Floor Statements

Madam President, today, I want to congratulate and acknowledge the University of Texas at Austin's Department of History for creating an interactive website that offers

a unique outlet for promoting information and enhancing understanding about U.S. and world history. This new site puts the expertise of the University of Texas world-renowned faculty at the service of the general citizenry, and provides a public forum for the discussion of historical and contemporary events.

The title of the website, www.notevenpast.org, ``Not Even Past,'' (NEP) derives its name from William Faulkner's famous line that, ``The past is never dead. It's not even past.'' It acknowledges the professional and ethical commitment to understanding history as a public conversation about the importance of the past for our actions, values, and beliefs in the present, and for the decisions we make today that will affect our lives tomorrow.

I would like to congratulate particularly the efforts of Professor Joan Neuberger, Chairman Alan Tully, the department's 60-person faculty, and the input of graduate students for establishing this project in 2010.

NEP brings together a diverse group of historians in every major historical field by using modern technology as a vehicle to share their perspectives on topics related to Texas, the United States, and world history. The website allows people from around the world with an interest in history and historical events to take advantage of the University of Texas' new resource. This unique and innovative website offers book and film recommendations, movie clips, podcasts, links to historical documents and artifacts, as well as a fact-checker series and free virtual courses.

The development of NEP reinforces the reputation of the University of Texas Department of History. I believe this website is an invaluable resource of remarkable range and interest, and will advance the university's goal of undertaking programs of civil, educational and social services.

Since NEP was launched in January 2011, the website has enabled hosting and sponsoring events devoted to the history curriculum, organization of a book club with award-winning professors and students of history, accumulation of an extensive library of podcasts, short articles and recommended movies related to all aspects of history, and even virtual history courses that are offered through the University of Texas. In June 2012, NEP will also begin posting university, high school, and middle school students' history projects.

Congratulations to the University of Texas Department of History for creating this interactive website.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Representative Ralph Hall be printed in the Record on the tenacity of Cary M. Maguire, founder, Chair and President of the Dallas-based Mcguire Oil Company and Maguire Energy Company.

The remarks follow.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cary

M. Maguire, a fellow Texan who exemplifies fortitude,

American entrepreneurship, and community service.

Over the past twenty years, Cary's strength of character

was tested and proven as he fought for justice in a property

rights dispute against the Houston, Texas city government.

Despite being dealt a bad hand, court after court, Cary never

surrendered. He showed courage and faith that justice would

prevail, and his perseverance was ultimately rewarded.

Cary is the founder, Chair, and President of the Dallas-

based Maguire Oil Company

and Maguire Energy Company. In 1991, Cary's company was given

a permit by the city of Houston to drill near the banks of

Lake Houston. However, when his crew began the project a city

officer patrolling the area stopped the team, citing a city

ordinance that prohibited drilling within 1,000 feet of the

shore. The city revoked Maguire Oil's permit, and a lengthy

court battle began.

The case was shuffled around for fourteen years as courts

argued over jurisdiction and how to proceed. In 2009, a

Harris County court-at-law awarded Maguire $2 million in

damages, plus $2.2 million in interest. The City appealed

this ruling before agreeing on a settlement, settling a

lawsuit that spanned two trials, four appeals and the

administrations of four mayors.

While acknowledging that the amount spent in legal fees

exceeded the amount of the settlement, Cary stated that he

continued the case because he thought it was important to

defend the principle that while government has the right to

take property for the public good, it does not have the right

to do so without compensating the property owner.

Cary proceeded to donate the settlement money to found the

Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility that bears his

name at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas,

where he serves as Trustee Emeritus in recognition for his

outstanding service to the University as a member of the

Board of Trustees from 1976 to 2000.

In addition to his founding grant to create the Maguire

Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility, Cary also

endowed a university-wide professorship in ethics at SMU. He

has provided additional funds for programs and facilities in

SMU's Edwin L. Cox School of Business, including the Maguire

Energy Institute, the Maguire Chair in oil and gas

management, and the Maguire Building housing undergraduate

programs in the Cox School.

In 1995 he and his wife, Ann, were among the first

recipients of SMU's Mustang Award honoring individuals whose

longtime service and philanthropy have had a lasting impact

on the University.

His national leadership positions include service on The

National Petroleum Council, the Executive Committee of Mid-

Continental Oil and Gas Association, and membership of the

Madison Council of the Library of Congress, where he funded

the Maguire Chair in Ethics and American History.

Mr. Speaker, Cary Maguire's professional and philanthropic

contributions will have a lasting value not only in the great

State of Texas, but our nation. He embodies many outstanding

qualities that define the American spirit. As we adjourn the

House of Representatives today, let us do so in appreciation

of this American leader, Mr. Cary Maguire.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. It is interesting, because there are four of us on the floor right now-- the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Wyoming, and myself. We have one thing in common. Every one of us has run a business. Every one of us was in business before we came to the Senate. So we know when we are talking about new taxes--which is all we hear from the administration--that is not going to help this economy grow, because our small businesses are scared to death out there.

I know because I have heard the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Wisconsin, who came straight out of a business and who ran for the Senate because he was so frustrated in business--we know that small business people out there today are looking at the increased taxes that are already in place with the Obamacare added taxes and surtaxes that have already been passed by the Democrats in Congress, without one single Republican vote. Those taxes are already on board to increase, plus you have the fines they are facing if they don't have the government-prescribed plan for the Obama health care plan. They are going to have to pay fines on top of the surtaxes to pay for the bill they are not going to be able to use. Then they are looking at the regulations that are coming out of this administration and saying: And Congress wants to spend another trillion dollars this year?

Every one of us knows we are looking at hitting the debt ceiling again--over $16 trillion--this fall, because this administration will not even consider lower taxes and lower spending levels. So I look at all of us on the Senate floor right now who have been in business, who have run a business, who have met that payroll, who have met the regulatory environment, and I think: Why on Earth don't we listen to the small businesspeople of this country and in this body and do what they do every year--pass a budget?

The Senator from Wyoming is here, and I would just ask if he has an idea of when was the last time the Senate passed a budget resolution.

Well, of course. And the spending issue is very interesting. I look to my colleague from Tennessee, who is really one of the deficit hawks in the Senate, and when I look at the statistics that are being put out about the entitlement spending, the entitlement spending today is over 50 percent of our spending every year--mandatory spending. In 10 years it is going to be 75 percent of the spending in this country.

