Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Mississippi. Before I do that, though, I do want to thank the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. He has been looking at the economy every month and really looking at that progress. I think you can see from his remarks that the trend is up on all fronts. All of us knew when the recovery was coming, it would not be a true recovery unless it had jobs with it. Now we are seeing the jobs coming online following the outstanding performance of the stock market, and now consumer confidence is up. I think the distinguished Senator from Utah was on this trend for a long time before others were focusing on it. We certainly appreciate his leadership.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for helping to explain to the world how sad all of us are about the developments in Iraq with the prisoners. I appreciate the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, moving forward and asking Secretary Rumsfeld to come and testify in public. It is our hope that Secretary Rumsfeld will also brief the entire Senate, along with the distinguished committee. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Virginia very much.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Virginia and also agree that would be proper. The President should have the ability to represent the American people and the world. I know that he is going to do that in a very effective way. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Iowa to take the next 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when I have used 2 minutes and 40 seconds, after which I am going to yield the final 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for talking about the Medicare discount drug card. I think it is so important that seniors know they can easily compare prices; they can determine which is the best card for them. This is going to help anyone who does not have other coverage. I hope our seniors know they can call 1-800-MEDICARE and get further information. If they call their local Medicare office, the Medicare people are going to be very accommodating. I am appreciative that the Senator from Iowa clarified that because all the rhetoric we are hearing could scare our seniors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time do we have remaining?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to address the energy issue. I heard Senators on the floor earlier today talking about the high price of gasoline, as if it is the President's fault. I would remind everyone we have an energy bill we are two votes short of having cloture to pass. We passed it in the Senate. We passed it in the House. We have 58 votes to move it forward and we can't get the 60 votes it takes to break a filibuster. I ask the Senators who are concerned about high energy prices if they would consider voting to get the energy conference report agreed to so the President can sign it because it is a bill that will provide incentives for exploring, incentives for creating new energy resources, incentives for bringing Alaska gas down--which will be a huge help toward self-sufficiency in our country. It has incentives for renewable fuel, for the kind of fuel that will be burning clean, such as nuclear powerplants, and to have clean coal- burning and other new technologies. There is so much in the Energy bill that would bring our country into self-sufficiency and we can't get the Energy bill passed. I think Congress should take the responsibility to see this bill goes through. We have tried to pass an energy bill for 10 years and we need to do it. We need to take control ourselves. It is time for us to do this for the American people. The high price of gasoline is set at our feet, and we can do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I voted for the bill that has just passed because I have said all along I am against taxing Internet access. I think it is a disruption of interstate commerce. I have said that all along. The reason I have been concerned about this bill is I have been very afraid that the city franchise taxes that are collected in my State of Texas were somehow going to be brought into the bill. I have now been working with the Senate leaders, the managers of the bill, Senators McCain, Allen, Wyden, and Senator Dorgan, to assure that it was not the intent to take the Texas franchise fee, which is called an access line fee in Texas, to be included in the ban on Internet access. It is not Internet access; it is a franchise fee. I very much hope we can clarify the record on this point and assure that in conference the definition will be clear so it will be recognized under Federal law 47 U.S.C., section 1104(8)(B), that the Texas access line fee is included as a franchise fee or similar fee, and included in the exceptions from the definition of tax. I hope we have an assurance from the managers of the bill that this Texas access line fee, which is a franchise fee, would not be included within the definition of Internet access tax.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia and Oregon, and say that I also have the assurance from Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan that in the conference this issue will be addressed. It is a Texas-only issue, as I understand. It is a franchise fee but it is called an access line fee after Texas law was changed in 1999, which is why the moratorium puts it in question. I would like to assure that we get this definition in conference. I know now, from talking to the four managers, that it was not the intention to take our access fee as a part of the major bill, but in fact treat it as a franchise fee, which is what it is. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Alaska if I could do a colloquy, without delaying him?