Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 30 seconds to Senator McCain.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, to put this in perspective, when I hear all of this debate, it is as though everything has to be more government, bigger government, government is better than the private sector. Medicare Advantage is an option. It is not a mandate. It is an option that allows seniors another choice to get eye care, hearing aids. Let's let seniors have this option. Let's not cut it away from them. We need more competition, not less.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are the next 3 votes 10-minute votes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Mikulski amendment and the Murkowski amendment because I feel very passionate about women's issues. In fact, Senator Mikulski and I have worked throughout my time in the Senate and her time before me on these very issues--assuring that women's health care concerns, which are different from men's in many instances, are a part of any health care coverage in our country, and ongoing we must assure the same. I have been an advocate for cancer screening services for women, and I was dismayed when I saw the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force a few weeks ago issuing new guidelines for cancer screening for women--breast cancer screening for women. We have all lived with breast cancer throughout the course of the history of women, but especially in the last probably 25 years the strides that we have made in saving lives and in the survivability of women with breast cancer is because we have had early detection. We don't have a cure for breast cancer, and we are all fighting for that cure, but until we get it, the first line of defense is early detection. So now we have a new task force recommendation that says everything we have had and enjoyed over the last 25 years in saving women's lives is no longer relevant because now, before the age of 50, you don't need a mammogram, and after the age of 50 it is every other year. Well, I know Senator Mikulski and I agree we do not think that is right. Neither did any other woman in the Senate when that was proposed years ago by President Clinton. We all stood up and said no. I am standing up and I am saying no once again, and I am sure every woman in the Senate is, as many women in America are. But the Mikulski amendment doesn't actually fully address the problem of having the task force--which is relied on 14 times in the bill before us--as the arbiter of what is necessary for our government program and that it then will surely become the private sector standard as well. That task force even has money allocated to advertize its task force recommendations. So rather than the Mikulski amendment severing the ties with the task force, the amendment now has another government agency that has the same capability to basically interfere between the woman and her doctor, which is where we want the decisions to be made. Coverage decisions will be dictated by both the task force and a new Health Resources and Services Administration entry into the mix. While I certainly agree with Senator Mikulski about the importance of preventive services for women and insurance coverage decisions, I can't support her amendment because we still have not one but two government task forces and committees that will be in the middle of these health care coverage decisions. I think the coverage decisions should be made by doctors and their patients. That is why I have joined with Senator Murkowski in offering the alternative approach. This is what we should expect from any future health care reform, and it is certainly what we expect today. The Murkowski amendment will leave the medical decisions to the guidelines established by those who know medical treatment best, which is our own doctors. In fact, we have just received a CBO assessment of what the Murkowski amendment would cost, and it actually says there will be a savings. So rather than the Mikulski amendment, which would spend $1 billion over 10 years, the Murkowski amendment would actually save $1.4 billion over 10 years. Why? Because the Murkowski amendment relies on the combined commonsense and clinical judgment of American physicians.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. So, Madam President, I urge a vote for the Murkowski amendment. I know we have the same goals as Senator Mikulski and her amendment, but I don't believe the Mikulski amendment achieves the goal of having a woman and her doctor make the decisions for her. That is the key that I think is so important in this debate. I urge a vote for the Murkowski amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk about health care legislation. That is what we have been talking about now on the Senate floor for the last week. I expect we will be talking about it for quite a long time. We have just begun considering this bill, and the American people are growing in their opposition. According to a new Gallup Poll released yesterday, American independent voters now oppose this bill by an 18- point margin: 53 percent against it, 37 percent for it. This Gallup Poll states: Despite the considerable efforts of Congress and the President to pass health insurance reform, the public remains reluctant to endorse that goal. But this poll is just confirming what we have really known for months; that is, the bill before us--and the one that passed the House before that--is the wrong approach. We are not against reform of health care; we need reform of health care. People are concerned about the rise of premiums in health care. So we ought to be looking at ways to address that issue. By doing what? By cutting the costs in the system and by allowing people to have more affordable health care options, none of which is in this bill. Americans do not support $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. They do not support $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes. They do not support mandates. They do not support