So I would ask my friend from Tennessee--because he has been pure on this issue, being the deficit hawk he is--how would we be able to solve the spending problem of this country without addressing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--mandatory spending--which will be at 75 percent of the budget in 10 years if we continue at this rate?

I want to ask the Senator from Tennessee, because he brought this up, not only is it so clear there is more going out than coming back in, what would he say to the fact we also--not we, because he, along with myself and the Senator from Wyoming--voted against the Obama health care bill, but interestingly, with those numbers the Senator just quoted, that bill cuts $500 billion more out of Medicare to pay for that overdraft the Senator is talking about. He was talking about a generational change as well. Oh, my goodness.

I am so pleased the Senator from Tennessee brought that up because there is a way for us to at least fix one of the entitlements in a relatively painless way, and that is Social Security. It is going to have a few changes that some people will not like, but it could be so gradual if we do it now. We could simply raise the age 3 months a year.

In the bill I have proposed--and there are others that are equally as good, although none of them have been taken up--it would say: If you are 59 years old, you wouldn't have any change at all. If you are 58, you would retire 3 months later. So it would be very gradual. If we do that, and adjust the cost-of-living increase, we would not have to raise any social security taxes, we would not cut the core benefits at all, and we could gradually ease into a system that would be solvent for 75 years. Then our elderly, who need Social Security, will have it there.

That is a proposal on the table now. But what is happening in Congress? And where is the leadership from the White House? Nothing. Nothing.

I am going to turn to the Senator from Wyoming because he is one of the two actual physicians in the Senate, and he knows more about the Obama health care system. When we look at what the Obama health care system is doing to Medicare--cutting it $\1/2\ trillion--and then this Social Security issue we have discussed, the overall Medicare issue the Senator from Tennessee addressed, and what the Senator from Wisconsin has brought out in his charts--and he has been the real hands-on, most recently experienced small businessperson--I would ask the real doctor in this body: What is going to happen if the Supreme Court doesn't save America by throwing out the individual mandate on constitutional grounds and we actually have the implementation of ObamaCare, with the taxes and fines that are going to come in on January 1 of next year if we don't act? Where are we going to be in health care in this country?

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

It is my pleasure to be able to introduce our guest Chaplain, Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston. He is a native Texan and attended Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK.

For 17 years, Pastor Osteen worked behind the scenes for his father John, who founded Lakewood Church in 1959.

In 1999, after his father passed away, Pastor Osteen accepted God's call to service in the church and took over the reins as senior pastor, despite having only preached once in his life.

It was soon clear that this new, young preacher had a natural gift for speaking and was able to personally connect with diverse audiences with the inspirational message of God's love. Since that time, he and his wife and copastor Victoria have led Lakewood through extraordinary growth.

In 2005, the Osteens moved Lakewood Church from its original home in northeast Houston to the former home of the Houston Rockets basketball team. With this space, Pastor Osteen now delivers a message of hope and encouragement to 38,000 people a week, with millions more across the country tuning in on their televisions.

Pastor Osteen has reached millions more as a best-selling author. His first book, ``Your Best Life Now,'' was released in 2004 and remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 2 years.

His most recent book, ``Every Day a Friday,'' offers commonsense advice on how to be happy by applying the principles of God's word to your daily life. Pastor Osteen has spoken throughout the world, and that is what brings him to the Capitol today.

On Saturday the Osteens will lead thousands in what is billed as ``a night of hope'' at Nationals Park in Washington. That message of hope and encouragement is what has attracted me and my family to watch Pastor Osteen on Sunday morning. I have been to his church. He welcomed me and my daughter, Bailey--whose 11th birthday is today--at Lakewood Church 2 years ago, and I got to see this awesome

place that he fills every single Sunday--sometimes more than the Houston Rockets ever did, I have to say.

I do want to say that the Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Barry Black, who works with us every week in the Senate, with all of our staffs, was wonderful to help in assisting to bring Pastor Osteen to the podium to open our Senate this morning. It is a wonderful Senate tradition that we start our day by thanking God for this wonderful world and also remembering the mantle of leadership and responsibility that is on our shoulders and trying to do the very best we can with that message.

Again, I thank Pastor Osteen and his wife Victoria, who are wonderful people whom I have gotten to know through the years. They have inspired so many of us in our travails of life.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to talk about the important work on this bill that has been done by Senators on both sides. Republicans and Democrats agree that we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and that we should have the very best legislative product possible. This should be done with input from both parties. That is what our Chamber does. We deliberate and then we produce legislation.

Yesterday I was talking to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, talking about what his bill does, and I want to say clearly today that the amendment I am producing with Senator

Grassley and many other cosponsors builds on the sentiments the chairman expressed yesterday.

It seems very simple to me that what the Republicans are asking is that our substitute, which has many cosponsors--we believe it improves on the underlying bill. And one amendment by Senator Cornyn adds much to the bill, helping to get the backlog of these rape kits put forward so that we can stop people who are perpetrating these crimes from being out loose doing it again, when we have the proof that has not yet been tested because of the backlog.

There are some things that can be done to improve this bill. Senator Mikulski and I worked together on funding the Justice Department. In our bill, we do add to the capability for the Justice department to give the grants that would make that backlog smaller. Senator Cornyn's amendment even improves upon that. So what is not to like about two other approaches that would add to this bill so that we can get this bill passed--or one version of it--go to conference with the House, and really address the issues?

No one is arguing that we should not pass a Violence Against Women Act. The question is, Can we make it even better? And if so, why not? Why not have the kind of debate that we have on this floor that does that? So I think it is important that we produce the best possible product.

Yesterday the chairman spoke repeatedly about a victim is a victim is a victim. He spoke about how the police never ask if the victim is a Republican or a Democrat, is the victim gay or straight, but that a victim is a victim. And I have--

Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone knows that the Republicans have an addition to the Violence Against Women Act that we think will strengthen it.

For instance, there are a couple of additions from what we talked about yesterday. We got a letter today from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this letter says that they strongly support two provisions in our substitute bill. It says we have a mandatory minimum for protection of child pornography, and they feel strongly that possession of child pornography is a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, a reasonable mandatory minimum for this offense would be in order.

