Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to talk about Gray Miller. Senator Cornyn and I are dividing this time because we are both responsible for nominating this incredible person to serve on the Federal district bench from the southern district of Texas in his hometown of Houston. Senator Cornyn and I have a process. We have a committee made up of Republicans and Democrats, geographically diverse, lawyers respected in their fields, who interview all of the nominees for Federal benches. There were quite a few nominees, probably 15 to 20, for this particular bench. They rank them. Senator Cornyn and I then talked to the top 3 or 4 nominees. It has been a great system. We have gotten extremely qualified judges on the district benches in Texas doing it this way. I appreciate the input of Senator Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, because he has been attorney general of Texas. His input is very valuable and our system has produced a quality judge in Gray Miller. Gray Miller is a senior partner at Fulbright & Jaworski. Gray has headed the firm's admiralty department, starting in 1997. In fact, he is widely considered one of the leading maritime lawyers in the world and was included in Euro's Money Guide to the world's leading maritime lawyers. Included in his many professional honors are accolades as a Texas superlawyer by Texas Monthly Magazine and recognition as one of the best lawyers in America. Gray Miller is one of the most honorable, hard-working Americans I have ever known. From 1969 to 1978 Gray worked his way through undergraduate and law school as a Houston police officer. He and his wife raised their two children during this time. While he has obtained exceptional skills and qualifications as a lawyer and with the admiralty specialty, which is a big part of the practice in Houston, his experience of serving as a Houston police officer brings a unique perspective to the Federal bench. He was appointed by the Governor of Texas to serve on the board of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Retardation. He is a lifetime member of the 100 Club of Houston, an organization that assists the families of police officers and firefighters who are killed or injured in the line of duty. I am honored to recommend Gray Miller. He meets the high standards to which we hold all judicial nominees. He has an impressive record of service. He has great judicial temperament. He shoots straight. He has an experience that is so diverse, from being an on-the-ground police officer who is dealing with the criminal aspect in our society--we do not have enough people with that background on the Federal bench--to admiralty, which is an intellectual contract, and international law, part of the responsibility in the southern district of Texas. With this array of experience and the integrity he holds, we have an outstanding nominee. I urge all of my colleagues to support the nomination of Gray Miller. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate in the Senate. Senator Cornyn is going to respond in a little more detail. Honestly, it is very important we address the energy issue in a way that suggests what we can do. The people of America are not interested in Democratic charges against Republicans and Republican charges against Democrats. They want more resources so the price of gasoline at the pump will come down. In my hometown of Dallas, there are shortages now in addition to the high prices. We need to do some things that diversify our resources so we depend on our own resources for oil and natural gas. That means drilling for oil in our country and trying to make sure we have conservation and alternative sources of energy, which is exactly what Congress has been trying to do. We have been held up in doing it. I appreciate very much this opportunity. I am very pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Cornyn.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there have been times that we, as a nation, have become so accustomed to successful space shuttle launches that we barely heard about them on the evening news. One hundred and fourteen successful missions have provided a wealth of information and research results that are seen and felt in our everyday lives. Yet few of us could identify these as having resulted from Space Shuttle research. Today, the Space Shuttle is viewed by many as an over-aged relic of the past and the vehicle whose two failures in the past 24 years of its service cost the lives of 14 brave astronauts. As tragic and unforgettable as the Challenger and Columbia accidents were, we must honor the memory of their crews by honoring the task for which they gave their lives. I am proud that our Nation has chosen to learn everything possible from those tragic losses to minimize the risks that will always be present in human space flight and to move forward to keep the dream of spaceflight alive. It is appropriate today, as we consider House Concurrent Resolution 366, to reach back to the very beginning of space shuttle nights to the day, 25 years ago next week--April 12, 1981, at 7 a.m. eastern time. On that morning, the space shuttle Columbia lifted off on her maiden voyage, carrying two brave and intrepid explorers, Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen. They orbited the Earth 36 times in two days, six hours and twenty minutes, landing in California at Edwards Air Force Base on April 14, 1981, at 1:20 p.m. eastern time. This first mission of a reusable spacecraft marked the beginning of a new era in human spaceflight. This era also provided the Nation and the world with new and incredible views of our Earth as seen from orbit. It also provided a continuous stream of important microgravity research that has found its way into medical devices, treatment