Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would appear the Senator is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely incredible. As a matter of fact, 30,000 troops are going to be moving into Fort Bliss. There have been many accommodations begun. But now it is going to stop in its tracks and we are going to have the same situation. We could be having either substandard barracks or worse, it could be tents or mobile homes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. Absolutely. We are talking about all the facilities that would accommodate the move of soldiers and their families. So you have childcare facilities--the Senator from Georgia is on the floor and he has essential not only childcare facilities and housing and barracks but training facilities. The reason we are bringing the troops home from Germany is for better training facilities, and at Fort Benning, part of this BRAC funding is for the training facilities that are the upgrades the Department of Defense is trying to give to our men and women for their readiness for their missions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for pointing out some of the real problems delaying this BRAC funding are going to bring. I hope the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will find a way we can move the BRAC military construction forward. It is essential that we do this, and we can do it. We have a week in which we can work out any details that need to be worked out. I think it is very important that we do what is right for our country. We have time to do it. There is no reason not to do it, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way. What has been suggested by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is that we will handle this in a supplemental, that we will put $3 billion into the supplemental. But, of course, that means we will be spending $3 billion outside of the budget and added to the deficit, which is not necessary. We can fix this with a very small cut across the board of all of the projects in the bill, except for Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans. I think anyone can put together a program that has less than a 1-percent cut, and I think most people would say our priorities should be the active-duty military, that we should have the ability to put the housing and the childcare centers and the training facilities in place that would accommodate the needs of the military. My goodness, look what our military people are doing for us and for our country. The idea that we wouldn't give them what they need to do the job, and when they come home, to have a place to stay and live and do their training so they can be the very best, would be unthinkable. It would be unthinkable. So I do hope we can go forward. I don't remember ever taking up an Omnibus appropriations bill with no amendments in order. I hope it will be possible that we will be able to take it up in the normal process--or maybe not even the normal process. We would settle for not normal, but for some number of amendments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what we are asking with the amendment I have tried to put forward but which was ruled out of order is to simply restore the $3.1 billion that was cut from the Base Closing Commission military construction. We cut--not we, but the bill that is on the floor that we are not able to amend--$3.1 billion out of the Base Closing Commission military construction funding. Our amendment, the Hutchison-Inhofe amendment, has 27 cosponsors. That is almost one- third of the Senate, and there are many who said they would like to sponsor the amendment but in deference to their leadership did not feel they could, because so many States have major projects in this BRAC military construction funding. These are not projects that any Member of Congress put in this bill or in the bill that passed the House and Senate. These are the Department of Defense projects, for them to be able to meet the congressionally mandated deadline of 2011 for finishing the BRAC process. So they are projects that were selected in order of priority by the Department of Defense. There is not one earmark, not one congressional add in the military construction budget that we are trying to restore. We are trying to restore the budget we have already passed so the Department of Defense can meet the deadline we have set. I think this amendment should be in order. It is my great hope that the distinguished leader and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will allow it to go forward with no further delay, because there is going to be a delay if we wait until the supplemental. Not only will the $3 billion be outside of the scope of the budget and add $3 billion more to the deficit, but it will, in fact, delay the building projects for yet another 2 months, which will be a whole half year that the Department of Defense will be strapped for the funds to do what it needs to do to have its synchronized movement of troops be able to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish. I hope we will have a reconsideration. I hope the House will work with us. We have a whole week to do it. We have done things in 24 hours that were harder than this, and I believe that delaying the return of 12,000 troops to facilities they deserve to have is not a good bargain. So I am very hopeful we will eventually have true bipartisanship in the Senate, true bipartisanship in the Appropriations Committee, which has been the tradition in the Senate for all these years. I ask that the majority in leadership help work with us to accommodate the needs of the military. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that during the period of morning business, Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the following Senators be recognized in this order: Senators Hutchison, Inhofe, Chambliss, Kennedy, and Leahy; and following that, Senator Shelby be recognized for up to 45 minutes; and that after this sequence, the sides alternate where appropriate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my remarks will not last 10 minutes, and I hope the Senator from Georgia will be able to have his time in turn, because he has been waiting for quite a long time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, you have just heard an extraordinary speech, and I want to put it in perspective, if I may. There was a Foreign Relations Committee meeting several weeks ago at which one of the Senators insinuated that the Secretary of State didn't understand this war because she didn't have enough of a personal interest. Well, we thought that was an unfair question because this is a woman who is spending 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, trying to do the right thing for our country, and that was considered a personal thing that was out of line. We have just now heard a U.S. Senator make a speech that was a wonderful, principled speech on the merits of what he is going to support in this war effort, the resolution that will come before us, and he never mentioned that he had a personal interest. So I want to mention it. I want to mention Sam Bond. Sam Bond is a Princeton graduate. He is the light of Senator Kit Bond's life. He is his only child, his only son. Sam Bond has been a star from the day he was born, and we have all heard about it. Sam Bond graduated from Princeton University, and he didn't get a job on Wall Street to then sign up to go to business school. No, Sam Bond signed up for the Marine Corps. Sam Bond has spent 1 year in Iraq already, in Fallujah, and he is going back in 1 month. Sam Bond is going back to Iraq in 1 month, and we just heard the Senator from Missouri not even mention his only son because he is talking about what is right for our country. He believes that Sam Bond's future depends on our doing the right thing in Iraq. So I applaud Senator Bond, and I applaud Sam Bond. I want to talk about the resolution that we are going to vote on at some point. First, I think Senator Bond is correct; that we ought to have the right to vote on at least two resolutions, not just one that is unamendable. This is, as we have been reminded time and time and time again, the most important issue raging in our country and maybe the world today. So I think having two resolutions, or one amendable resolution, is a legitimate request because there are legitimate differences of opinion. There are legitimate debatable issues that I think the Senate is capable of putting forth for our country, representing the division in our country on this important issue. Some people say we should never have gone into Iraq. In hindsight, it is an easy thing to say. Let's remember what we were looking at as Senators, and let's look at what the President was looking at as the Commander in Chief of this Nation, whose responsibility it is to protect the people of this country. The buck stopped on the President's desk. I don't agree with everything the President has done. Not one person on the Senate floor agrees with everything the President has done. But I will tell you this: no one--no one--can ever say this President isn't committed to one thing, paramount in all of his responsibilities, and that is to protect the people of the United States. He is doing what he thinks is best to protect our children and freedom for our way of life. When he went into Iraq, many people questioned whether it was the appropriate thing to do. I did myself. But the President had just been through 9/11, where we saw airplanes used as weapons of mass destruction that killed thousands of Americans and people working in New York City. So he said, to look at it from his view: I can't afford to take a chance that a weapon of mass destruction would hit America again, only this time it would be a chemical or a biological weapon. I believe that is what the President was thinking. He knew that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had used them on his own people and had kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998. He had kicked the weapons inspectors out. Why would he have done that, was the thinking, if he didn't have something to hide? Then there were the intelligence reports. There were the intelligence reports that we saw and there were the intelligence reports that the President received which were at a much higher level than even we were able to get. All of that pointed to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them. So it is a legitimate debate to ask why are we there, but it is not the debate we ought to be having today. The debate we ought to be having today is what should we do to have success in Iraq because success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a part of the war on terror. After 9/11, we didn't treat what happened as a criminal act. In 1993, after the first World Trade Center bombing, that is what America did. We treated it as a criminal act. America didn't know this was the beginning of a war on terror. Then there was Khobar Towers, attacked in Saudi Arabia, and 19 American soldiers killed. We treated it as a criminal act. There was the bombing of our embassies, and then there was the USS Cole. We treated those as criminal acts. But America woke up on 9/11/2001 and realized, finally, 10 years after the war had started, that America and our way of life was under attack. This was not a crime, it was the continuation of a war. So we are there now. We are not succeeding. Success would be a stabilized Iraq, an Iraq where people can go to the market in security and buy food or necessities and visit and have coffee on the street. That is what success in Iraq will be. Success in Iraq will be when they have self-governance. Success in Iraq will be when there are not security forces that kill people of a different sect. Success in Iraq will be when they are a stable neighbor in the Middle East and terrorists will not be able to get a foothold. We are not succeeding yet. How can we do better? We should be debating how we can do better to succeed. If victory is not the end result, we will have failed our children and grandchildren. So I ask, what could possibly be the purpose of passing a resolution in what has been considered the world's most deliberative body that would send General Petraeus to take charge of Baghdad and a new strategy and say, General Petraeus, we have faith in you but not the mission? That is not the right resolution to pass in this Senate. I hope we can debate that resolution, and I hope we can debate against those who would send a signal to our troops that we don't have faith in the possibility of success in their mission. I want to debate a resolution that would say we are not going to send any more troops, and even if we need troop protection we are not going to send those troops because Congress is going to take the place of the Commander in Chief and the generals on the ground. I want to debate a resolution that would cut off funding for our troops in the field. I would like to debate what would happen to our troops who are there now if a signal were sent that we were not going to give them the support they needed to do the job they have right now. I very much hope that we will be able to take up