I stated yesterday, about a situation where a judge gave a 1-day sentence to an individual who was in possession of hundreds of images and videos of 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Really, 1 day? Mr. President, this is America. I can't even imagine that would be the case.

Our amendment strengthens the underlying bill by saying we would have a mandatory minimum of 1 year. My goodness, I think that is a minimum this body would want to adopt.

We also want to make sure we can locate registered sex offenders who abscond. The letter we have put into the Record says law enforcement's efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to determine the fugitives' physical location and apprehend them. Here are two stories, and our bill would strengthen the ability to help these situations.

Johnny Burgos was convicted in New York for rape and assault of a minor. Following his release from prison, he registered as a sex offender in New

York, but he left. Although he seemed to be constantly on the move, the U.S. Marshals in the New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force believed he was living in Pennsylvania. They attempted to obtain the records from cell phone companies, insurance companies, and the New York and Pennsylvania Departments of Motor Vehicles. But because it was necessary to get grand jury subpoenas for these records, the process took too long and the investigation suffered. In the interim, he is believed to have committed another sexual assault in Maryland. Our bill would strengthen the capabilities for the U.S. Marshals Service to get that information on a timely basis.

This story is even worse, Mr. President. Joseph Duncan, shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from Minnesota and traveled across country to Idaho, where he kidnapped Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across State lines into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later killed Dylan--a child. He was essentially lost by three States, and no one even knew where he was to look for him.

Our bill strengthens the U.S. Marshals Service's capabilities to attach to wherever these thugs might be who are doing these heinous crimes. I also add that our bill has a strengthening of the rape kit issue that Senator Cornyn is trying to get to be able to offer as an amendment to Senator Leahy's bill, the majority's bill. Senator Cornyn has been trying for a long time to strengthen the ability to stop this backlog and get the rape kit issue addressed so we can have the evidence to get the perpetrators so they will not commit these crimes against other innocent people such as Dylan and Shasta Groene.

I hope we will be able to have a modest one amendment, and my substitute, so we will be able to go to conference with a strong strengthening of the underlying bill, which I intend to support. I am going to support the Violence Against Women Act, even if it falls short in these areas. But why not strengthen it in these areas so that all of us know we have done the best we can to send a bill to the House for its consideration, and then a conference committee where we can pass this bill without further delay.

When the regular order comes back, I want to speak in favor of the two Texas judges on whom we are going to vote.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Gregg Costa and David Guaderrama for their nominations to the Federal district bench.

I want to say that Mr. Costa--and I will mention this again--asked not to be confirmed until after the case that he was working on was finished. His case was the prosecution of Robert Allen Stanford, who swindled so many Texans and other Americans out of money they had invested. Frankly, he was all over the country in his representation.

Mr. Costa asked not to be confirmed until he could finish that case because it was complicated and he was the lead on it.

So there has been no delay on our part at all on his nomination. As I understand it, we have confirmed the same--roughly the same--number of district judges as President George Bush and President Clinton did in their first terms. To my knowledge, we are not holding up nominations at all.

In fact, of course, Senator Cornyn and I both highly recommended Mr. Costa and Mr. Guaderrama to the President for his nomination because we have a process that assures we nominate to the President the most qualified people to fill these spots. We have a bipartisan legal committee that vets them comprised of people who know the legal community in Texas, and so, therefore, they know the reputations of these lawyers, and our committee system has worked very well. I have served on it with Senator Gramm, as I have with Senator Cornyn, and we agree on the quality of these nominees. So I don't think there is a delay, and I am very pleased to be able to have nominated these two fine lawyers to the President.

I would like to talk first about Mr. Costa, who did ask to wait for his confirmation, but now he is ready because the case he was working on was decided. Mr. Costa will be serving in the Southern District in Galveston, TX, where I was born. Mr. Costa was born in Baltimore, MD, and grew up in Richardson, TX. He attended Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in government and then continued his studies at the University of Texas School of Law where he served as editor-in-chief of the Texas Law Review and received his juris doctorate with highest honors in 1996.

Mr. Costa's professional career includes being a law clerk for Supreme

Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2001, as well as his current position serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston. As the co- lead counsel for the United States in the prosecution of Robert Allen Stanford, Mr. Costa secured a conviction of 13 charges of conspiracy, wire, and mail fraud. Mr. Costa has been credited by his colleagues as the glue that held the case together. His dedication to this case and these victims shows the core of his character. The fact he asked for a delay in his confirmation because he wanted to finish this case and assure that convictions would be obtained makes me proud and pleased to support his nomination to the Federal bench.

I am also pleased to support the nomination of Judge David Campos Guaderrama to the Western District of Texas in El Paso. Judge Guaderrama is originally from New Mexico and moved to El Paso, TX, at a young age. He attained two bachelor degrees from New Mexico State University in political science and psychology, then earned his juris doctorate degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1979.

In 1987, Judge Guaderrama was appointed as the first chief public defender of El Paso County and continued in that service until he was elected to the 243rd Judicial District Court in 1995. As a testament to his service to the El Paso community, Judge Guaderrama has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District for the last 2 years.

During his three decades serving in the Texas legal system, Judge Guaderrama has earned many accolades for his help and leadership in initiating and enacting several successful judicial programs in west Texas. He has demonstrated a strong commitment to the El Paso community, and I am confident he will serve on the Federal bench well and I support his nomination.

I would also say Senator Cornyn also supports these two judges. Of course, Senator Cornyn sits on the Judiciary Committee. Our judicial evaluation committee, which is bipartisan, has served so well to give us the highest quality nominees on the bench, and our committee did select both these nominees as their first choices after their interviews and input from the legal community in both El Paso and Houston, which includes the Galveston part of the district.

These nominations have been well vetted. They have been supported by both sides of the aisle, and we are very pleased to put forward these two quality nominees. Senator Cornyn as well is very strongly in support of them.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the time allotment at present?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of my substitute amendment along with Senator Grassley and other cosponsors, and I call up the amendment, No. 2095.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the substitute amendment is a bill that takes the good parts and the important parts of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that I think are universal--the parts that have passed unanimously through Congress in recent years, starting 16 years ago--but the substitute also strengthens the bill. I am glad we are going to get a chance to vote on something that will strengthen it because there are some areas where the underlying bill is not as strong as our substitute bill, amendment No. 2095, would be, especially in the area of abuse of children and child pornography and child sex trafficking. This is our most vulnerable victim: the child who is abused.