our growing national debt, which has hit its ceiling at $12 trillion. They certainly do not support a government takeover of our health care system. Let's talk about the Medicare cuts. The Americans who are most impacted are those we are usually trying to protect: our seniors. I hear others on the Senate floor saying there are no cuts to Medicare. I am looking at the language in the bill. I am looking at the description of the bill, and the fact is there is $135 billion in cuts to hospitals, $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, $15 billion in cuts to nursing homes, $8 billion in cuts to hospice care. That is nearly $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. That is $500 billion. In Texas, over half a million seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. We know this bill will reduce their choices and the benefits they have today--benefits such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, dental benefits, preventive screenings, flu shots, home care, medical equipment, and more. So more and more seniors are not going to take the Medicare Advantage option which they now take and enjoy. This is not a solid approach. I have heard others on the Senate floor on the other side of the aisle say it was Republicans who attempted to cut Medicare in previous years. The Republican effort to cut Medicare growth was $10 billion over 5 years. Not one Democrat voted for a $10 billion cut over 5 years. Yet today they are touting a $500 billion cut over 10 years. Mr. President, $10 billion was out of the question, and $500 billion is now something that can be accepted? There is no reason to cut Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion. We should save Medicare. We should make it last longer and be more stable. But $500 billion in cuts is just going to make it worse. It is going to make it insupportable. Health care for our seniors will surely suffer on its face. That is a fact. It is a fair question to ask: Well, what are Republicans for? Are you for health care reform? Well, of course we are for health care reform. Every one of us pays health insurance premiums, and we know people who are complaining about the rise in premium costs, especially small businesspeople. I sympathize with that. We all do. So what is our approach? Step-by-step reform. What the American people are looking for is reform that does not cripple the health care industry in our country, that does not bankrupt our country, and that does not include a government takeover of the health care system. There are commonsense, fiscally responsible reforms that Republicans have been promoting for years and would support today if we could have a bill that had any Republican input whatsoever, which this one does not--allowing small businesses to pull together and purchase insurance. Sitting on the floor with us today is Senator Mike Enzi. Senator Enzi was the chairman, previously, of the HELP Committee. He produced a bill. He produced a bill that would have given more people coverage than the bill before us today--allowing small businesses to come together and pool their risk pool, make it larger, and give much more affordable premiums to more small businesses so they could afford to do what every small business wants to do; and that is, offer health care coverage to their employees. But the Democrats killed Senator Enzi's bill. That would have been the first step to health care reform. We could have passed that years ago and been on the right track increasing the number of people who have affordable options for health care. No. 2, reducing frivolous lawsuits. Where States have taken the measure to reduce frivolous lawsuits, such as Texas and a few other States, it has been a phenomenal success. It has brought down the cost of medical malpractice premiums for doctors. It has increased the number of doctors who are willing to practice medicine again. It has increased the number of doctors who will go into rural areas that are underserved. It works. The estimates are that if we had a part of this bill that would reduce frivolous lawsuits, it would save about $50 billion a year. If we could reduce $50 billion out of the cost in the system that is not going for anything productive, we could then put that into either helping shore up Medicare or give the Medicare reimbursements to doctors and health care providers, to hospitals. We could help the system by cutting those costs. That is something Republicans would support in a heartbeat. How about tax incentives to people who are buying their own health care insurance? If we provided families with a tax credit worth $5,000, it would give them the ability to put that on a health care policy for their families. It would cut the cost and allow them to have an affordable option. Another is a tax deduction above the line or a tax credit, which would be a huge incentive to employers, as well as to individuals, who would be able to have that kind of help in covering the cost of health care. We are willing to support that. Another is allowing individuals to purchase insurance across State lines; tear down that bureaucracy that keeps people from going across State lines and getting the very best deal for themselves and their families. Even an exchange could work. That is something that is embedded in the bill, but it is an exchange that has so many mandates that it is going to raise the cost for everyone. Just a simple exchange that has competition and transparency could actually make a difference in cutting the costs of health care. So I think there are many things we could do to reform health care, if we could have Republican input and a bipartisan bill that would offer more affordable health care coverage to more people in our country. These are ideas that would improve competition in the marketplace, reduce costs, increase access. We do not need a government-run plan to achieve that objective. I will be offering an amendment that will allow States to opt out, without penalties, of this plan, if it passes, not just the