Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from West Virginia to yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately following the remarks of Senator Byrd.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: There is a unanimous consent agreement already on our side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. What is the amount allocated for Senator Inhofe?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, does the time start now?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, when Tom Brokaw wrote the book ``The Greatest Generation,'' it reminded America what is great about our country. It reminded us that men and women have sacrificed through the years for our country to make sure it was free for the next generation. Can you imagine in the middle of World War II the Congress mandating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and the Pacific, oblivious to the facts on the ground or the absolute necessity to win? Can you even imagine in the middle of the Cold War if Congress had required the withdrawal of troops from the same parts of the world, thinking that if we withdrew our troops, the Communists would do the same and peace would prevail? If earlier Congresses had done what it appears this Congress is trying to do, freedom would have died in Europe, it would have died where it was in Asia, and who knows what would have happened in the future in America. Today we have to ask ourselves: Are we worthy of the sacrifices so many have made in the past? Are we going to stand for freedom and fight for future Americans to have the same opportunities we have had because so many brave men and women have sacrificed? There are those who say this isn't a world war; it is a civil war; it is over there, and we can't do anything about it. This is a tough time, there is no question. Every one of us grieves when we see the killing of innocent people, Iraqis or Americans. But make no mistake about it, this is a world war. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. General Petraeus said that yesterday. They have all the evidence. They know what al-Qaida is doing there. They are attacking Americans. They are attacking Iraqis. They are trying to take over Iraq so they will have the capability to spread their terrorism throughout the world. Does that mean they are in a civil war or are they an enemy we must face? If we don't face it there, we will face it in our own country. General Abizaid, the former Commander of U.S. CENTCOM, said to the Armed Services Committee: If we leave, they will follow us home. If we don't stand for freedom against this enemy, we will see it again. We will see it on our own shores, and we will see it in other parts of the world. It would be unimaginable to me for Congress not to fund our troops and to send the mixed message out of Washington to the enemy, to our allies in such an important conflict that Congress isn't sure if America has the will to stand and fight for freedom. And make no mistake about it, that is what is at stake in these votes that are happening on Capitol Hill. I have heard people say: Oh, we are going to vote on this every month because it is good for politics. They may think it is good for politics, but I say the American people are going to get it. They are going to understand if we look weak in the Congress on standing and fighting the enemy wherever it is to keep Americans secure, they will see what happens and they will question if we are worthy of the sacrifices of the greatest generation. I wondered when that book came out: If America were ever attacked, would we stand and fight for freedom? I hope the answer is yes. I hope the Congress will wake up and see that setting deadlines and sending the signal to the enemy that we are weak is not worthy of the sacrifices of the past. I hope Congress will do the right thing, strip this language, send the money to the troops, and show that we, too, will stand for freedom for our children. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the America COMPETES Act.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I intend to speak on the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the America COMPETES Act. I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Cornyn. I have worked with all of them to try to focus first on what the problems are with regard to higher education and then to look at K-12 education. Certainly, the Senator from Tennessee, having been the Secretary of Education and the Governor of Tennessee, has dealt with education issues and has taken a major lead on trying to reform our education system so that it does meet the needs of the future generation. Having the National Academy do a study, resulting in the report called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' was exactly the right thing to do. I would never have thought we could have such a clear message from the National Academy about what we do right, what we do wrong, what is missing, and what we have to improve. Norm Augustine, former chairman of the board of Lockheed Corporation, was chairman of the committee. It was a distinguished group, including the former president of Texas A&M who is now Secretary of Defense. There were others. I was so pleased to see that they saw the problem. The problem is that fewer than 30 percent of U.S. fourth- and eighth- grade students performed at a proficient level or higher in mathematics. The United States placed near the bottom 20 percent of nations in advanced mathematics and physics in testing. The United States is 20th among nations in the proportion of its 24-year-olds with degrees in science or engineering. The United States graduates about 70,000 engineers every year. India is matriculating about 250,000, and in China the number is even greater. Within a few years, approximately 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will live in Asia. If we have fewer innovators, we are going to have fewer innovations. America has staked its economy on being the creators for the world. We have had the innovators. We have had the engineers, the scientists, the researchers. Yet we are now falling back in K-12, and our institutions of higher education are not getting students with the proper prerequisites to go into those course studies. We have to start from the beginning. The bill before us takes those steps. I am proud to be a cosponsor. There are three areas: research, education, and innovation. First, research. The bill increases the research investment by doubling the authorized funding levels for the National Science Foundation. It also substantially increases funding in the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and it brings NASA into the equation, one of our premier research institutions. We are going to increase the emphasis on science in NASA because we already have the infrastructure. We have paid for the infrastructure, but we are