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for bringing this to the floor. As has been said by everyone, I think, we have been talking about this issue for a long time. It is such a crucial issue for many States and many cities, that we must get it right. I think the bill of Senator Allen, the underlying bill, and now the bill of Senator McCain are attempting to do something that is right. They are attempting to assure that interstate commerce is not obstructed by taxes on Internet access. I am afraid, however, that the language is not clear enough as it deals with franchise taxes and right-of-way fees that have been in place in cities in many States in our country for a long time. That is why I have introduced an amendment that will clarify the definition of what is excepted from this Internet access tax ban. It says: . . . any payment made for the use of a public right-of-way or made in lieu of a fee for use of the public right-of-way, however it may be denominated, including but not limited to an access line fee, a franchise fee, license fee or gross receipts or gross revenue fee. I think we have found out since we started debating this issue years ago that cities determine their franchise fees, their right-of-way fees, in many different ways. I think it is very important that we not make a mistake here that would cause years of litigation, after which a city might win, it might lose, but it would certainly disrupt what it has been doing. The franchise fee is basically a local tax, not on Internet access, not meant to be on Internet access. My position is that we should not tax Internet access. I do believe it is a taxation of interstate commerce. However, I think that once you get off the basic access, just as we have telephone lines' access, use of right-of-way, that we must create a level playing field so a line that is used for telephone and an Internet computer line will be able to be taxed in the same way. In my State of Texas, prior to 1999 cities were compensated by telecommunications providers for the use of their rights-of-way pursuant to individual franchise agreements negotiated between the telecommunications company and the cities. In the late 1990s, Texas cities and the providers began negotiating and drafting major compromises that would lead to more uniformity, more regulatory certainty. So the Texas law has established a uniform method of compensating cities for use of public rights-of-way. It is called a per access line fee. It is implemented to compensate cities for use of public rights-of-way. The access lines are reported by the individual telecommunications providers to the Texas Public Utility Commission. The PUC then applies the individual city rate per access line to the total number of lines that a particular city may have within their corporate limits. It is a fair and equitable system that is used in Texas. An average city gets about 3.5 percent of its general revenue from telecommunications right- of-way compensation fees. Passing Federal legislation that would call into question the validity of this Texas system could have disastrous effects on the ability of Texas cities to provide essential services such as police and fire, water, waste water, and parks, just to name a few. The right- of-way fees represent as much as $39 million annually to the city of Dallas; $9 million for Fort Worth; and $15 million for the city of San Antonio. Cities in California, Nevada, Florida, Kentucky, and other States would also be adversely affected by the bill as it is written. So I am trying to clarify why franchise fees should be included. I am hoping we are all trying to go in the same direction here. I just want to make sure that we don't make a mistake. There will be people who say it is really covered. It is covered in the underlying law. It is covered in the amendment that is offered by Senator McCain and the one underlying by Senator Allen. People will say that. However, it is not clear and the city attorneys and these Texas cities and other States have looked at the language and they are very concerned they are going to be in litigation over this issue. If we know today that it is not clear, after the lawyers have looked at it, why not be sure? Why not be sure? Everyone I have talked to believes that right-of-way and franchise fees should not be disturbed. It is part of the level playing field we are trying to create. My amendment will make it very clear what is accepted by definition. This should not have any impact on Internet access as both of the underlying bills would try to protect that from taxation. But it does protect cities, particularly since we have certain laws in some States that do have a component of a gross receipts fee within the access line issue, and I hope we will not step on a State with its local issues, trying to stay consistent with what has been done and accepted through all these years by passing this law without being very clear. Mine is a clarification amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the question. This is, of course, not to put a new tax in place. This is to try to acknowledge that different cities and different States have different definitions of franchise tax. It happens that in Texas there is a gross-receipts component in the franchise right-of-way access tax. It is a standardized law now for the cities of Texas, for cable companies and telecommunications companies. We have a different definition which I am trying to protect. Certainly these cities have already made their contracts with their cable companies. This is not meant to change contracts; it is meant to allow the contracts which are in existence and use a well recognized and different definition of franchise or right-of-way tax.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes of the majority time be equally divided, 10 minutes each, between myself, Senator Coleman, and Senator Chambliss.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that we be notified when our 10 minutes is up.