government part of the plan, but all of the harmful measures. We should be providing choices, not forcing people into government plans. States should not be forced to participate in the government plan. They should not be forced to subsidize it. They should not pay for a plan through increased taxes, nor mandates on businesses. We want businesses to grow. We want businesses to hire people. We want to have jobs created. This bill is a job killer. Has anyone noticed we have one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression in this country, that over 3 million people in this country have lost their jobs this year? Mr. President, 300,000 of them live in my home State of Texas. Yet we are talking about a bill that is going to increase mandates on businesses and surely will reduce the number of people who can be hired. There is a disconnect we need to put back together. We need to talk about options that can work, that can give more people health insurance coverage at a reasonable price and most certainly not be job killers, with mandates and taxes on small businesses that already are having a hard time staying afloat, creating jobs, and providing health care for their employees. The first amendment we will vote on tonight is the Mikulski amendment that has to do with breast cancer screening and other preventive services for women. Senator Mikulski and I have worked together on women's health issues for a long time in this body. Two years ago, we championed the reauthorization of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, which provides screening and diagnostic services. So we know how important it is to address women's health care issues. I was in complete disagreement with this new task force recommendation on mammograms and the need for mammograms for women under the age of 50. But I am very concerned that with the recent recommendations of the task force and how this health care bill that is before us relies on the task force, that the amendment is not going to do anything to solve that problem. The health care reform bill relies on the task force 14 times, and it even allocates money to pay for advertising the task force recommendations. This amendment does not address the problem. Rather than severing the ties with that task force so it will not become the norm, the amendment now allows yet another government agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration, to interfere with the relationship between a woman and her doctor. So now coverage decisions will be dictated by both the task force and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Instead of letting doctors and their patients make the decision about when a woman needs a mammogram, we have now not one government task force but two that we will have to intervene in that decision. Oh, my gosh, that does not make any kind of common sense. While I agree with Senator Mikulski about the great importance of preventive care for women, I disagree with this approach because it still injects a government agency or task force into the decision that is going to determine whether women have access, easy access, full access to the health care of their choice. The item we will be considering after the Mikulski amendment and the Murkowski amendment is the McCain motion. The McCain motion is going to strike the Medicare cuts from this bill. His motion, which I certainly endorse and support, would send the bill back for a rewrite. It would send it back to the Finance Committee with instructions to give us a new bill that does not include $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, a bill that would not be paid for on the backs of our seniors whom we should be protecting. As I mentioned previously, the bill that is before us would cut nearly $\1/2\ trillion--$500 billion--from Medicare. It will not make it stronger; it will fund more government spending, more government takeover in our health care system. Health care reform should not mean slashing Medicare by cutting $\1/2\ trillion from seniors' care. This is not reform. If we can support the McCain motion to go back to the drawing board and look for a way we can have a bipartisan bill that would have Republican as well as Democratic input and agree to step-by-step reforms that would increase access, reduce costs and not take away choices of seniors and certainly not have a government takeover of health care, then I think we could produce something the President would sign and the American people would embrace. Right now, everyone I talk to in Texas is scared to death. They are scared to death of this big government takeover of our health care system because they know that when government gets involved, we are not going to have the quality we have known in the past, that the jobs are not going to be in the private sector, that we are not going to have the choice. When this bill--which relies on this task force 14 times to make the recommendations that would determine what the coverage is of the government plan--was put before us, all of a sudden people started to say women don't need mammograms before the age of 50, when we have always said it was after the age of 40; and after the age of 50, with a doctor's input, and that it would generally be on an annual basis. The former head of the Red Cross, Bernadine Healy, and many of our health care agencies and task forces said that is going to kill women. That is going to kill women if they don't have early detection. Early detection is all we have for breast cancer right now. We don't have a cure. We only have early detection as a way to fight breast cancer. But all of a sudden, the task force that is relied on by this bill says we don't need mammograms before the age of 50; and after the age of 50, every 2 years, not every year; and after the age of 72, not at all. That is not health care reform. That is not what the President promised, and it is certainly not what Congress ought to assent to. We can produce health care reform. We can lower the cost. We can give people access. We