn't our first choice. Our first choice is to be a national government that is mixed--that works. That is all of our first choice. But that isn't the choice we have. We have to recognize that we could not mold a country so quickly after thousands of years of strife along ethnic grounds. So we have to step back, in my opinion, and ask what could work to stabilize this country so that an economic and a political solution will work. With all of the people who are now saying this is an option that should be on the table, I hear people saying, in the end, that is probably the way it is going to be. That is where I come in and say: In the end? Wait a minute. We have a chance to push for leadership now. We have a chance to bring the others in the region together now, so that the American troops who have done such a wonderful job will have two victories. One is that their mission will be accomplished in the right way; two, all of the sacrifices they have made will not be for naught. We cannot walk away from Iraq. We cannot say it is too tough, we are going to surrender. That would make all of the sacrifices that have been made irrelevant. We cannot do it that way. But we do have a potential solution that can save American lives in the future by cutting down the violence right now, by saying if we can step back into a support role because Iraq is emerging as an economic, political, and stable country, then we will have done right by our American troops. We will have done the right thing for future generations of Americans because we will have stood our ground against terrorists taking over Iraq, and we will do it expeditiously. We don't need to talk about this anymore. The Iraqis have adopted it in their constitution. They have adopted the implementation of the legislation. With some leadership among all of its neighbors in the region, along with the United States and our allies who have given so much in this cause, we can protect future generations of Americans from attacks. We will have built a stable country, which is what we said we wanted to do when we went in to take out Saddam Hussein, who was abusing his people. Mr. President, some may call for surrender, but that is not the answer. The answer is to promote a real solution that is a long-term solution; that is, allowing the Iraqis to draw their own regions, where they can grow an economy and a government that works along the Bosnian model, and we will be able to stay strong and do the right thing and listen to what people are saying. But that doesn't mean we have to wait and say, oh, that is what is going to happen in the end. Well, how many American lives are going to be lost between now and the end? Let's allow our American troops to take the support role instead of the frontline role, as General Petraeus has started so ably. Let's do what is right for the Iraqi people and the Middle East region as well because a terrorist haven is not in anyone's interest. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment of which I am a cosponsor, along with a solid Republican and Democratic list of Members who are willing to stand up and say we want this war to end honorably, we want to complete the mission honorably, and we can do it in the right way. And that is to allow them to create their government, which would have a national overlay. The time is now, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just ask the Senator, if he will yield briefly, is it possible that I may make a 2-minute statement after Senator Brownback, and then I will come back on Monday as well?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. Monday, I will make longer comments. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I have said for a long time it is my belief that if we could allow the sectors of Iraq to have their own semiautonomous government, like is now in the northern part with the Kurds--and the southern part is mostly Shia--I think we could really begin to see economic stability, as well as political stability. Of course, we all know we should have oil revenue that would go to all of the people of Iraq, fairly allocated. But I think we have seen in Bosnia a lessening of tensions when there is a capability for the security forces, the educational and the religious sects to have their own ability to govern within themselves. If we can get economic stability, which is largely untalked about in the United States, I think that would bring the political stability along. So I commend Senator Biden. I have written on this as well. Senator Brownback and I have talked about this in many forums. It is important that we look at not only the great success we are having, which General Petraeus reported on, we are stabilizing the country on the security side. We are keeping our commitments. We are going to be able to do it with fewer Americans and bring the Iraqi troops forward, but it will not stabilize Iraq. We must have economic and political security. So I thank the chairman, and I thank Senator Brownback. I will speak again Monday. It is the most important sense of the Senate that we can have on this bill. Thank you. Amendment No. 2997 to amendment No. 2011

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the floor open for debate?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could be the first recognized after the unanimous consent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about this bill and to bring up an issue that I think is going to become more and more apparent as a problem for our Interstate Highway System. I had hoped to offer an amendment that would attempt to begin to solve this problem, but the managers have resisted having authorization on an appropriations bill, and I understand their concern. However, this is an issue that must be dealt with. If we cannot deal with it on an appropriations bill, hopefully, next year we can begin to discuss the alternative for the next authorization of highway funds, and certainly, it is a universal issue that must come up. This is the issue. There is more and more interest in putting tolls on highways. Well, I think if a local government or State government wants to have a toll highway, they should go through all of the processes--a vote of the people, or a vote of the elected officials--so the elected officials are accountable to do that. Our Interstate Highway System was created in the Eisenhower administration for the purpose of having a free highway system that would connect our country all the way from the West to the East, from the North to the South. It was for security purposes but also for commerce. The highway fund was created because the Western States were small and they did not have the capability to raise the funds to build their highways. Many States are donor States and have built these highways-- especially out in the West. State leaders are now trying to take these Federal highways and put tolls on them and use those highway tolls for other purposes--in some cases, for mass transit; in some cases, it would be going into other State projects. I think this is a dangerous precedent. It is dangerous to start taking highways built with Federal taxpayer dollars and put tolls on them and, in some cases not even reimburse the Federal