the Levin-Warner resolution, and I hope we will be able to take up an alternative which will not have amendments because those are not in order. But we must have the ability to exercise a voice that would go in a different direction, that would set benchmarks for what the Iraqi Government must do if they want America to stay and help them become strong and stable and free. I want to be able to debate also the McCain-Lieberman resolution because I think there will be a clear choice. And I hope that we have the opportunity to bring that out to the American people because there are consequences of setting a timetable and trying to have some kind of graceful exit strategy that basically says this is too tough for America, we just can't take it and, therefore, we are going to walk away. How about keeping our commitments, so that our allies and our enemies will know, when they are partners with America or enemies of America, we will stick through thick and thin, arm in arm with our allies and be formidable against our enemies? How about having a strategy that says we have not succeeded in the way this has gone, so here is a different approach? We expect the Iraqis to stand up now. We are going to help you, but you must lead. You must meet certain benchmarks if you are going to keep us helping you help yourselves. We want the Iraqi people to succeed because we don't want terrorists to takeover Iraq, get the oil revenue and come and deliver their weapons of mass destruction to America. That is what we are talking about. That is what is at stake in this war. How we execute our responsibilities as Senators who have the leadership mantle is going to determine how successful our troops can be. I hope we can have that debate. I hope we can have the debate on the Levin-Warner resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the Gregg resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the McCain-Lieberman-Lindsey Graham resolution because I think it would be the right thing for the American people. But don't try to put one resolution on the floor with no amendments and call that an opportunity to have a voice. No one could keep a straight face and say that is a fair process. There are 100 Members of the Senate. I do not question one Member's patriotism. I do not question the motives of one Member. Everyone has a view that we believe is the right way for our country. We ought to be able to support resolutions that put forward those views. This is too important to have a struggle over process keep us from having the ability to come together and try to reason and pass one good resolution or two that would allow us to have a voice in this debate. The world is going to listen to what we say. I hope we don't send the wrong signal to our allies or to our enemies that America cannot stand it when it gets tough. America is the beacon of freedom to the world. If we do not stand and fight for freedom, who will? America must never step back from that mantle and that responsibility. Freedom will die everywhere if we don't fight and keep it for America and our allies. Let's have that debate. Let's have that debate on whatever differing resolutions come forward. I am not afraid to debate the Levin-Warner resolution, and I am certainly proud to support the Gregg and the McCain-Lieberman resolutions. I wish to talk more about it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the lifetime achievements of my dear friend Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant and world-renowned cardiologist, by re-introducing legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. Throughout his life, Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the field of medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His service to our country did not stop there. Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical Consultants Division. As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 1945. After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council. In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine. Adding to his list of accomplishments, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful procedure to treat patients with aneurysms. In 1964, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance research and training. Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients. These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan. Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for some patients to receive heart transplants. I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service, not only to the medical community, but to the world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the lifetime achievements of my dear friend Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant and world-renowned cardiologist, by re-introducing legislation to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. Throughout his life, Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the field of medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His service to our country did not stop there. Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical Consultants Division. As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 1945. After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research Council. In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine. Adding to his list of accomplishments, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful procedure to treat patients with aneurysms. In 1964, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance research and training. Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients. These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan. Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for some patients to receive heart transplants. I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service, not only to the medical community, but to the world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to ask the Senator from South Carolina, what is the difference in his amendment from the underlying bill, and how does it improve the transparency we are all seeking?