can give people choices. We don't have to mandate taxes and hurt businesses in this economic climate to do it. We have the capability to do something right. If we pass the McCain motion, we can go back to the drawing boards and do this right. That is the most important thing I hope we will do this week in the Senate for the American people, and they deserve it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as has been mentioned several times, the majority leader unveiled the Democrats' health care reform bill yesterday around 5 o'clock. This bill was drafted behind closed doors. There was no Republican input. It didn't have any transparency until yesterday at 5 o'clock, despite the promises we have heard that government would be more transparent in this new administration. The 2,000-page bill released yesterday is expected to have a vote to proceed to it within the next 2 days. The bill is 354,654 words. To put it in perspective, the Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words; Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contained 266 words; the Ten Commandments has 297 words. This is over 350,000 words. Why don't we have time to read this bill, digest it, allow our amendments to be put in the bill language, because, clearly, this bill will need amendments? The health care of our citizens may be the most personal of all things to every person and every family. We are a democracy and the American people have a right to be heard on all issues but especially on this type of issue. We should be given the opportunity to read and hear what is in this bill, to hear it discussed, to hear from our constituents because it ought to be on the Internet. That is why we have the Internet access to bills that are introduced in the Senate. But by the time our constituents have a chance to read it, we will already have had a vote on whether to proceed to the bill. Even after a cursory review, I know this bill includes changes that are disastrous to families, health care providers, and the economy. Higher taxes, mandates--especially for small businesses--penalties, cuts to Medicare, higher premiums, restricted choices, a government plan--the list goes on. The bill includes almost $1 trillion in taxes, including a new Medicare payroll tax; $8 billion in taxes on individuals who don't buy coverage; $149 billion in taxes on employers who don't offer the right percentage of coverage to employees; $102 billion in taxes on insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies which study after study have shown will be passed on to the people who get these services and equipment. To make matters worse, the bill includes almost $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare. It is guaranteed to reduce choices and coverage for seniors. In my State of Texas, 400,000 people love their Medicare Advantage, or at least they have it and are satisfied. They will lose Medicare Advantage under this bill. The Democrats are touting the cost of the bill as meeting the President's goal of being under $1 trillion because CBO scored it at $849 billion. But this is a budgetary sleight of hand, because what is actually being scored is the years 2010 to 2019. The actual spending in this bill won't take effect until 2014. They are taking the 10 years with 4 years where the bill is not spending anything. If you score it for the 10 years following when it actually comes into being, 2014 to 2023, the bill costs $2.5 trillion, not $849 billion. Given more time to analyze this bill, who knows what else we would discover? If the Democrats think this is the reform Americans wanted, why rush the bill through the Senate? Why rush it through before we have the ability to review details? The right approach is available. My colleagues and I have proposed commonsense and fiscally responsible ways to improve affordable access to health care. We need to do that. We have never said we don't need reform. What we have said is we need reform that will give more affordable access for coverage to Americans who do not have that access today. We should reassess the goals of health care reform and implement policies that we know will reduce costs. For sure, reducing frivolous lawsuits. Study after study has shown the benefits of medical malpractice reform. In Texas, we have tort reform. We have seen a dramatic increase in physicians who are willing to practice medicine. It has lowered the cost of medical malpractice premiums, and doctors have been able to do their work with their patients with much more freedom, knowing they do not need to order unnecessary tests just to cover themselves in case they get sued. The majority insists on rejecting this suggestion that we have medical malpractice reform in the bill. Yet there is probably not anything that will save as much money as medical malpractice reform, that puts commonsense standards in place for frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits at all. I will offer an amendment, or at least prepare one and hope to be able to offer it, that would cap damages, reduce malpractice premiums, and encourage doctors to practice in medically underserved areas. So many of our underserved areas, especially rural areas, have no doctors. There are counties in Texas that don't have a doctor within hundreds of miles and several counties. That is because the medical malpractice premiums are so high, they cannot afford to do it. The small business premiums are going to go up, if this bill is passed. Small businesses already have a hard time offering coverage to their employees. Why would we make the problem worse, especially when we have the highest unemployment in decades? We should be allowing small businesses to pool together and buy plans. We have championed that proposal for years in the Senate, but we have never been able to get over the hurdles to pass a small business health plan. If we could do that, we could spread the risk. The bigger risk pools would produce lower premiums and allow more small businesses to have access to and offer