I want to read from some of the national organizations for victims as they write about this important aspect which is included in our bill but not covered as well in the underlying bill.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with whom I have worked to try to get the AMBER Alert system to be relevant across State lines--where we have actually saved, we believe, 550 children who have been abducted and taken across State lines--because of the quick action of the AMBER Alert system, they have been able to be safely brought back home. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says:

. . . possession of child pornography is a serious crime

that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, we support a

reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this offense.

As we have . . . testified, child protection measures must

also include the ability to locate non-compliant registered

sex offenders. . . . The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead

federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives.

Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the

authority to serve administrative subpoenas. . . .

Now, that is key because it is covered in our substitute. It is covered in Senator Cornyn's amendment. It is not covered in either the underlying Leahy bill nor in Senator Klobuchar's side-by-side. So this is a major area of strengthening that this very important victims' rights organization is supporting.

Shared Hope International is another children's advocate organization that says:

Child pornography is one form of child sex trafficking and

is too often intertwined with the other forms of sexual

exploitation, which include prostitution and sexual

performance. Stiffer penalties will bring greater deterrence

and justice for the victims.

Then, RAINN, which is the largest victims' rights organization for sexual assault, says:

Thank you . . . for including the SAFER Act--

Which is Senator Cornyn's amendment.

. . . . We are grateful for your leadership in the battle

to prevent sexual violence and prosecute its perpetrators.

Then, PROTECT also says:

. . . the apologists for child pornography traffickers deny

the pain and harm done by possessors of these images.

They go on further to say:

. . . ``simple processors''--

Which would mean people who have this and have it on their computers and sell it--

fuel the market for more and more crime scene recordings of

children being raped, tortured and degraded.

Now, these are people who are for the Cornyn amendment, and they are for the protection we have in the substitute.

It is so important we strengthen this area to try to protect our most vulnerable victims. That is one area where strengthening can make such a difference. The Marshals Service being able to have administrative subpoenas will allow them to track even known sexual predators who have fled and you have a hard time finding them.

I gave an illustration this morning of two children who were abducted by a known sexual predator, but they did not have the administrative ability to find that sexual predator, and he ended up killing one of the children, the children's mother, the mother's boyfriend, and another relative.

In the underlying bill, the mandatory sentences are days. We have a minimum mandatory 1-year sentence for a crime of having pornography that shows 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Now, I would think a 1- year minimum sentence for that kind of promotion of this degradation of children would be something all of us could support.

I heard people on the floor say our substitute does not fully cover some areas, such as Indian women. Well, our bill assures that Indian women are going to have the protections in a constitutional way so the bill is not thrown out. Indian women on reservations are particularly vulnerable, and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, has told me that in Alaska they do not have reservations to a great extent, but they do have a record of abuse of Indian women, and we need to protect them.

We do it in a constitutional way in our substitute, and I think that protection is very important. It has been determined by several organizations--criminal justice organizations--that the underlying bill is not constitutional and would not work for Indian women.

It has been asserted on the Senate floor that we do not protect victims of same-sex sexual violence, but we do. We neutralize in our bill any reference or discrimination. In fact, I will read the language of our bill:

No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual

or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or

disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds

made available under [this act].

We cover every person who is a victim under this bill. I have been made aware through very sad stories of the need to protect men as well, as victims of same-sex domestic violence. Men who have been gang raped are less likely to report it because of a shame they feel, and it is a different aspect than we have dealt with in previous Violence Against Women Act bills. But it is real and we do need to cover that. We do in the substitute bill, absolutely fully. We cover victims of domestic violence in our bill, and that is what is important to all of us.

Immigrant women who are illegal have the same protections they have had in every Violence Against Women Act that has been passed over the last 16 years. So we do not change that. We do not change the authorization levels.

So all of these--along with our strengthening of the bill with the Marshals Service's ability to get administrative subpoenas, as well as the minimum sentences that are so very important--make our bill the right alternative.

I have said before that I feel so strongly about this issue that I intend to vote for, of course, my amendment, which I think is strengthening; most certainly for Senator Cornyn's amendment, which is a strengthening amendment to the underlying bill--it is included in our substitute as well; Senator Cornyn is another cosponsor, as is

Senator McConnell, of the substitute--but I intend to vote for the underlying bill even with its flaws because I wish to make sure there is no cutting off of the aspect of this most important legislation because of the time limit of our action.

If the Senator wishes to speak further, I am happy to yield.

I thank the Senator. I would just say I have had a long record in this area. When I was a member of the State legislature, Texas passed the most far-reaching protection for victims of rape in the whole country. I was the lead sponsor of that bill. When we passed it in 1975, it then became the model other States used to strengthen the laws to help these victims.

One day, just in this last year, I was at a grocery store in Dallas, TX. A woman came up to my truck I was driving, knocked on the window. I had no idea what she was going to say, but I rolled down the window. She said: Senator Hutchison, thank you for the bill you passed in Texas in 1975--because I was a victim of rape, and I would not have gone forward without your protections. But I did and that man was sent to prison.

That is what we are here for, and that is why I have this strong substitute.

Mr. President, No. 2095 takes the part of the bill that reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act and continues those, but it does important things that are not in the underlying bill:

No. 1, a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for aggravated sexual assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim unconscious is not in the underlying bill. It is in our substitute.

No. 2, it grants administrative subpoena power to U.S. Marshals so they can have the ability to quickly find a known sexual predator. This has been cited by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as a key part of the need to help get these offenders when they are going to prey on children. It is not in the underlying bill; it is in ours.

It protects Indian women on reservations in a constitutional way. The underlying bill has been questioned as to constitutionality by the Congressional Research Service.

And it also does what the Cornyn and Klobuchar amendments attempted to do and assure that we get this backlog of people who have committed rape off the streets.

Please support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back time on our side.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Violence Against Women Act. Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a bill that has many good parts, and I was listening to the things he said about it and agree with many of them. Because there are some areas of disagreement, I have worked with many of my colleagues to create a substitute that has the same coverage but is better in other ways also. So I hope we will have the ability to look at both and that from that we would be able to pass a bill out of the Senate to address the violence against women we see in our country.