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator say that the earmarks that are covered in his amendment would include an earmark to a Federal agency as well as an earmark for a private university or some other private entity? Is that what he is saying, that he wanted to cover all the earmarks whether they are a specific earmark for a particular city and an agency such as the Corps of Engineers, a specific water project in a city? You just want that earmark to be known, who the sponsor is, just as if it were an earmark for funding for health research at a university; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for the explanation. I think it is an excellent amendment. I thank him for bringing it to the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Conrad, I be recognized to speak in support of the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment, but I do think that some of the points that have been made are valid. I am supporting this amendment because I believe it is important that we do everything possible to put restraints on spending and go back to the balanced budget we had before terrorists struck our country in 2001. I think that is so important that passing an amendment to try for 4 years--and it does have a 4-year sunset provision--to see if we can give the President the authority to do some big overall cuts is a good idea, but I did do it with some reservation. I supported the line-item veto that was passed by the Congress in 1996. I supported it because I thought it would provide fiscal restraint. I think it was misused, and I was very pleased when the Supreme Court overturned it. I said I would never vote for it again because I believe the Constitution is very clear that Congress has the purse strings. That is how James Madison phrased it in the Federalist Papers: the power of the purse is in Congress. That is where the budget is passed to go to the President, and I believe we should uphold our part of the Constitution. Earmark reform is important, and the most important part that I hope we will pass is transparency. It is important that people be willing to stand up and say: Yes, I did this earmark. Let me just tell my colleagues how I operate on the Appropriations Committee with regard to my State. Obviously, as chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee and now as its ranking member, I pass appropriations that come from the President and from the Pentagon for military installations. But I also take care of my State--that is what I was elected by my constituents to do--and I balance the needs of the cities in my State. So if the biggest need in Houston, TX, is the dredging of the port because it is such an economic engine for Houston, that is what my major priority for Houston is going to be. On the other hand, for Dallas, it is going to be the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority or the Trinity River flood control project, and that is my major priority for Dallas. And it goes on that way. I balance so that the major needs of my cities are met and their highest priorities are met. But it doesn't mean they get everything they ask for. The lower priorities will not be met. If we turn this over to the executive branch, how is the employee sitting at the Department of Transportation going to know that the major need of Dallas is DART and the major need of Houston is over in the Interior Department or the Energy Department or the Corps of Engineers? How are those two people in Federal agencies who have never been to Dallas or Houston going to know that the first priority is something besides what they are giving them? That is my job. That is what I do. I am proud of it, and I want it to be transparent, and that is the reform which we should enact. So I don't want to just continue to hear that earmark reform is pork barrel spending reform. Spending is spending. If it is done in the executive branch or if it is done by Congress, it is spending, and hopefully we have a system that funds the top priorities. I believe there are projects that are not in the national interest that go into appropriations bills. That is why I think some reining in of the process through this amendment can be a good thing, and it is why I have supported it and am supporting it. It does have the capability to give the President the authority to go in and look at projects he believes don't meet the national need, and he is elected by the people of our country. I believe letting him have four different times to come to Congress and rescind may be too many. I hope that number could be brought to two. I would think the OMB and the President would be able to see, during two different budget or appropriations analyses, that a project wouldn't meet the President's standards, and then it could come back to Congress and Congress can say we disagree with the President or we agree with the President. It is the coming back to Congress that is the change from the original line-item veto that was passed in 1996 and which should allow the Supreme Court to affirm this rescission process. I think it is worth a try. But I also would say for the record that we are going to have President Bush for 2 years and we are going to have a new President for 2 years, the duration of this amendment if it passes and goes into law. I think that will be a good test. Congress will then have the right to come back and say it has worked well, it has cut spending, it has prioritized better. Frankly, maybe some people won't put earmarks in bills if they are not proud that the earmarks serve a national interest, and maybe that in itself will bring down the number of earmarks and the spending. But the bottom line is that we are on a trajectory to have a balanced budget because we are setting budget limits on what we appropriate. We always do that, and then we reconcile. And we have been able to keep the economy strong and bring down the unemployment rate by keeping the tax cuts we gave the American people in 2001 and 2003. Unemployment is at an all-time low. So I think we are exercising fiscal restraint, particularly in light of the fact that we have had some major hits on our country that have required us to spend money--hits such as 9/11, the war on terror, which is the most important security issue facing our country, and Hurricane Katrina and the rebuilding of New Orleans and Mississippi. We need to do those things and do them well. We know that. Despite all of those added expenditures, we have half the deficit that was built up after our country was hit by terrorists, and we are on the way to bringing it lower, and that is our goal. It must be our goal. I think this amendment can help us in furthering that goal. So I am going to support it. It has changed since the first time the Senator from New Hampshire introduced it. I didn't support it in the beginning. He has made changes that make it more palatable to a Member of Congress who is trying to uphold the right of Congress under the Constitution, which I believe is my responsibility to do. I must uphold the rights of Congress in order to keep the three branches equal, as much as we can do that. That is the beauty of our constitutional framework, that balance of power. I also have a responsibility to my constituents who elected me to make sure that my State is treated fairly. I am proud of what we have been able to do, and I want it in the open. I believe reform is necessary, and I am going to support the amendment. But if this amendment does go into effect, I would urge this President and the next President who will have this vast authority to use it wisely and judiciously because that is the only way it will have the effect we are all intending it to have. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 38th President of the United States. Gerald Ford was an honest man, a modest man, and a patriotic man who cared deeply about this country. During World War II, he answered his Nation's call to duty, serving in the Navy aboard the USS Monterey in the Pacific Theatre. He later trained new naval officers for sea duty. Shortly after his discharge as a lieutenant commander in 1946, he began his storied political career. During his 25 years of service in the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford earned the respect and admiration of nearly everyone in Washington. Gerald Ford's impeccable integrity made him the ideal choice to lead America at a time of considerable division. When he was nominated by President Nixon to become Vice President, he was confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate and the House. The Senate vote was 92-3, and the House vote was 387-35. Before President Nixon submitted his nomination for Vice President, he asked the leadership of both parties who they would choose were they in his shoes. The obvious response was Gerald Ford. When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency following President Nixon's resignation, he moved quickly to bring our country together. He did this by always remaining true to his character. He also adhered to the common-sense principles that guided him throughout his career and his life. He never lost touch with his Midwestern values. And he never wavered from doing what he thought was in the best interests of the people of our country. President Ford also attracted very talented employees. Among those who served in the Ford Administration were Alan Greenspan, Council of Economic Advisers; George H.W. Bush, CIA Director; James Baker, Undersecretary of Commerce; Dick Cheney, Chief of Staff; and Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of Staff and later Secretary of Defense. I had the pleasure of working with President Ford when he appointed me vice chair of the National Transportation Safety Board in 1976. President Ford was a reliable friend and invaluable counselor. I will never forget his coming to Texas to campaign with me during my first race for the Senate. President Ford was always available to offer advice and remained in close touch with those of us who were his many appointees, staff, and colleagues over the years. This is the kind of person he was. It was an honor and a privilege to consider him a friend. He cared deeply for his family, for his loving wife Betty, and for his four children: Michael, John, Steven, Susan. He cared for everyone he came to know during his magnificent political career. My thoughts and prayers go out to Betty and the entire Ford family as we honor a public servant who gave tirelessly to our country. He will be missed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of Government should not also be taxed by another level of Government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy had a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, the sales tax deduction saves a family of four $310 a year, or a total of about $1 billion each year for the State's residents who itemize deductions. The ability of taxpayers to deduct their sales taxes will lead to the creation of more than 16,500 new jobs and the addition of $920 million in State economic activity. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for two years. Last year, we extended the sales tax deduction for an additional two years. As a result of our efforts, the 55 million of us in the eight States with a sales tax but no income tax are no longer discriminated against in the tax code. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2007, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. Last year, the Senate voted 75-25 to instruct conferees to make this deduction permanent. I hope my fellow Senators will once again support this effort and pass this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision that has been in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 44 million married couples, including 2.4 million Texas families, paid an average penalty of $1,480. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and 43 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation. State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes. The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of Government should not also be taxed by another level of Government. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently. It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes. This discrepancy had a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, the sales tax deduction saves a family of four $310 a year, or a total of about $1 billion each year for the State's residents who itemize deductions. The ability of taxpayers to deduct their sales taxes will lead to the creation of more than 16,500 new jobs and the addition of $920 million in State economic activity. Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for two years. Last year, we extended the sales tax deduction for an additional two years. As a result of our efforts, the 55 million of us in the eight States with a sales tax but no income tax are no longer discriminated against in the tax code. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2007, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning. The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction. This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. Last year, the Senate voted 75-25 to instruct conferees to make this deduction permanent. I hope my fellow Senators will once again support this effort and pass this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision that has been in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 44 million married couples, including 2.4 million Texas families, paid an average penalty of $1,480. Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and 43 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform. The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the tax extender package that will be coming over from the House. It is a very important measure, one of the last items of business that probably will be passed in this session. It is such an important bill. I have to say it doesn't have everything we had hoped it would have. But the important parts that are included are very important. The sales tax deduction--the deductibility of State sales taxes--is a huge item of equity for taxpayers in our country. As the Presiding Officer knows, there are eight States that do not have income taxes. Yet between the years of 1986 and 2004, there was an inequity. If a State chose to have State income taxes to raise its revenue, their citizens could deduct from their Federal income taxes those State income taxes. But if a State didn't have an income tax and instead raised its State revenue with State sales taxes, you could not deduct the sales taxes on your income tax. It was a huge inequity. It is essential that in our country we have the same treatment for the people of every State regarding how they pay their State taxes. So this bill, the tax extender package, which will be voted on either tonight or tomorrow, is that equalizer. It does extend for 2 more years the sales tax deduction that would be allowed, just as State income taxes are deductible, from your Federal income tax return. We have had that opportunity for 2 years--2004 and 2005. This would have it available for 2006, this year, and next year, 2007. The taxpayers in Texas, Alaska, Florida, Washington State, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming would be set to have the penalty if this bill does not pass. This is something I have worked on for years. Since I came to the Senate, I have tried to equalize this inequity. Finally, in 2004, we were able to do that, and now we cannot let this equity go. There are many people who have worked to make this happen, especially the leaders of the Senate. Senator Frist and Senator Reid have been working on this, as I have, for all these years, trying to do what is right by our States, as well as the other States that are affected in this way. We won that right in 2004, and now we will be able to go forward and continue the equitable treatments of all taxpayers in our country. The other points in the bill that I think are so important are the deduction for college tuition and fees. This can give up to $4,000 to families who are sending children to college. That is something that makes a huge difference to the families in our country who are paying the ever-increasing college tuition rates. It has a $250 deduction for a teacher who buys classroom supplies out of their own pockets. I know teacher after teacher in this country who has seen a child who doesn't have a workbook or who wants to enhance the quality of instruction, so the teacher buys, from her own pocketbook, the supplies that will enhance the educational opportunity. Yet the teachers have done it out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they are highly paid-- because we know teachers are notoriously underpaid. It is because they care about the students and about the learning. So we have a deduction for those teachers who have done this, and that is in the bill before us in this Congress. We will extend the research and development tax credit. That has been the lifeblood of innovation in our country. We have extended this credit 11 times since it was enacted in 1981. We know that it has helped us remain competitive, with increased competition from foreign countries, and has added American jobs because of the creativity and technological innovation that has been provided. I wish that we had a few more tax cuts. We have an inequitable situation with timber taxes, where we have a competition with foreign countries that are subsidized. It is my priority to work on that going forward. It is not in this bill. I wish it were. I pledge my efforts, along with many other States, to extend or to have this tax credit reenacted. There is also a very important energy production bill that is in the tax extender package. It is a bill that passed the Senate with full support, and it will bring the cost of energy down. It is the opening of leases 181 and 181 South in the Gulf of Mexico. These are leases that will open up natural gas and oil, which will have a major impact on the cost of fuel in our country. It is good for America. We must look to our own natural resources to stop our dependence on foreign resources for energy. If we are going to remain secure in our country, and if we are going to remain in control of our economy, we will pass this legislation that opens up these very important leases in the Gulf of Mexico. While no bill is perfect, no bill does everything everybody wants, I am in strong support of the tax extender bill. I have heard people speak against the bill and say: How can we pass tax cuts when we have deficits? The fact of the matter is, we have higher revenue when we have tax cuts. We have had the highest revenue in the history of America since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We have brought the deficit down and have cut it in half already because of the tax cuts. The stock market is hitting new highs because of the tax cuts. I hope we will continue to extend tax cuts for hard-working Americans to make our country competitive, to keep the revenue coming in, to bring the deficit down, and to keep the healthy economy that has caused our unemployment to go down to the lowest rates we have had in the last four decades. It is a good bill. We will work next year to increase the tax cuts, to continue the tax cuts and keep our robust economy and our low unemployment. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding me this time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Senator Craig has done an outstanding job of making sure the laws that weren't working, where we were not doing what we should be doing to help our veterans, were changed. He has worked a long time on the bill now coming to its final passage--finally. He has been working on it for 2 years, that I am aware. He has done a terrific job. There is a lot of authorization that is essential to go forward next year on appropriations. I appreciate the work of the Senator. He is retiring as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and going to ranking member. I know his working relationship with the new chairman is such that we will continue to see progress in this area. military construction appropriations I will talk about the continuing resolution being passed by the House in a few hours that will be sent to the Senate. We will send that bill to the President to meet the midnight deadline so Government can continue to function. I am talking tonight about this bill with very mixed feelings because I am chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies, and I wanted to pass the full bill, the appropriations for military construction, and I wanted to make sure we covered our veterans' needs. It is an important subcommittee, of which I have served as chairman these last 2 years. I have worked with my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, to assure we had the funding we needed. Senator Feinstein and I were ready to go on our bill. It passed in September. It is a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate. I know everyone agreed we had covered the bases that need to be covered to do what is right for our military--active duty and the veterans--who have served our country in the past. Unfortunately, our full bill is not going to pass. It is not going to pass because, first, it was held up in the Senate for appointing conferees, held up by a few Senators who thwarted the majority. I was very disappointed we lost those weeks. Our Appropriations Committee chairman Thad Cochran tried, as I, to pry the bill out so we could go to conference and work with the House. Finally, this week, through the leadership of Senator Frist and Senator Stevens from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we were able to alleviate all of the concerns raised and get the bill to conference. Then, unfortunately, the members of the House committee had determined we did not have enough time to conference the bill. I think we did have enough time. We had the time to do all of the construction that should be started right now. However, that is not going to happen. I would not have allowed this bill to go forward, and I would be speaking against it right now if we did not have a provision in the House-passed continuing resolution that will give budget transfer authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs so that there will be no medical need, no service need, no payment to any veteran that will not be made before this continuing resolution runs out. If that provision had not been added in the bill, we would not be passing this bill tonight because I would be talking all night to keep it from passing. I called the Secretary of Veterans Affairs this afternoon, and I asked him if he could assure me that there would be enough money in the accounts from which they could transfer to assure that all of the medical needs, including surges in medical needs, would be able to be given. The Secretary assured me that is the case. The Secretary said they had enough surplus money, enough rainy day fund money, and enough money in the other accounts that they would not hurt the other accounts and they would be able to transfer. He did say that by the time we got to February 15, if we didn't have a full bill, they would be beginning to run into trouble. He gave me his word--and I know his word is good-- that if they see some shortfall that would start happening before February 15, and if there is no bill, he would call me immediately, and we would begin to work on a supplemental approach. I am certainly going to trust his word. Secretary Nicholson has been a man of his word throughout these years I have worked with him. He is a veteran himself, a distinguished veteran. He knows the veterans issues. He cares about veterans. He will call, as he did last year when he saw a looming shortfall and he asked for help and we gave him the help to assure the veterans' needs would be met. We are going to cover it, and we are going to do it in a way that will assure that the medical care is given. I have to say, I am disappointed we are going to adjourn without completing the full bill, without completing the military construction so it can start right away, without completing the appropriations and the priorities that we are putting in the next year for veterans. I know they will not suffer in any way because Secretary Nicholson assured me of that. I will be watching. I will be staying on top of the VA's financial situation throughout this period that the continuing resolution is going to run, to the middle of February. If a problem arises, I will not stop advocating for the supplemental appropriation that will be necessary to assure we have the funding we need. We will work together in this Congress to assure that the men and women who are protecting our freedom, as we speak today, get the quality of life they deserve. We will continue to work together to assure that the veterans who have served our country, who have answered the call of our country, are given everything to which they are entitled and which we owe them. I am going to be the ranking member of this subcommittee next year, having served as chairman for 2 years with a wonderful ranking member, Senator Feinstein. It has been pure joy. She has a wonderful staff. We have never had a disagreement that couldn't be worked out. We have made sure the priorities, which are the same for both of us, have been met. I will be a loyal ranking member, and I hope the new chairman will have the same relationship and the same overall goal for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs that Senator Feinstein and I have had. I believe he will. I am going to vote for the continuing resolution. However, I could not be more disappointed that we did not pass the full appropriations bill for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. I know the veterans will be taken care of, and I know the military construction will begin with the new starts a couple of months late. We will get those projects done with that small delay. I am going to make it my priority to assure that happens. Senator Stevens has come to the Senate. I want to say, in addition to Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have been the advocates for our military throughout the time I have been in the Senate. I am honored to be a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I know those two leaders work together, as Senator Feinstein and I do, and that is with one goal: to make sure the military, who are in harm's way, who are fighting so we may speak freely in this Chamber, who are fighting for our children and grandchildren to have the freedom we enjoy and that has been given to us by generations past, will have the opportunities they deserve, and that is the quality of life that we can give them. I thank the Senate for