their employees affordable health care coverage. Allowing businesses to pool doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it would not require tax increases, as we see in the bill before us. The Democrats are trying to address the problem of unaffordable insurance by offering credits to small businesses to offset the cost of premiums. But the credit only lasts for 2 years. That is hardly anything that is going to encourage businesses to take on the added cost when the credit lasts for 2 years. I will be preparing amendments that at least double that to 4 years, expand the eligibility and duration of these credits so we can help small business people. But even 4 years is not enough. We should offer credits all the way through. Offering tax incentives. There are small businesses and individuals in this country who have no access to affordable coverage. Why not give every individual who purchases their own health insurance the same tax break a corporation gets for offering health care coverage to their employees? Employees who receive insurance through their place of employment do not pay taxes on the premiums they spend for insurance. Why should individuals who purchase their own health care coverage be treated differently? I have a bill, with Senator DeMint, that will help provide insurance for more Americans through tax credits and competition. Our approach would be a tax credit for every individual, $2,000 per year, and for families $5,000 per year for their purchase of health insurance. This would allow individuals to purchase their policies and own them so they would not have to be affected by what their employer offers or if they change jobs. This is the kind of reform that could make a difference. How about creating a transparent marketplace online for consumers to go in and shop and hopefully have bigger risk pools, more competition, bringing the cost down? That is not the kind of marketplace that is in this bill. This exchange has so many mandates on the plans that, like the Massachusetts exchange, it would raise the cost of premiums and would not help in any way bring the cost down so that premiums are more affordable. These are the ideas that would improve competition in the marketplace. I can tell you, from the input I have received from my constituents since the bills have been out of committee, before the bill came to the floor or is on its way to the floor yesterday, because there were two committees that wrote bills that were put together and released yesterday, I have listened to what people say. I can tell you they don't want Medicare cuts. They don't want more taxes. Small businesses certainly don't want more mandates. They don't want government-run insurance. They know that a government plan is eventually going to crowd out the private insurance company plans throughout the country. I am going to be preparing an amendment that will allow States to opt out without penalties, not just of the government insurance plan but of all the harmful measures. Why would we have a government opt-out by States, if they are going to still have to pay the higher taxes, if they are going to have to pay higher premiums to pay for the other States that have the plan? States should not be forced to participate in the government plan, nor subsidize and pay for such a plan through increased taxes. I will prepare amendments that will exempt individuals and employers from the mandate to buy insurance, if this bill causes premiums to rise above their currently projected values. The solution to health care issues is not to give more power to the government. The solution is to give more power to the American people. They deserve a system that assures that America will have the best health care in the world. Which brings me to the new government task force that came out this week that is causing confusion at best and outrage at worst. That is the guidelines regarding screening for breast cancer. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women in this country. Whether and when to screen for breast cancer has been debated for decades. In 1993, the Clinton administration proposed the government takeover of health care. In that proposal put forward by the Clinton administration, there would be no payment for mammograms for women under the age of 50. After the age of 50, there would be payment in the government plan for a mammogram every 2 years, exactly what has just been recommended by the Federal task force. Since we have had the guidelines, which have been in place for many years, death rates from breast cancer have been declining. Since 1990, there are larger decreases seen in women younger than 50. The American Cancer Society states that these decreases are believed to be the result of early detection and increased awareness. The evidence has repeatedly shown that screening and early detection save lives. Unbelievably, the United States Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against routine mammograms for women under 50, saying it is not worth subjecting some patients to unnecessary biopsies, radiation, and stress. The task force also recommended against teaching women to do regular self-exams. We have to ask the questions: Why this change? Why now? Nothing substantial in the clinical evidence, but the panel decided to review the data with health care spending in mind. Nearly everyone realizes that fewer screenings mean insurance plans, including a government-run plan, will save money. This is how rationing begins. I hope America wakes up. This is how rationing begins. In an article by the Wall Street Journal today, they recognized that. It reads: Every Democratic version of ObamaCare makes this Task Force an arbiter of the benefits that private insurers will be required to cover as they are converted into government contractors. What are now merely recommendations will become de facto rules, and under national health care these kinds of cost analyses will inevitably become more common as government decides where finite tax dollars are allowed