Our bill, as Senator Leahy's bill does, actually covers men, who we know now are also subject to this kind of violence. So our bill covers men who have suffered the same kinds of victimization as women and whom we covered 16 years ago.

I would like to point out that I have been championing this issue for a very long time. When I was in the Texas Legislature, I learned there were serious problems in the reporting and prosecution of rape in our country. The State statute in Texas in the early 1970s discouraged reporting because of embarrassment to the victim and the difficulty of obtaining convictions because victims were not willing to come forward and report rapes because they felt they were treated like a criminal sometimes. If they actually did report it and agree to help the prosecution, their treatment on the witness stand was so humiliating they often gave up. So the reports of rape were often not made. This was true in Texas, but it was true throughout our country.

I worked with Democratic members in our legislature and led the effort to strengthen victim protection in this area, and it included limiting irrelevant questions asked by law enforcement officials and attorneys and redefining the meaning of consent, all of which enhanced the privacy rights of our victims. We created a statute of limitations that was more in line with other crimes of assault and battery.

Our bill was so good when it passed in 1975 that it became a model for other States that were passing legislation. So this was the beginning of the effort to do just that. It was the model bill many States looked at to adapt and adopt in their States to protect the victims of violent crimes in our country.

In the Senate, it was my bill that created the Amber Alert system that would go across State lines. I worked with Senator Feinstein on that bill, and our bill has saved 550 abducted children. That has been documented. So we have been able to do some things on a bipartisan basis. I have also strongly supported the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and stalking across State lines was also in my bill. So I have been in this effort for a long time.

Of course, 16 years ago when the Violence Against Women Act first passed, we did so unanimously, on a voice vote. Everyone supported it. We now have to renew this bill yet again, and I hope we are going to come together tomorrow to pass it.

I am going to support Senator Leahy's bill. I like many parts of it. I also think we can improve it in the areas I have included in my substitute, and I hope we will be able to pass that as well. Our bill keeps much of the committee-reported bill intact. For instance, I am cosponsoring Senator Klobuchar's bill to take the stalking bill I passed originally into cyber stalking because that was not a problem when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act but is a problem today.

The current legislation I am going to introduce will update and strengthen current law and fix some weaknesses that I think are in Senator Leahy's bill. Our bill updates current law by mandating tougher sentences for violent crimes, increasing support for sexual assault investigations and rape kit testing, and requiring more effective Justice Department oversight of grant programs to ensure scarce funds aren't wasted. This was done as a result of the IG in the Justice Department saying there was not enough oversight and not enough auditing of the grants to ensure they go to the victims and victims' rights organizations for which they are intended. Our bill is one I certainly hope we will be able to pass.

One of the trends--and not a good trend--in this country right now is the downward curve of sentences handed out in Federal courts for child pornography. The most recent report to Congress from the U.S. Sentencing Commission notes that child pornography defendants are being sentenced to terms below Federal sentencing guidelines in 45 percent of the cases. Almost half of these defendants are receiving less than the recommended sentences. In one particularly egregious instance, a man was convicted of knowingly possessing hundreds of child pornography pictures and videos of 8- to-10-year-old girls being abused. I can hardly even talk about that, but even worse, the sentencing guidelines called for this man to receive 63 to 78 months of imprisonment, yet he was sentenced to 1 day in prison. That is ridiculous. It is obscene in and of itself.

Our bill would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in these cases. If I could have written this bill by myself, it would have been more. So a minimum of 1 year for child pornography showing 8- to-10- year-old girls being violated. That is hard to talk about, and we need to do something about it. Our substitute does create a minimum sentence for this type of violation.

We have many other provisions in our bill that are very strong. My substitute is one I think we can put together with Senator Leahy's bill when we go to conference. I know the House is going to pass a bill. They are introducing their own. We will go to conference on this bill, and we will come out with a good bill if everyone will cooperate because we are on the same path.

I think our bill is a good and solid one. I am looking forward to talking about it tomorrow, having a vote, and I hope we will be able to go forward with the sincerity I think everyone has on this issue.

I think Senator Cornyn has a wonderful amendment that will also increase getting rid of the backlog in the rape testing kits so that people who are guilty of these crimes can be found through the testing and stopped from committing future crimes on victims. That is the purpose. So Senator Cornyn and I hope to be able to have our amendments brought forward tomorrow--two amendments--and with Senator Leahy's bill, we can pass this and send it to the House.

Something is going to pass the Senate, and I hope we will just have a minimum ability to move on our very respectable alternatives or amendments and then go to conference, where we can come out with a bill that extends this very important act in our country.

Mr. President, I have four letters of support for our bill. One letter is from a rape prevention and victim protection group. The PROTECT group says

their support is for strengthening Federal sentencing of child sexual exploitation. The Shared Hope International organization is very supportive of the parts of our bill that have gotten into the international realm of trafficking. The Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, which is the largest rape victim organization in America, has written a very strong letter of support, as has the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

I hope we will be able to talk again tomorrow about these pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the four letters to which I referred.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 3606, the JOBS Act, which we passed in the Senate last Thursday, March 22, 2012 by a vote of 73 26. I am very pleased that this legislation passed with such strong bipartisan support, particularly because it includes a measure which I authored to update the shareholder threshold before which banks must register their securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Title VI of the JOBS Act is based off of S. 1941, which I introduced on December 5, 2011 with Senator Mark Pryor. Section 601 of this title increases the registration threshold for banks and bank holding companies to 2,000 persons and the deregistration threshold to 1,200 person.

As the author of Title VI of the JOBS Act, I welcome today's consideration of H.R. 3606 in the House of Representatives and the endorsement that President Obama has given this job-creating legislation in a Statement of Administration Policy. The new thresholds for registration and deregistration are effective upon the President's signature since no rulemaking is necessary. It is the intent of Congress that this new law should apply immediately to banks and bank holding companies so that they can raise additional capital to increase lending in their communities.

Madam President, one of the six components of the House-passed JOBS Act is a measure I sponsored here in the Senate to foster capital formation in the community banking industry. I appreciate the support of Senator Toomey and twelve additional cosponsors, including Senators Pryor, McCaskill and Bill Nelson. Our bill would update the threshold before a bank must register its securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission from 500 shareholders to 2,000. It is Title 6 in the JOBS Act before us today. My colleague Senator Toomey has a bill contained in the JOBS Act as well that would raise the shareholder threshold for all companies. Senator Toomey's legislation is contained in Title 5 of the JOBS Act.