taxpayers. I still think it would be wrong to allow the buyback of a Federal highway by a State and then for the State to put a toll on it. In some cases, we are looking at tolls being put on an entire freeway--not just one lane but the entire freeway. In fact, I think if you want to toll a lane on a Federal highway to build a new lane to add to the number of free lanes that are there, that would be acceptable. I also think you have some avenues to use the right-of-way that is in place to toll and build a new freeway with that toll. But to take an existing interstate highway and toll every lane, when it has already been paid for by the Federal taxpayers, is absolutely wrong, and we must have a vehicle to address this issue. Now, I have talked to the chairman of my State highway commission, and he has suggested that this might be an option that Texas wants to do. I object strenuously to Texas doing that, and I am going to do everything I can to keep our Texas taxpayers from paying for another opportunity to use a road that they have already paid for. I am going to resist that. But the chairman of the highway commission did make a very important point, and that was, just tell us what the rules are. There are not rules that lay out how we can address the transportation issues in the States, and I think every State is probably facing this problem. He was honest enough to say just give me the rules, tell me what I can do, and we will work with that. Of course, a donor State such as ours is sensitive to the fact that we don't get back one dollar for every dollar that is put into the highway system. I think we have done a better job at a time when we start looking at parity in the highway fund, and I think a fair conclusion would be that the Interstate Highway System has been built and let's make sure that every State now has the ability to use its own taxpayer funds to build its own roads. I think parity should be the end result, and I think we should be there now. Unfortunately, for a lot of history and a lot of nostalgia about the Interstate Highway System, that is not a fight that we can have today. It is not a fight that we will be able to solve tonight. I do want to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that we should not allow, on a piecemeal basis, one highway segment at a time, to all of a sudden wake up and find that we don't have an Interstate Highway System that is in place as it was created to be--a free highway for the citizens of this country to be able to travel anywhere in our country on an interstate system that works. We are going to wake up to this scenario if we allow what is happening right now to continue unabated. So I am going to do everything I can in my power to see that this scenario does not occur. I am going to do everything in my power to see that Texans do not have tolls put on our Federal highway system. I think we need a policy that would be nationwide, so that every taxpayer who has already paid for these roads would not be tolled again for the ability to go and use those roads. We are not going to solve that problem tonight, but it is going to be a major effort I will make in the future to solve this problem. I ask the authorizing committee, when they do reauthorize the highway program, which will have to be reauthorized within the next 2 years, to address this issue with an eye toward equity, with an eye toward protecting our taxpayers and, most important, with an eye toward keeping the original intent and mission of the Interstate Highway System--to have a free Interstate Highway System that works for our country and does indeed complete the United States of America both in security and commerce. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me suggest the absence of a quorum before I do that, just to inform the other side, and then we can proceed.

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 withdraw amendment No. 2666 by Senator McConnell.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The amendment was on the unanimous consent request list last night.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I do want to say in regard to amendment No. 2666, the McConnell amendment, which if it has not been formally proposed, I want to say it is regarding the Chemical Demilitarization Program that is in the Department of Defense. I just want to assure the Senator from Kentucky that this committee will work with the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the program stays on schedule. It is a very important program. The Department of Defense does want to continue the program, and we will work with the Armed Services Committee to assure that. I would certainly ask the chairman of the committee if that is his wish as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I appreciate very much his cooperation. I agree with him completely and with the Senator from Kentucky that we need to continue this program, and we will all work together to assure that the funding is there. Mr. President, let me just ask a parliamentary inquiry now. We had told our colleagues we would start voting at 11 o'clock, and I was just going to ask the status of that information.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. And have the yeas and nays been called for?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2687.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we yield back our time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Colorado.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Secretary of the Army called me this morning and said if they cannot continue to plan for the expansion working with the community that it will hamper their efforts in training. It will require them to go to other places for training. It will cause the troops to have to train longer periods. They absolutely are against this amendment, and they are against the precedent of having Congress say: You cannot continue with expansion plans that are on the books. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that would tie the hands of the Veterans' Administration in trying to make the most and the best use of taxpayer dollars. It would prohibit contracting out if 10 Federal employees are doing a job. We ought to be trying to promote the Veterans' Administration for being efficient. We should be promoting using taxpayer dollars wisely, not a protectionist amendment, where Congress would tie the hands of the Veterans Affairs Department. I hope we will defeat this amendment. We already have the capability to affirm that it is in the best interest of the VA to contract out. The VA is required to come to Congress to say it is in the interest of the VA that the contracting out be done. But to say no contracting out if there are 10 Federal employees doing a job is absolutely wrong, and it is going in the wrong direction for efficiency of our taxpayer dollars. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask that one additional amendment be added to the list to be voted on tomorrow, Thursday. It would be the McConnell amendment No. 2666.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, who has given up his 10 minutes in morning business, be allowed to speak between 2:20 and 2:30 this afternoon.