to go. That is a quote from the Wall Street Journal today. The American Cancer Society came out after this incredible recommendation and said, with its new recommendations, the task force is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them. So if the screening is going to save your life or your mother's or your sister's or your wife's, would that screening be worth it? Decisions about care must be between a doctor and a patient, not a doctor who has a loyalty to anyone but the patient, not a doctor who is working for the government and having to maintain government task force guidelines, such as the one we have just seen. That is the crux of the debate on this health care bill that has been released in the last 15 hours. I am so worried we are now beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. The President said once there is no reason we should not be catching diseases such as breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. It turns out, there is a reason: cost. The insurance companies have sort of said in the last day or so that they are not going to stop the coverage of mammograms for women starting at the age of 40. But when the government plan comes into effect, you know that every insurance company is going to say: If we are going to be competitive, we must adhere to the same standards as the government plan. It is going to happen. We must have time to look at this bill. We must have time to look at what is happening to the choices, to the health care, to Medicare. The cuts in services, the taxes, the mandates are going to overhaul the health care of our country. We must have time to look at this bill before we have a motion to proceed. We must have time to study it. We must let our constituency study it because they will catch things they care about and they will inform us, and that is why we are here. So I am very concerned that we are pushing too fast on something we should be taking slowly and carefully to assure we are not going to do something we are not sure is right, and where we have the chance, to change what we see is wrong. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate him giving us these statistics because it is 1 life out of 1,904 to be saved, but the choice is not going to be yours; it is going to be someone else who has never met you, who does not know your family history. That was in the Clinton government reform, takeover of health care in 1993, and it was soundly rejected. It was soundly rejected. It was part of the reason it was soundly rejected--this mammogram rationing before the age of 50--because we had hearings on this, and every woman in the Senate at the time rejected--rejected--that plan, rejected keeping women under the age of 50 from having mammograms paid for by insurance plans. So I thank the Senator from Arizona for connecting this and showing the statistics because this is not the American way of looking at our health care coverage. It is not the American way, and we must stop this government takeover of our health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson. We have worked very well to accommodate the requests of our colleagues to the extent we could. We will have the first vote on his amendment. I am going to support Senator Johnson's amendment on homeless veterans. Secretary Gates and Secretary Shinseki are at this very moment practically working on a way to better accommodate veterans who are homeless. It is not right for there ever to be a homeless veteran in our country because every one of them has done so much to protect our freedom. We do have $500 million in the bill. This would take $50 million that the Department says they do not need for other housing assistance for veterans and put it into the homeless sector so there can be a concerted effort to build facilities that would give care, as well as shelter, to these veterans. I support that. I hope in conference we will be able to consolidate all of this into a program that will meet the needs of our veterans. It has been great working on this bill. I am very pleased we could do it today rather than last week when so many of us in the Senate were at Fort Hood trying to show the great respect and sympathy for the community at Fort Hood and for all of our armed services, which meant we had to delay the bill from last Tuesday to this Tuesday. I think that was the right thing to do. I thank my colleague. I thank our great staffs who worked all this week to clear amendments. To the extent we could, I think we have certainly accommodated our other colleagues in the Senate for their priorities. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator if we could voice vote Senator Cochran before we take up the record vote we will take on Senator Johnson's amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have no objection.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, to comply with rule XLIV, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Senator Cochran in relation to his amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are working on the managers' package, and probably in the next 15 minutes we will clear what has been cleared for the managers' package. There are a couple of people working with objections. But by 12:15, we will clear the managers' package so that following that, in accordance with the previous unanimous consent agreement, at 2:15 we will vote on the Inhofe amendment, after which we will then vote on final passage. So we will have two votes starting at 2:15, and the second vote will be the final vote on Veterans Affairs-Military Construction. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I have no objections to those amendments. I want to clarify that for amendment No. 2775, the modifications are at the desk. The same goes for amendment No. 2783; am I correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Again, I have no objection. The amendments (No. 2775, as modified; No. 2777; and No. 2783, as modified) were agreed to, as follows: Amendment No. 2775, As Modified (Purpose: To require a study on the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to address combat stress in women veterans) At the end of title II, add the following: Sec. 229. (a) Study on Capacity of Department of Veterans Affairs To Address Combat Stress in Women Veterans.