procedures, computer enhancements, communications technologies, and a host of other practical applications that generally go unnoticed. The Great Telescopes, such as Hubble, Chandra and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, were all made possible by the Space Shuttle. In the case of the Hubble, its inestimable value as a research tool was both rescued by the Space Shuttle and extended by servicing missions not possible without the Space Shuttle. In the next several years, as the Space Shuttle completes the mission for which it was designed--completing the assembly and outfitting of the International Space Station--we will move into a new era of human spaceflight. We will experience new firsts and enter new names into the history books of those who accomplish the important milestones along our way to the Moon, Mars and beyond. None of that would be possible, however, without the service of those who have gone before, and especially those two heroes we honor and recognize today. These two men took a vehicle never flown before on a journey of over a million miles. By any standard, that is an impressive first step.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to comment on what has happened over the last 2 weeks on a very important bill--maybe the most important bill for the future of our country that we will take up this year, and that is immigration reform. I was very disappointed that we were not able to have a vehicle on which we can have amendments in the normal course of action that we have on the floor of the Senate. I cannot think of a more complicated, comprehensive issue that we could amend and make a better bill that would have the support of the vast majority of the Senate. Yet we have spent 2 weeks and were only able to have three amendments. There are many differing views on what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants that are in our country. But I think there is a consensus that we need better control of our borders, that we need security measures to know who is in our country, and that we need a guest worker permit program that would allow people to come into our country legally to work and earn a living for their families, contribute to the economy of the United States, and perhaps become citizens, if they decide to, or not become citizens if they wish to remain citizens of their home country. However, the issue of what to do with the 12 million people was not able to be discussed, debated, or refined on the Senate floor. I think that is a mistake, and I think we have missed a very important opportunity. The negotiations got down to allowing 20 amendments--20 amendments--on one of the most complicated bills that we will take up this year. We take up appropriations bills that have 70 amendments. We take up authorization bills that have 40 amendments. The negotiation was down to allowing 20 amendments, and we were not able to get the consent of the minority to take up 20 amendments to try to refine a bill that would allow the Senate to speak with an overwhelming majority, or at least to have all the voices heard so that we could start beginning to craft a bill that would help with an issue in our country of security and economics. Mr. President, I am very disappointed. I think we have missed an opportunity. I hope very much that, as we go home for a 2-week break, we will think about how we can come together, come back here and not give up on having an immigration reform bill that secures our borders, that creates a guest worker program that will be productive for the participants and for the economy of our country, that will not displace American jobs but will welcome the immigrants who seek to come here, as we have done for over 200 years in our country on a regularized basis. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know he is going on to very important work. I hope that we can address this issue when we return, and I hope the minority will work with the majority not to block future amendments that would make this a better bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so appreciate that the majority leader has called this to the Nation's attention because we have been working on this bill for almost 2 weeks now. The majority of the body has not had its say. The Judiciary Committee worked very hard on this bill. However, it is a bill that I could not possibly invoke cloture on before we have had a chance to have input and the opportunity to change it in the direction that the full majority of this body--hopefully, a resounding majority of the body--would support. The House of Representatives passed a bill that probably not one Member of the Senate would support. That is not going to be the final position of Congress. The Senate is taking a different approach. The Senate, in general, agrees that there should be a guest worker program. It has been very difficult to come up with the right solution on how our country handles the 12 million people who are here illegally--a solution that is fair and equitable for the citizens of the United States and ensures law and order on our borders. It would be wrong for Congress to pass a bill which indicates border security is business as usual, or that the laws of our country can be broken with no penalty whatsoever. Most of us want to pass a guest worker program that allows people to come back and forth legally into our country, help our economy, earn their benefits and be able to keep them--not in the underground, but aboveboard. Most of us want that. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not provide the right solution. Yet, we are sincere in our desire to amend it. That is what our leader is trying to say. I think it is wrong for the Democratic minority to hold up amendments and not allow those who have worked for hours, days, weeks, and months on this bill, to offer alternatives, hear debate, and start shaping a bill that would put our country in the right direction, secure our borders, keep our friendship with Mexico-- our neighbor to the South, and treat people fairly. Passing a bill that achieves these objectives is a goal I think we can all reach, but not if we cannot have amendments and are forced to vote on cloture. I could not possibly vote for cloture, nor could all but one or two on our side. That is not bipartisan. It is not the process we have followed in this Senate. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let us proceed with amendments. Don't waste the next 24 hours. Let Senator Kyl have his chance to have his amendment voted on. Let others who have ideas have their amendments voted on. I think one area we have not significantly addressed, one I would like to be able to talk about, is an alternative for people who do not seek citizenship in America. There are many wonderful Mexican workers in our country who want to remain citizens of Mexico, who intend to stay with their families in Mexico, but who desire the economic opportunities in America. Why would we not provide them an opportunity to come out of the shadows, to work and earn their pay in the open, and then go home? Why should they wait in a 10-year line for U.S. citizenship, which they do not seek? Clearly, we have not fully vetted this issue. The Judiciary Committee worked hard to produce a bill, a bill which I do not support. Yet, they certainly worked hard, did their homework, and were very thorough. We need to have a chance to work on that bill with the rest of the Senate because most of us are not on the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is an issue that affects all of our States and our country as a whole. We need to address it in a sincere, productive way that will come to the right solution. The only way to do that is to allow the Senate to debate and vote on amendments. If we can come to a consensus, and have a 75-to-25 vote, or a 90-to-10 vote on a final bill, then we would have produced the right solution. We will not be able to do that if we invoke cloture before voting on amendments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask you notify me at 30 seconds, so I can turn the microphone over to Senator McConnell.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, since 9/11, Congress and the administration have done so much to secure our homeland, but the area that we still must work on is port security. We have vulnerabilities because we don't have enough coverage overseas with customs and border agents. They need to be able to inspect the containers that will come to America. Our officers working with the host governments need to certify the contents of these containers at the point of origin.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. This will reduce our reliance on the foreign governments' information that we may or may not be able to verify.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will not vote for the amendment. The Senate just voted overwhelmingly to put almost $1 billion into port security. That is the right thing to do, but the right way to pay for it is out of the 920 account. To make this a priority, let us do it right. The Menendez amendment would increase taxes to pay for port security. We do not need to do that. What we should do is the right thing--provide more inspectors and make sure our ports are secure, and do it the right way with real money that is already there.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Burns amendment and ask to be added as a cosponsor. It is very important that we add something to this budget to accommodate the extra needs we are seeing for veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is especially important that we not make the decision right now about the copays. I do not support what is in the President's budget regarding copays for the category 7 and category 8 veterans. I am looking for some alternatives that might bring in some income, that might give health insurance capabilities to these people who have no health insurance coverage. We are looking at some other threshold besides $27,000 annual income of a veteran who does not have service-related injuries. That is the definition of a category 7 and category 8 veteran. They are not veterans who have had service-related injuries, they are veterans who have had no service-related injuries who make about $27,000 a year or more. I think that is a pretty low floor. I would like to look at ways to increase it to a higher floor or make sure they have access to health insurance, which many of them do not. I haven't run the numbers on that, but I certainly think we should be working with the veterans groups to determine what would be reasonable and still allow us to prioritize the health care for our veterans which is what all of us want. Senator Burns is right, we need more research into prostheses. The good news is that they are coming back, they are not being killed in war, as we have seen in so many previous wars. But the bad news is they are losing limbs, and we need to help them have the very best prostheses they could possibly have and enhance their ability to use them. We will be working on those items. Senator Burns' amendment is the right approach because we do need to have that flexibility in this budget to try to come up with the right approach. It is too early to say what we are going to do with the President's proposal, that there be a $250 enrollment fee for these category 7 and category 8 veterans. I thank the Senator from Montana for putting this amendment forward, and I certainly hope we will adopt his amendment, which I think is a step in the right direction. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota. I think he is right on target. He is putting the burden where it should be, and that is directly on the United Nations to do what is right with regard to Iran. Our President has tried to put the Europeans out front to negotiate with the Iranians. I believe they have been less than forthcoming about what they were doing the last 2 years with nuclear capabilities. Now it is time for us to all step in as world leaders and say to Iran: You must stop making nuclear weapons. And further, if you do not, there will be repercussions. But it will take the entire world community, led by the United Nations, to make an impact on Iran. The United States cannot do this alone. We do not trade with Iran. We need the people who are trading with Iran to say there will be consequences if a nuclear weapon is produced in that country. So I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I hope very much the United States will step forward with the other leaders of the world to say we are of one mind. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment because today is Texas Independence Day.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to read the letter of William Barret Travis from the Alamo. This is a tradition I continue that was started by Senator John Tower to commemorate Texas Independence Day, and that is today, March 2. Today is the 170th anniversary of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence, a document that was signed by, among others, my great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, and also his friend, Thomas J. Rusk, who first held the Senate seat I now hold. They both hailed from Nacogdoches, which is the oldest town in Texas--the town in which my mother grew up and the town in which I now own the home my grandfather built. It is a very historic time for Texas. We celebrate Texas Independence Day every single year because we know that fighting for freedom has made a difference in what Texas is. We love our history. We fought for freedom. We were a republic for 10 years, and then we came into the United States as a State. The defense of the Alamo by 189 courageous men, who were outnumbered 10 to 1, was a key battle of the Texas Revolution. The sacrifice of COL William Barret Travis and his men made possible GEN Sam Houston's ultimate victory at San Jacinto, which secured independence for Texas. From the Alamo, Colonel Travis wrote to his countrymen the following: Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barret Travis, Lt. Col, Commander. Colonel Travis's are the words of a true patriot. And his letter did inspire Texans to ultimate victory. In fact, his holding of the Alamo for so long did allow Sam Houston to muster his troops for the last stand at San Jacinto. To show you one other example of how Texans love their history, the minister who opened our Senate today with prayer from Lovers Lane Methodist Church in Dallas, TX, showed me, at breakfast this morning, the ring he wears which is a replica of the ring of William Barret Travis that he wore at the Alamo. He put the ring around the neck of the daughter of one of those who was able to survive and leave the day before the onslaught that killed all of those men at the Alamo. So Susanna Dickinson's daughter had that ring around her neck--she was about 8 years old at the time--and that is why we know what the ring signified. Another example of how history continues to inspire us: I, just 2 weeks ago, commissioned the newest amphibious ship of the U.S. Navy. It is an amphibious assault ship, the first of its class, the USS San Antonio. The USS San Antonio has in its motto the words from William Barret Travis's letter ``Never surrender, never retreat.'' That is a great ship which is going to carry marines into battle. It will carry our marines with the very best of technology, the very best safety measures we can possibly give them. And the quote ``Never surrender, never retreat'' will carry them into battle to help protect the freedom of Americans for years to come. I am proud to be the sponsor of the ship the USS San Antonio. It represents the spirit of our armed services today, just as 170 years ago when we fought for our independence from Mexico and later became a great State of the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the motion. I certainly hope our colleagues will vote to instruct conferees on a basic issue of fairness. Today, there are eight States that have sales taxes but not a State income tax. Until 2 years ago, they were disadvantaged by not being able to deduct their sales taxes from their Federal income taxes, whereas an income-tax State would allow their payers to do that. It is very important in this country that we have tax equity. In fact, the motion to instruct would give equity to all. It creates jobs because there is more economic activity when we treat all people in our States the same and allow them to deduct the State taxes they pay. It is a matter of fairness. The States of Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, Florida, and Tennessee all have this situation in which their taxpayers will be disadvantaged if we do not instruct the conferees. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, when the hour of 8 o'clock arrives, I ask to be notified. I wish to speak on the motion made on my behalf by Senator Grassley earlier to instruct conferees to make the sales tax deduction permanent. This is very important to the States that have a sales tax but no income tax. There are seven States that have no income tax. Yet the citizens of all the other States of our country are able to deduct the income taxes they pay at the State level from their Federal income taxes. Two years ago, we enacted the law that would bring sales-tax States into equity so that every State would be treated the same. We are now faced with another 2-year extension, or we will have this inequity continue because the sales tax deduction that was enacted by Congress lapsed at the end of last year. We have to make this deduction permanent. I ask that our conferees be instructed to make it permanent so that every person in America can deduct their State taxes, whatever kind of tax that may be, from their Federal income taxes. This is a matter of equity. It is only fair that sales-tax States be treated the same as income-tax States. I urge my colleagues to vote to make sales tax deductions permanent. Give people a choice. That is the right thing to do. I yield the floor. Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to support Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito's 15 years of experience on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and his 15 years serving the Justice Department, including his position as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, make him well prepared to be an Associate Justice on our Highest Court. One of the best insights into Judge Alito's judicial ability is gained from listening to his colleagues on the Third Circuit. Colleagues from both sides of the political aisle praise him for his judicial excellence. Judge Aldisert, a nominee of President Lyndon Johnson, stated before the committee: We who have heard his probing questions during oral argument, we who have been privy to his wise and insightful comments in our private decisional conferences, we who have observed first hand his approach to decision-making and his thoughtful judicial temperament and know his carefully crafted opinions, we who are his colleagues are convinced that he will also be a great Justice. Moreover, after an exhaustive investigation, Mr. Steve Tober, chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, declared that Judge Alito's ``integrity, his professional competence and his judicial temperament are indeed found to be of the highest standard.'' Mr. President, I have to say that anyone who watched Judge Alito at his Senate hearing would agree that his professional competence and judicial temperament were certainly on display. I believe that showed very well why he will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The American Bar Association gave Judge Alito its highest rating. Most important, Judge Alito has a firm belief in the rule of law upon which our country is based. As he stated on the first day of his hearings, ``No person in this country, no matter how high or how powerful, is above the law, and no person is beneath the law.'' Judge Alito recognizes that, in our system, judges interpret the law, but should not create policy. They should not decide what they would like to have the law be; rather, they simply should determine what the law states. He said on his second day of hearings: . . . it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policymakers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences that we have. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, President Bush made clear that he planned to nominate to the bench judges who would respect the rule of law, judges who would interpret but not legislate. In particular, he drew attention to his desire to nominate people who would strictly interpret the Constitution. Knowing Supreme Court nominations were on the horizon and knowing the President's views, the American people re- elected President Bush. With the previous nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts and now with the nomination of Judge Alito, the President is fulfilling his promise to the American people. Now it is time for the Senate to play its constitutional role in the nomination process to ensure the President's nominee meets the high standards we set for members of the Supreme Court of our land. Judge Alito is extremely capable, he is highly qualified, and he deserves the support of this body. I wish to also rebut one statement that was made earlier today. I believe Judge Alito was unfairly criticized for his opinion in Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc. This was a case involving a mentally disabled man who claimed he was sexually harassed at work. They have alleged that by ruling against the plaintiff in the appellate court, Judge Alito showed he is ``results-oriented.'' Their criticisms are unfair and misleading. Judge Alito was not even able to form an opinion on the merits of the case because the plaintiff's lawyer presented an incomplete brief. Judge Alito made clear in his dissent that had the plaintiff's lawyer raised the argument in a minimally adequate fashion, he might well agree and join the majority in voting to reverse. He continued to say: I would overlook many technical violations of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and our local rules, but I do not think it is too much to insist that Pirolli's brief at least state the ground on which reversal is sought. It is very important to understand that an appellate judge cannot create the facts. The appellate judge cannot argue the lawyer's case when he is not equipped with the facts or the reason for the request for a reversal. So I believe it is important that we set the record straight on that. Judge Alito has shown by his manner during the hearing and his 15 years on the bench that he is fully qualified under the constitutional requirements and from every neutral observer with whom I have talked for this position. I hope there will not be further delay. I am so hopeful that the people who would vote against him would at least let us have the vote. He has been thoroughly vetted. He has been thoroughly questioned. The Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, and I think by the end of this week we should allow Judge Alito to be able to start preparing for the very important cases that are going to come before the Court right away. Let him have the chance to be fully prepared and do the job we are asking him to do. It is the least we should expect of the Senate. It is the responsible approach for the U.S. Senate. The Supreme Court and the people of America deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans. For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years. This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation. While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans. The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire. For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire. Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation. The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax. This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it. The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax. I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, 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 introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans. For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years. This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation. While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans. The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire. For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire. Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation. The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax. This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it. The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax. I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if we are not going to take up the major tax cut at this time, I am going to ask unanimous consent to take up the AMT. In 1969, when Congress passed the AMT it was supposed to affect 1 in 500,000 taxpayers who make over $200,000 a year. In fact, that is not the case today. By 2010, the AMT is expected to ensnare 32 million taxpayers, the majority of whom have adjusted gross incomes of under $100,000. In fact, this especially hits people with children. By the year 2010, among married taxpayers with two or more children, 85 percent of married taxpayers with two or more children in 2010 will face the AMT. It prohibits the ability to deduct for children. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096, the alternative minimum tax relief. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from Montana, I don't see how we can take part but not all of the tax reconciliation bill. It is time to do away with the AMT. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Montana has said he, too, wants to do that and that we need to do it right. To do it right we need to do the whole tax reconciliation bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do hope the Senator from Montana, working with the chairman of the Committee on Finance, will make it a priority early next year to have the tax reconciliation package go through with AMT and with the other tax cuts that would be extended to show the American people they can rely on the tax cuts that have been passed and have helped the economy in its recovery. It is very important we not leave any question in anyone's mind that the tax cuts that started the economic upturn 2 years ago will be extended. The American people will get to keep the money in their pocketbooks, spend it, and fuel the jobs our economy has produced.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I sign on to that effort immediately. With this kind of coalition maybe we can do something very important by doing away with the AMT in this country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last Friday, when I spoke to my colleagues about the NASA authorization bill, the Senate, in the press of other business at the end of the session, was unable to take up the conference report on S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. Since then, the House of Representatives has adopted the report under suspension of the rules, demonstrating wide support for the compromise bill. I am very pleased that the Senate is now poised to approve the conference report as well. I want to thank my ranking member on the Science and Space Subcommittee, Senator Nelson of Florida, for all his help. Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye were active participants throughout this process, and I certainly appreciate their efforts. Senator Lott was a key member of the Senate team that has brought us to this point. My subcommittee staff, Jeff Bingham and Tom Cremins, and Senator Nelson's staff, Jean Toal Eisen and Chan Lieu, work so well together and have done so much to bring us to this point, and I want to say thank you to them. When President Bush announced a new Vision for Space Exploration in January of 2004, he was not simply describing a new mission for NASA; he was describing a pathway to a future for the next generation. The legislation embodied in this conference report represents a statement by the Congress that the Vision for Space Exploration is the right vision for America in the new age of space. At the same time, the bill provides guidance to help NASA do its part in leading the way along this new path to the future by building effectively on lessons learned and by efficiently using its resources, especially the talent and expertise of its workforce. S. 1281, as modified by the conference report, provides authorization for NASA funding at $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $18.7 billion in fiscal year 2008. The conferees believe these levels of funding will ensure the successful return to flight of the space shuttle and the completion