On this point, my understanding is that Sections 501 and 601 of the JOBS Act address two distinct classes of issuers. One is a general provision for all issuers other than banks and bank holding companies-- and the other one applies to banks and bank holding companies. I ask the Senator, is this correct?

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand and add my experiences with and admiration for Senator Barbara Mikulski. It is fitting that she is now the longest serving woman in the U.S. Congress.

When I first got here--I was elected in 1993--Barbara Mikulski, as the dean of the women in the Senate, had a workshop the previous year for the newly elected Democratic women Senators. When I arrived in 1993, she expanded it to include all new women Senators, and her sort of opening comment was, civility starts with us.

Surely, she has carried through as the dean of the women of the Senate to ensure that all the new women get their bearings in the Senate, that they get the advice of the ones who have been here before. It has been a huge help and really a fun opportunity for us to get to know each other on a personal level as we have our women Senators' dinners.

From this came a book Senator Mikulski and I worked on together. The genesis of the book--which became ``Nine and Counting,'' the nine women Senators who were here in the year 2000--came from a meeting called by Senator Mikulski to meet with the women of Northern Ireland, along with the women of Ireland, when there was so much strife in that country. Barbara Mikulski called all of the women Senators together, our nine, to give encouragement and advice to the women who were trying to bring the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland together so that there could be a peaceful conclusion to the conflicts in Northern Ireland. From that, as we were sharing our stories to show the women of Northern Ireland how much they could do, from our experiences and our overcoming of obstacles, Barbara Mikulski and I sat down and said:

You know, I think we have a book here. If each of the nine

women Senators could write a chapter about our obstacles and

our beginnings in politics and help encourage other young

women and girls to aspire to and be able to succeed in

politics, then we ought to do it.

So we worked with a publisher. We got together and decided how we would lay it out. We then decided as a group that we would give all of the proceeds to the Girl Scouts of America because almost each of us had been a Girl Scout at one point.

From so from that we put a book out, which is still being sold here in the Senate bookshop called ``Nine and Counting.'' It has given a lot of money to the Girl Scouts of America, to a leadership fund so that they can continue to create girls who will be leaders in our country. But that started with the meeting Barbara put together for those of us who could maybe give advice and help these women of Northern Ireland.

When I came into the Senate in 1993, the first thing I wanted to do was give equal treatment to women who work at home in their ability to save for retirement as those who workout outside the home. I had the experience, as a single working woman, of putting aside some money for my IRA, and then when I married my husband Ray, I found out I could put aside only $250 in an IRA. I said: Wait a minute. Why would someone working inside the home--a woman

who is probably going to need retirement security more than any of us-- not be able to save for her own retirement security if she is a married woman? So I authored the Homemaker IRA, and of course I wanted to have a Democrat lead because we had a Democratic Congress. So I asked Senator Mikulski, and she said she would absolutely sign on--as she always does--when it is something that is going to benefit women. So it became the Hutchison-Mikulski bill. I said to Barbara: I want this bill to pass. I don't care if my name is first. I would love to put your name first if you think that will help us get it through. She said: Absolutely not. I would not take your name off that bill for anything because it was your idea. There are not very many people in this body who would make that gesture and also put her weight behind the passage of the bill.

Of all the things I have done and that we have done together, Barbara, and of all the things that bill is going to affect the most people in our country because now we have the Homemaker IRA that passed in 1996 that allows women--whether they are married and working at home or outside the home and single or married--they will be able to set aside the same amount. Fortunately, that amount has grown, and so it is not $2,000, but it can be $2,500 or $3,000 or $5,000, depending on their age. It is a wonderful thing we were able to do together.

Senator Mikulski and I also worked on behalf of Afghan women. When we started hearing the atrocities that were happening to the women of Afghanistan that were brought back by great women's organizations, such as Vital Voices, that told stories of not only unequal treatment of women in Afghanistan but inhumane treatment of women in Afghanistan. Senator Mikulski, Senator Clinton, and I introduced the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act, which was signed into law in December of 2001, which authorized funding for women in Afghanistan and Afghan refugee women. Political participation was supported for Afghan women, and we followed up with appropriations. I have to say our Republican President, President Bush, and our Democratic President, President Obama, have always said American money will go into Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else to support equally the education of girls and boys; that we would support women where they are not being treated as equals on a human rights basis. So our Presidents have stood and, of course, our bipartisanship in Congress has done the right thing. Again, Senator Mikulski is a leader in that area.

I cannot think of a stronger supporter in this Senate than Barbara Mikulski in the area of NASA. I wish to say Senator Bill Nelson also has been such a strong supporter, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander, but Senator Mikulski and I now are the--she is the chairman and I am the ranking Republican on the committee that is appropriating for NASA. We are also fortunate to have Chairman Jay Rockefeller on the authorizing and oversight committee for NASA. He, too, has been such a strong leader in assuring that we continue America's preeminence in space.

When the rubber hits the road in appropriations, Senator Mikulski has been there to say: We are going to have the science in the Hubble telescope, which has given us so much information, as well the James Webb telescope. Now, of course, we have the human space flight issues and Barbara Mikulski has been right there saying, of course we are going to utilize the International Space Station, of course we are going to keep America's priorities in space because it has done so much for our economy and our jobs and our technology and our health care improvements, but it has also been a national security issue that Barbara Mikulski recognizes, first and foremost.

I cannot match a lot of the stories about Barbara Mikulski and her personality, but I can tell you I took Barbara Mikulski to tour the Johnson Space Center in 2001, and we did a wonderful event at Baylor College of Medicine to talk about the research that is being done in the biomedical sciences and on the space station. I thought, I am going to bring Barbara where we can show her a little bit of Texas.

We know Texas has a lot of personality and sometimes we are thought to have a little too much fun, but I will tell you what, Barbara is one of us. I brought her to the Houston rodeo. During the month of the Houston rodeo, everybody is ``Go Texas,'' and everybody dresses Texan, which means cowboy, and we have a great time. So I took Barbara Mikulski into the steer auction, where just this past Saturday a steer was sold for $460,000.