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for an answer to his question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this resolution has recently gone to the committee. It needs to go through the process. I certainly empathize with many of the things the Senator from Oregon has propounded. However, I must respectfully object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with all due respect, I do sympathize with much of what the Senator from Oregon has said, and I am frustrated as well. But I think it is important that the Senator recognize we do have a process; that this is 2004; it is not 2000; and it is not 2002. Furthermore, I say to the Senator from Oregon that we have many ways to increase the supply of oil in our country. Passing the Energy bill that has already passed the Senate, that went to conference and was held up by the Democratic side by two votes would give us the supply that we need to lower the cost of fuel in our country. We have at our disposal the capability to lower prices. Mr. President, I think it is incumbent upon all of us not to just look at the cartel that is OPEC, but to look at our own resources and to control our own resources. We have the capability to do that and we are not because of the obstructionism on the Democratic side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this Friday, April 9, will mark the 1- year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from the dictator Saddam Hussein and his corrupt regime. It was April 9, 2003, that Iraqis cheered when Saddam Hussein's statue fell in Baghdad. When we began Operation Iraqi Freedom and as our troops were marching on Baghdad, we started the Senate every single day for at least 30 minutes talking about our troops, what they were doing, the successes they had, and the heartrending problems they faced. We let them know that not 1 day, not 1 hour, not 1 minute passed that we were not thinking of what they were doing for our country. It is still the case today. Although Saddam Hussein's regime fell 1 year ago today, we are still fighting with the spirit and the heart that is personified by our troops on the ground in Iraq today. At that time, we all talked about--and it was written in the newspapers and talked about on television--that it did not seem like that infamous Republican Guard had been there. We did not meet them on the way to Baghdad. We did not meet them in Baghdad, at least it did not seem like it. It seemed almost too easy. This is one person's opinion, but this person believes that when history is written about this war, it will say that we are meeting the Republican Guard right now, that they faded into the woodwork and they strengthened their numbers and they are coming back. They have decided to make their last stand because we have a deadline of June 30 when we want the Iraqi people to take control of their governance, and we want the people to have a say. We set that deadline. All of those who do not want freedom and democracy in Iraq, whether they be people who want control inside Iraq or whether they are people from outside Iraq who want to control the Middle East and make sure there is not a working democracy, all of those forces are now coming together against our coalition forces. This is a very important time in our war on terrorism, and our hearts are with our troops on the ground. Our hearts are with their families right now. Our hearts are with those brave civilians who have volunteered to go in to help stabilize the country of Iraq and to get an economy going there. We know they paid the price from the horrendous pictures we saw last week. Those volunteers who were trying to serve were not only murdered in cold blood, but their bodies were defiled. We will never forget those pictures, and we will never forget the pictures we have been seeing day after day out of Iraq. We are here today to say how much we appreciate what they are doing. We are also here to say that every one of those who have died, they have not died in vain because we are not going to walk away from this battle. America will not cut and run and render those great losses meaningless. We will not do it because we have a President who is willing to stand firm in the face of adversity. Our President is supported by troops who are every bit as committed and dedicated as he is to the cause. This is a very important time. I think it is so important that we should look at what is happening and make sure we are not doing anything which would hurt our cause while our troops are in harm's way. I have to say I am troubled when I hear leaders say this is another Vietnam. We have troops on the ground in harm's way. Is it really productive for us to be labeling Iraq after 1 year as another Vietnam? Is it helpful to heap criticism on our President? Is it even helpful to be dissecting what happened in the run-up on the war on terrorism that began on September 11, 2001? Is it helpful to be saying who is at fault for bad information? Was it the Clinton administration or the Bush administration? Or was it before that? Is that what we ought to be talking about right now? I don't think so. I think what we ought to be talking about right now is how we can come together as a country and make sure everyone in America understands the importance of this cause; that we support our Commander in Chief, and that we support our troops on the ground. I have been to Iraq. Mr. President, you have been to Iraq. Our Commander in Chief has been to Iraq. We know a little bit about what it is like. We don't know everything because we are not there when the bombs go off. We are not there when the missiles are launched. But we have been there, and we know our troops are the best. They are committed. They are doing exactly what needs to be done to stabilize this country. It is not going to be easy. But the one thing we must all do is be committed to the proposition we can't fail, and dividing our country in half over who was responsible for faulty intelligence is one way we could fail. What we need to be doing is uniting our country. This is America's challenge. This is our coalition's challenge, that we will stay the course. We will make sure a constitution is in place in Iraq so the people who have been oppressed for so many years, so the girls in Afghanistan who have been abused and uneducated will have the chance for lives all of us dream for our children to have, so the people in Iraq who were raped, tortured, and mutilated by Saddam Hussein and his regime will no longer have to fear that kind of treatment because they will be in control of their own destiny. We will be there with the security to help them see this through. What we need right now is a united country, not a country sniping at our President, whether it is on the Senate floor or out in the field. My time is up. But I think it is not productive for us to be divisive at this point. We need to be united in support of our Commander in Chief and our troops on the ground. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.