of the international space station, as well as continuing the important work in exploration, science, aeronautics and education. These funding levels also take into account the recently identified shortfall between what the administration had been projecting for shuttle flights and the number of flights needed to complete the international space station, meet our international commitments, and provide an important research capability in space. I am especially pleased that the conference report provides the designation of the U.S. portion of the space station as national laboratory. This is an important and significant part of the bill. First, it demonstrates that the Congress understands the great value and potential represented by the research that can be done aboard the space station. It underscores the need to ensure that the laboratory is as capable, efficient and well equipped as we can make it. Second, it provides a framework for bringing additional, non-NASA resources to bear in supporting research aboard the space station. This will enable NASA to focus its resources on research needed to support the Vision for Exploration, while continuing to provide space station research opportunities in the broader areas of life sciences and fundamental sciences. In my previous statement, I mentioned briefly a perfect example of the kind of fundamental research that the space station enables, which was described in a recent hearing before the Commerce Committee. Dr. Sam Ting, of MIT, discussed the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, scheduled to be attached to the space station. This device takes advantage of the unique space environment to measure--and help understand--the characteristics of matter in the universe. The results of this experiment could revolutionize our knowledge about the interactions of matter and potentially lead, for example, to the development of new, and virtually unlimited, energy sources. As we move forward with the Vision for Space Exploration, we will need new vehicles and launch capabilities. NASA has made the decision to base those new vehicles on much of the existing capabilities and designs of the space shuttle program. This legislation ratifies that decision and provides the policy foundation to ensure its successful implementation. The evolution of our launch vehicles to a new generation requires that we be especially careful not to undermine our existing capabilities for human space flight. The legislation ensures a smooth transition between the shuttle and the new crew exploration vehicles by providing adequate resources to continue shuttle flights and accelerate CEV development so as to minimize any gap between the two systems. In addition, the legislation specifically directs NASA to make the maximum possible utilization of the personnel, assets, and capabilities of the space shuttle program in developing the next generation of crew and cargo vehicles. The new CEV will be designed with the flexibility to carry out a variety of missions. It will specifically be designed to provide access to the space station, and thus fulfills the role of a crew rescue vehicle, CRV, if needed, to ensure the safety of our crews aboard the international space station. In order to further facilitate the evolution of current human space flight systems into those needed for the Vision for Exploration, the bill has provided for the merging of the human space fight activities into a single account. This is intended to provide the closest possible interaction between these activities, in those areas where they can be mutually supportive. At the same time, the legislation contains language to ensure that both the exploration activities and the human space flight, or space operations activities, retain sufficient resources to fulfill their core objectives. Another important and historical NASA research activity is aeronautical research, a fundamental part of NASA's activities since its inception. All of us recognize that the continued health of the Nation's aerospace industry in a very competitive global marketplace makes it essential that we have solid aeronautical research capabilities. This legislation directs the development of a national policy to guide the Nation's aeronautical research--including that conducted by NASA. This policy will enable us to make informed decisions about the future directions for aeronautics research and the necessary resources to support them. One of the more exciting new developments in space exploration is the expanded level of commercial interest in supporting and expanding space exploration. This legislation encourages those developments. It provides expanded authority for competitive prizes to promote commercial developments, and it encourages the use of commercial services and capabilities in servicing the space station, to cite just two examples. This is clearly an important new development in space exploration which the bill fully endorses. Finally, let me say something about the broad range of science activities for which NASA has always been known. This conference agreement expresses very clearly the need for maintaining a balanced science portfolio throughout all NASA programs and provides the funding authority necessary to ensure the space sciences, earth sciences, and education activities remain vigorous parts of NASA's mission. Mr. President, this legislation provides a comprehensive, forward- looking and responsible approach to the transition of our Nation's space exploration programs into a new era of discovery. I believe that, together with our colleagues in the House, we have crafted a congressional consensus that will help ensure this Nation's leadership in space exploration and provide benefits beyond measure and beyond imagination to this Nation and the world.