It is a grand champion steer, I might say. All of that money goes for scholarships for our young people to go to college.

Barbara came into the steer auction, and she looked around. There were 2,000 people at the breakfast before all these people are going to go and bid on the steers so we can fund scholarships. We were all dressed appropriately for Texas, and she reached over to my ear and she whispered: Now, Kay, if we were here on Monday morning and we went to a chamber of commerce meeting, do these people look like this? I love to tell that story in Houston because it gets huge laughs. She won over everybody in Houston. They adored her from the beginning. She put on her cowboy hat, she rode in the grand entry on a buckboard and she became an honorary Texan in our hearts. So Barbara Mikulski knows how to win over others.

Let me mention one of my early experiences when I first came into the Senate. There was an effort to have health care reform. A program was put forward and this particular program had some things that were good, but one of the things in it was that no health insurance coverage would be required for women to have mammograms if they were 40 or below. I will tell you something, the biggest eruption in the Senate was Barbara Mikulski saying: Are you kidding? I will not let this go by me in the Senate. We are not going to say that a woman who is 40 or under is not going to be eligible for insurance coverage for a mammogram. It is not going to happen. Barbara Mikulski took the lead, and I am going to tell you, the first thing that came out of that plan was that provision, and it will never be in a plan as long as Barbara Mikulski is in the Senate. So I am just going to tell anybody who is looking at health care reform, take a little advice, don't mess with Barbara Mikulski because we are going to have mammograms.

Not only that, Barbara Mikulski came forward in the next month and passed unanimously in the Senate a mammogram standards bill. During this process she learned that there were varying degrees of standards of mammography. She was going to make sure there were standards that every clinic would have, that every piece of equipment would have and she led the effort. It is law today.

I will end with yet another accomplishment; that is, single-sex education in public schools. Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri started looking at the issue and said: We need to allow our public schools to offer single-sex education--meaning girl schools and boy schools-- because so many of us have seen that we have to adapt education for the needs of each individual child to the best of our ability. We know there are so many wonderful private schools for boys and girls, but we could hardly have a public school that would be single sex in this country in the 1990s.

So Jack Danforth started the effort, and when he left the Senate, I picked it up. The more I looked at it, the more I saw the benefits to boys and to girls--particularly in the middle and high school grades-- were palpable. Senators Clinton, Barbara Mikulski, Susan Collins, the three of them, had gone to an all-girls school. I had not, but they knew the benefits firsthand of single-sex education. Barbara was the product of single-sex education, having gone to a parochial school.

I first introduced the amendment in 1998, but it was in 2001--when the four of us came together--that we actually got the bill passed through an amendment and that amendment then not only made public single-sex education an option and legal, it also made it eligible for Federal funding grants similar to all our public schools.

I wish to say it has been one of the joys of my time in the Senate to work with Senator Barbara Mikulski, and I think this 4-foot-11-inch mighty-might has 10 times the impact. She has made an impact on Congress and an impact

on America because she is relentless, she is reasonable, she understands an issue, and she understands the importance of listening as well as talking. She is effective and she is respected. If there is anyone in the Senate who doesn't like her, respect her, and work well with her, I have not met them. When one is the longest serving woman in the Senate and Congress, they have worked with a lot of people. She is unanimously so well regarded, I have never met an enemy of hers.

I will close by saying the people who know her best love her most, and I cannot think of a finer thing to say about any person.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I am not going to call up my amendment that would limit the tolling federal highways, and limit tolling of Federal Interstates under the Pilot Program through which three facilities have been conditionally approved by the Department of Transportation. Senator Carper and I have talked, and his amendment, which would have expanded that, is also filed but is not going to be considered. Mine also was filed but it is not going to be considered.

Here is the point, though. It is time that we have a real discussion and a debate about tolling. We need to bring this out. I ask the chairman and ranking members of the committee to have a hearing. Let's talk about this.

When President Eisenhower said we need a National Highway System it was for the purpose of national security. That was his major purpose, but it has also clearly been a huge help for commerce, the ease of commerce and travel among our States. I don't think President Eisenhower ever envisioned that a State would then put tolls across an entire Federal highway and make the taxpayers--who have paid for 50 years to build these highways, and not just in their States--pay again to use them. To me, that is not in keeping with the vision of President Eisenhower to have a free system that supports national defense, connectivity, and commerce.

I am not going to offer my amendment and Senator Carper is not going to offer his amendment that would expand tolling. But I do think it is essential that we have a new policy for our highways that have been built for 50 years to give us the vision that President Eisenhower had of a National Highway System. We have completed it, the skeleton has been completed, now it is time to look at different ways of funding these highways. No. 1, I agree with tolling on one lane where there is at least the addition of a new free lane. That is fine so as long as you have the same number of free lanes for the people of the United States who have paid for these lanes and the truckers of the United States who are using these lanes. I do not object to tolling that adds new capacity, but to take all free lanes away and say we are going to toll the truckers and the taxpayers who have built and used these freeways is wrong. I think we should have a policy against it.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is here, Senator Boxer. I ask as we move through this--and I do hope we have this 2-year bill, and I commend her and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for a 2-year bill that does keep our infrastructure going. But I hope in the future, as Congress considers a long-term bill, that we would have a national discussion on tolling. I think we should adopt a policy that says, No. 1, we are not going to clog the freeways already built by taxpayers with toll lanes that make Americans pay again; and, No. 2, that we will open up the possibility that States that are donor States, that are giving their hard-earned tax dollars to other States that now have equal ability to build out, that they be allowed to opt out of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and use their transportation dollars for their needs.

We are a fast-growing State, as is the State of California. We need our highway dollars for our own priorities. I think that should be considered in the future.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about an important issue that is going to be addressed on the highway bill. I have an amendment that would basically say you cannot toll a Federal highway unless it is for the production of another free lane. This is an effort to curb a State from tolling every lane of a highway that has been built with Federal dollars by Federal taxpayers.

When President Eisenhower established the National Highway System, it was on behalf of national security that he made this monumental policy decision which has taken us years, tens of years to complete. It has had the added advantage of commerce--having a National Highway System where all of our States are connected with good quality Federal highways has been a huge boon for our country. That has been funded through highway user fees. The gasoline tax that everyone pays at the pump in our country has funded our Federal highway system.