coming to the end with this continuing resolution. I will support it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just like to clarify, with the Senator from Alaska on this subject, that the Senate did act. The Senate did pass our bill, and we did appoint conferees, and it was a lack of willingness on the part of the House to have conferees meet with the Senate. His disappointment is the same as mine. I am going to start working on January 4, when we are sworn in to the new Congress. And I hope we can take the bill that has been passed unanimously by the Senate and work through the appropriations process and pass this bill before the continuing resolution is ended on February 15. We do not have to wait until February 15. And once the committee is constituted, and we have a chairman and a ranking member, I will be the ranking member, and I will work with the chairman. And I hope we can pass this bill because it is in very good order and it was unanimously supported by the Senate. And I think we are pretty close to what the House passed. I think, with a strong will, we will be able to come in before February 15 and start those projects about which the Senator from Alaska just spoke. So I will look forward to working with him in the new year, both for Defense appropriations and for this Military Construction bill and the Veterans Affairs bill and the military quality of life that is in the bill that we passed in the Senate earlier this year. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank Senator Enzi for giving me this time. I am pleased to rise to support Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach's nomination for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I am speaking about a person whom I know. I know him as a person. I know him as a human being. I can say, with full confidence, there is no one more qualified and more well suited to lead this very important agency. I was very pleased the committee overwhelmingly, unanimously, supported his nomination. Not only is Dr. Von Eschenbach a wonderful friend of mine, but he is so qualified for this position. His experience and integrity make him the right choice to lead the FDA. He is a nationally recognized urologic surgeon, medical educator, and cancer advocate. He is a three-time cancer survivor. There is no one who can understand what it is like to go through a fight against cancer than someone who has done it. So many doctors haven't had that experience, one might not get the impression that they really understand what a patient is going through. Not Dr. Andy von Eschenbach. He has been through the hard time of being told he has this dreaded disease and fighting it with all his might. He does relate to patients' struggles. During his 25 years at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Medical Center, he led a faculty of 1,000 cancer researchers and clinicians. He was the chief academic officer at this great cancer institution. He was also the founding director of M.D. Anderson's Prostate Cancer Research Program. In this position, he developed integrated programs to study, treat, and prevent prostate cancer. Before arriving at M.D. Anderson, he served his country as lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps from 1968 to 1971. In 1976, he joined M.D. Anderson as a urologic oncology fellow. He became part of the faculty and was named chairman of the Department of Urology in 1983. When he left M.D. Anderson in 2002, he became Director of the National Cancer Institute. At the time, he was president-elect of the American Cancer Society which, of course, is one of the leading organizations in our country that fights for victims of cancer. He has, also, been published in more than 200 publications. This year, Time Magazine named Andy von Eschenbach as one of the 100 people who shape our world. The FDA is fortunate to have Dr. von Eschenbach. It is one of the Nation's oldest and most respected consumer protection agencies. It regulates $1 trillion worth of products available to American consumers, and it makes sure the products are safe and effective. Dr. Von Eschenbach is the right person to lead the FDA's mission. I completely trust him. I cannot think of a more qualified candidate. I hope we will put politics aside in this very important nomination and we will confirm this very qualified individual. He is balanced. He has good judgment. He will continue to be a cancer advocate as well as a patient advocate. He knows, also, from the FDA standpoint, of the issues involved with the drug approval process--that products face extensive testing and studies compared to other countries. I have talked to him about this. Of course, their first and foremost responsibility is safety. That is why they have this arduous and comprehensive process of approving drugs. On the other hand, he also knows you need to make drugs available for patients who otherwise may not survive. He realizes these concerns from every angle. He knows it from the research angle, from the academic angle, from the Government angle, and from the patient advocate angle. It would be a tragedy if we did not give him the full authority and the full congressional confirmation he deserves. He deserves it because he left the private sector at a world renowned cancer research institution to serve his country and the responsibility it takes in a high public policy position. Sometimes I wonder how we attract such qualified academics and people who are not experienced in this arena. They are not used to the compromise of politics. They have been researchers and in academia all their lives. They come into public service and all of a sudden they are hit with the public exposure and scrutiny. Sometimes they are unfairly characterized in a way they never dreamed. Yet we have someone of the caliber of Andy von Eschenbach willing to take all of that to do something better for our country and for cancer patients in the country and in the world. We owe him the ability to have this position without any further delay, with the complete imprimatur of the Senate as well as the President of the United States. He deserves it. I hope our colleagues will look at this, not from a political prism but from the standpoint of a qualified individual who is trying to help medical research and safety in this country go forward, who is a patient advocate, first and foremost. I thank Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for working together to bring this nomination to the Senate. We should have a bipartisan vote in confirming Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach. I yield the floor.