shortchanging the science. So that is a part of this bill as well. The second focus is education, specifically in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, and critical foreign languages. We offer competitive grants to States to promote better coordination of elementary and secondary education. We want to strengthen the skill of teachers by giving them incentives to major in their course curriculum and then get education certifications in the same college degree but as a secondary part of their degree rather than the primary focus of their degree, because if we have math majors teaching math instead of education majors teaching math, we know the student is going to have a better opportunity to excel. We want to give the people who have already chosen teaching the opportunity to get a higher degree in their course curriculum, go back and get a master's degree and help them with grants to do that, because if they will commit to continuing to teach, then we will have better qualified teachers. Innovation is the third focus of our bill. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, America has been the innovator in the world. Economic studies have shown that as much as 85 percent of the measured growth in per capita income has been due to technological change. But these technologies did not appear out of thin air; they were designed and developed by scientists and engineers at innovative companies such as EDS, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, and through Government investment in NASA and the National Science Foundation. With that in mind, our bill ensures that both NASA and the National Science Foundation are able to expand their strong traditional roles in fostering technological and scientific excellence. We have increased NASA funding to support basic research and foster new innovation, but the NASA budget is being starved with infrastructure requirements. They are not able to do the science that would make the investment in the infrastructure pay off. We have to bring NASA back to its original scientific purpose. We have the Innovative Partnerships Program. We have the NASA Education Program. We are beginning to focus on exactly what we need to do. This is a bipartisan effort sorely needed in Congress today, something on which we can all agree. America is falling behind. We are falling behind in education. We are falling behind in innovation. We are importing technological jobs that we ought to be creating ourselves with our own American students, but we don't have enough qualified students graduating from our colleges to fill these technical jobs. We need to upgrade our education system. That is exactly what this bill today is trying to do. We are attempting--both sides of the aisle--to make America better, to reclaim our prowess in education, K-12 as well as higher education, and to make sure we continue to be the innovators of the future as we have been in the past. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let's work on amendments. Let's get them through, but let's come to a conclusion. I know the President would like to sign a bill that moves our country forward in something as important as education. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maryland for her support and partnership in reauthorizing this very important piece of legislation, and I appreciate the assistance we received from Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi, as well as the administration and our House colleagues. Early detection of breast and cervical cancers saves lives and is essential to our fight against these devastating diseases. The national early detection program has given millions of disadvantaged women access to vitally important cancer screenings, and I am proud of our commitment to continuing the Federal investment in these services. I hope that the new waiver demonstration project will provide the small number of States seeking to fully leverage private contributions the ability to capitalize on those fund expand access and services to even more women. I also look forward to the information CDC gathers in its report to help guide us in ensuring we provide the most screenings for our Federal investment. I thank my colleagues for working with us to expand this important program in our fight to reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me ask for 2 minutes. I thought the last time the Chair announced the time it was 6\1/2\ minutes after Senator Warner.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes, after which the leader will then be allowed his 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me say that the distinguished deputy leader on the other side said that if the Cochran amendment passes, it will be the same strategy, nothing new, nothing changed. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the President heard what the people said in the elections of last year. The President has changed the policy. We have confirmed a general to go over there and direct a new strategy, which, by all accounts, is beginning to have some hope of success. If we do what is in this bill, by not passing the Cochran amendment, it says that the President must commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of this act. That puts a bulls-eye on our troops on the ground. It says we are not committed to do what we said we would do, to stand with Iraq to have a stable democracy in their country. It says that we are just going to leave. We are not stating any benchmarks; we are not stating any success strategies; we are saying 120 days and we are gone. What do you think that does to our troops on the ground? What does it say to our allies? Most importantly, what does it say to the enemy? It says the greatest country in the world is going to be there as long as it is not very hard. But when it gets too tough for America, we will leave and we will walk out. That should not be the message of the greatest country on Earth, and I hope we will pass the Cochran amendment and do what is right for our country for the long term. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today the Senate will unanimously pass S. 474, a bill I introduced to award a Congressional Gold Medal--the highest civilian award which may be bestowed by the United States Congress--to my dear friend, Dr. Michael DeBakey. I thank my colleagues for joining me in recognizing and honoring Dr. Deakey for his lifetime of medical achievement and public service. I would especially like to thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu. She joined me in circulating a letter to our Senate colleagues on this bill, and she was very helpful in gathering key co-sponsors needed to pass this legislation today. Dr. DeBakey is currently in Texas recovering from the very type of heart operation he pioneered. At the age of 98, he is the oldest survivor of the operation he developed to repair a damaged aorta, the main artery from the heart. I certainly wish him well as he continues to recover from this major operation. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank him once again for his lifetime of commitment and service not only to the medical community but to the world and strongly encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Dear Colleague letter for S. 474 be printed in the Record, and I request that Senator Landrieu be added as an original cosponsor of this bill because without her help, this bill would not have passed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have the modification to my amendment, and I would send it to the desk and ask that it be the replacement for my amendment. Madam President, we can have a vote on my amendment or we can have a voice vote, at the pleasure of the chairman.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I would say to the distinguished chairman that I appreciate his willingness to work with us. It is a very important amendment to eight States in this country. Senator Cantwell was very much a part of the whole negotiation, and I commend her and her staff for helping us to do this, and I appreciate the fact that it has passed and is now a part of the budget. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Senator Cornyn, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Corker, Senator Alexander, and Senator Ensign.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Cornyn, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Enzi. This is an amendment that also has sponsors of bills to legislatively produce the same result: Senators Alexander, Ensign, Cornyn, Enzi, Corker, Martinez, Stevens, Thune, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Murray, and Reid. This is an amendment that would extend the sales tax deduction in Federal income taxes for the period of this budget. This would perpetuate the law that is today but which expires at the end of this year. It is fully offset with the 920 budget function allowances. It would cost $13 billion over the 5- year period, and this account will absorb that loss. My amendment provides for the extension of the sales tax deduction for States that do not have an income tax. It is an issue of fairness. We have fought for this since 1986, until 2004, when we corrected the inequity. I hope we will be able to correct this inequity on a permanent basis. State and local governments have various options for raising revenues. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and some do both. Citizens of States that levy income taxes have long been able to offset some of what they pay by deducting their State income tax on their Federal tax returns. In essence, we are not making people pay taxes on their taxes, which is fair. Before 1986, all taxpayers had that capability, whether they were taxed with sales taxes or income taxes. From 1986 until 2004, the residents of States that didn't have a State income tax but had a sales tax were not allowed to deduct their State's revenue mechanism, thereby penalizing them because of their State's choice to collect revenues through sales taxes. Eight States--Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas--have been penalized in those years for exercising their independence in choosing their method of collecting taxes. It was unfair. Congress rectified this unequal treatment when we passed the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004, providing taxpayers with the option of using the sales tax for their deduction or the income tax. If someone lives in an income tax State, they can also choose the sales tax instead of their income tax deduction, so it is a benefit for every taxpayer in America to have this option. But it especially affects these eight States that have no option, without the ability to deduct their sales taxes. Why should they have to pay taxes on their taxes, when people who pay income taxes do not? Of course, they should not. A family of four in Texas that itemizes will save $310 a year in Federal income taxes, on average. This deduction, which we extended through this year, 2007, will expire if we don't provide for this extension in the budget. Sales tax deductibility is not only an issue of fundamental tax fairness but is also an economic stimulus. It can create jobs in the States, where lowering taxes does make a difference in the investments businesses make, which does create new jobs. Fifty-five million Americans live in States which do not have income taxes but which have hefty sales taxes. Last Congress, three-fourths of this body voted overwhelmingly to make the sales tax deduction permanent. My amendment is fully paid for through reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can have equity for all of our citizens and options for all of our citizens to choose which of the State and local taxes they would prefer to deduct. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is $13 billion over 5 years.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The discretionary side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the distinguished chairman of the committee has said. Let me say three things: First, I would be happy to work with the chairman to find another offset that would be acceptable, because I certainly want it to be offset, and I think the basic fairness of treating every taxpayer in America fairly is one we should absolutely adhere to. I cannot imagine that we would go forward next year and put eight States at such a disadvantage. So I want to work with the chairman. The second point is it doesn't have to be discretionary. The reason I said discretionary--and it is not in the amendment that it would be discretionary, and perhaps we can work in another area of spending that would be acceptable. The reason I chose discretionary is my third point, which is the OMB rating analysis--the PART assessment--working with that PART assessment, Senator Allard said there was $88 billion in program spending that was rated as ``ineffective'' over the next 5-year period. So I thought the $88 billion provided plenty of leeway for programs that were not fully operational to use what they have in the budget. I don't think anyone would take from the veterans account, of course, because we have increased the veterans amount to make sure that veterans' health care is fully covered. I am the ranking member of the Veterans Appropriations Committee and I added $1.5 billion in emergency funding last year to assure that the veterans accounts would be fully funded. In the rating analysis of OMB, there are other funds that cannot fully utilize their line items and, therefore, I think there would be leeway in this discretionary account. I would be pleased to work with the chairman. I hope we can provide for this in the budget, because I think we have to treat every American taxpayer fairly. I yield the floor.