However, the Federal highway system has now been completed. For a State to come in and toll every lane of an existing Federal highway is not only disingenuous, but it breaks faith with the Federal taxpayers who, for over 50 years, have paid into the highway trust fund so we would have a Federal highway system for all Americans and for the commerce among our States for them to use. Now, we have three States that have been approved by the Department of Transportation to do exactly what I wish to prohibit--toll lanes of an existing Federal highway. That would prohibit the free use of that whole highway that has been built with Federal dollars. My amendment would keep us from going beyond the three. The amendment is two. I would extend it to three because there are three that the Department of Transportation has approved, but I want to stop this practice from going further. It is wrong for the Federal Government to allow it, it is wrong for the States to ask for it. Instead, we need to allow the opposite, the opt- out ability for a State to say we want to spend our highway dollars on our priorities. That is what we ought to be doing.

I do not disagree with tolls that are going to create a new free lane. That would keep the faith with the people. It would expand the system and the people would be paying to expand the system. That can be done in an effective and, frankly, a responsible way. On the issue of allowing States to opt-out--Senator Portman has put in an amendment that I would support, except that he goes a little bit too far. Senator Portman and Senator Coburn have amendments that would allow an opt-out from the whole Federal highway fund, which includes transit. I think that goes too far.

I have a bill that would allow the opt-out of States that would be able to spend their highway funds the way they believe their priorities are set, but the 20 percent of the highway trust fund that goes for transit I think should be kept for the urban areas that need that kind of bus transportation, as well as intra-city and commuter rail. I think we ought to be able to keep that at the Federal level to determine what are the worthy grants. That is what the highway trust fund now does.

The Portman amendment would take that away and put it into the State highway department. That sounds good on the surface, but highway departments have, in general--certainly I can speak from the experience of my State--not focused on or prioritized mass transit. This is one of the reasons why our cities in Texas are clogged--and in Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and Austin it is getting worse.

I wish to see those cities be assured that transit funding would go forward as it is envisioned or I would be happy to amend my bill to say the 20 percent of transit funding could be opted out but it would have to go for transit funding in the States and the States could then set the priorities. But transit should not be shortchanged by the highway departments that have not prioritized mass transit.

I think we need to work a little more. I could not support the Portman amendment the way it is written, but I want to gather the people who believe that we should have an opt-out of our highway funds and get a stronger mass--which I think Senator Coburn and Senator Portman would do, if they would take the transit out of their amendment.

I think we have some work to do. I wish to support the Portman amendment but not in the form it is at present. I hope down the road other States will want to be able to opt out as well. But for now, I hope we will be able to stop the tolling of our Federal highways as a first step to keep faith with the American taxpayers who, for 50 years, have built the Federal highway system and deserve to be able to drive to any State on a Federal highway without being shut out by States that decide to put a toll on it for their own purposes. These are Federal highways built with Federal tax dollars and they should be open to every taxpayer in America to use those freeways for commerce. I hope my amendment will be considered.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I see the Senator from Arkansas on the Senate floor. I will follow the Senator from Arkansas on another piece of legislation about which I hope to speak, but I do want to take about 5 minutes to read the letter William Barret Travis sent from the Alamo. 176 years ago tomorrow, March 2, 1836, is the anniversary date of Texas' independence.

I am going to read this letter in commemoration of Texas Independence Day because it was on that date that Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Fifty-nine brave men signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, putting their lives, and the lives of their families, on the line to declare that ``the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic.''

I am proud that my great-great grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, was willing to sign that document that declared our freedom. In fact my son Houston is named Houston Taylor Hutchison for that Texas patriot. I am humbled to hold the seat that was first held by another signer, and one of Charles S. Taylor's best friends, and that was Thomas Rusk, who was the Secretary of War who defended the Declaration of Independence by fighting at the Battle of San Jacinto.

As was the case in the American Revolution, our freedom was ultimately secured through the actions of the brave Texans who fought and died on the battlefield. The late Senator John Tower started the tradition of a Texas Senator reading the Travis letter, and it was continued by Phil Gramm, and I took it over in 1994. This is something we do to tell America and to assure that Texans always remember this day in our history because after this, of course, we became a republic and we were a republic for 10 years before we became a part of the United States.

So it is with pride that I read--for the last time as a Senator representing Texas--the wonderful letter that was written by COL William Barret Travis. He said:

To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world--

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 are to be put to the

sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with

a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the

walls. I shall never surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism

and 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 his own honor and that of his

country. Victory or Death.

William Barret Travis Lt. Col. Comdt.

True to his word, he did not surrender. The Mexicans did have thousands of reinforcements. He drew a line in the sand at the Alamo. All but one man bravely crossed that line or was carried over it on a stretcher to accept the challenge to stay and fight. These men knew they would never leave the Alamo alive, but they heroically defended the Alamo for 13 days; the 13 days of glory, as it is known, against a force that eventually outnumbered them by more than 10 to 1.

William Barrett Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and the rest of the 189 men at the Alamo gave their lives fighting for something greater than themselves. It was that delay that gave GEN Sam Houston the time to organize his men and retreat to a point they could defend, which eventually became the Battle of San Jacinto. Just seven weeks later, on April 21, 1836, Sam Houston--because of that delay that was given to them by William Barret Travis and the 189 men at the Alamo--was able to take a stand at the Battle of San Jacinto, and Texas was a republic from that time forward, for 10 years. Texas is the only State that was a republic when it entered the United States. With that distinction, we like to share our vivid history.

It has been a wonderful opportunity for me to be able to read this letter every year. I feel sure it will be continued by Senator Cornyn or my successor in this seat. We will always make sure people know we fought for our freedom just as the American patriots did, and we are very proud to have that rich and colorful history.

So I thank the Senator from Arkansas, and I look forward to serving the rest of my term, but this will be the last time I get to share this piece of history.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Arkansas for his kind remarks. I have so enjoyed serving with his father before him and then him. It is a point of history for Arkansas that this Senator

Pryor followed his father into the Senate. I appreciate so much that we are contiguous with the State of Arkansas and that so many of the people who settled the West did come through Arkansas. Some stayed there and some came on to Texas. Our whole history of the West is so exciting, and I am glad people remember it.