--The Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall carry out a study to assess the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to address combat stress in women veterans. (b) Elements.--In carrying out the study required by subsection (a), the Inspector General shall consider the following: (1) Whether women veterans are properly evaluated by the Department for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), military-related sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and other combat-related conditions. (2) Whether women veterans with combat stress are being properly adjudicated as service-connected disabled by the Department for purposes of veterans disability benefits for combat stress. (3) Whether the Veterans Benefits Administration has developed and disseminated to personnel who adjudicate disability claims reference materials that thoroughly and effectively address the management of claims of women veterans involving military-related sexual trauma. (4) The feasability and advisability of requiring training and testing on military-related sexual trauma matters as part of a certification of Veterans Benefits Administration personnel who adjudicate disability claims involving post- traumatic stress disorder. (5) Such other matters as the Inspector General considers appropriate. (c) Reports.-- (1) Interim report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall submit to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to the appropriate committees of Congress, a report setting forth the plan of the Inspector General for the study required by subsection (a), together with such interim findings as the Inspector General has made as of the date of the report as a result of the study. (2) Final report.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall submit to the Secretary, and Congress, then the Secretary shall make recommendations for legislative or administrative action. (3) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means-- (A) the Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and (B) the Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator from Virginia speaking on the 2\1/2\ minutes of the majority?

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the amendment. I do not think these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay should be in our country. I think we should stand firm, we should stand clear that this Senate, as we have voted before, does not want prisoners from Guantanamo Bay transferred to American soil. It will be a security risk to America. We do not need to do it. This would be a way to stop this and do what is right for our country; that is, keep these prisoners where they are secure, away from any ability to harm America. I urge a vote for the Inhofe amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if we don't want to house those prisoners here, we should not try them here. That is the answer for this. Vote for the Inhofe amendment.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I know my colleague, the chairman of the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Subcommittee, has already spoken on the bill. I rise to make a couple of points. First, I thank the Senate for not meeting on this bill last Tuesday, when it was scheduled to be taken up and passed and, instead, allowing so many of our colleagues to go to the memorial service at Fort Hood in Killeen. It was a wonderful service. So many of our colleagues were in attendance from all over the country to show their support for the troops, to show sympathy for the families. There were approximately 200 family members there. Of course, the President and Mrs. Obama were there. There were many House Members. It showed to the base and to the thousands of troops who attended how much we care about them. I am grateful to my colleagues for that gesture. We have a good bill. My colleague Senator Johnson and I have worked together on this bill. We have stayed within our budget. We have tried to make sure we are covering the needs of our veterans. The emphasis in the veterans section is in health care. We know we must do more for the mental health and getting people who have been in Afghanistan or Iraq back into the mainstream so they can lead normal lives. We have done that. We have put over $4 billion into mental health funding. We are setting up centers now for mental health excellence. I am pleased we are making that a priority. In addition, spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries. We know so many of our wounded soldiers suffer traumatic injuries. We need to make sure we have the ability to give them all of the rehabilitation necessary for them to reenter a life of quality. We are adding one more tier 1 polytrauma center. We have four. We are adding one more in San Antonio, TX, in the VA center, which we are very pleased to be able to do. The homeless veterans program is also being augmented in this bill, and I applaud Senator Johnson's efforts for creating the initiative last year to increase the VA footprint in our rural areas for our health care facilities. I think this is very helpful and warranted. On the military construction side, this morning I was at Dyess Air Force Base, where we broke ground on two incredible facilities. One will be a maintenance facility for both the B-1 bombers and also the C- 130s and new C-130Js that are going to be coming into our system next year. It is going to be a great facility, and we are very excited about that. We have a Reserve training headquarters there at Dyess, as well, and we broke ground on that building today. In addition, our BRAC has been fully funded. That was a priority of mine because I thought it was very important we fully fund our BRAC.