Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased the debate on Priscilla Owen is beginning to give her side of the story. We are finally getting past the sweeping mischaracterizations about her that have been put forward in the news media for years by interest groups--those who say she is outside the mainstream, or she is an extremist. But now on the floor of the Senate we are getting down to specifics. Every single time we have been able to examine a specific criticism of a particular opinion by Justice Owen, that criticism has been clearly and decisively refuted. Justice Owen is a careful and thoughtful jurist. She is an extremely talented intellect. She uses her ability to read every statute and enforce it fairly. She is the very model of a judge who interprets the law and does not legislate on the bench. Let's get to the heart of the matter. One of the major criticisms of Justice Owen is her effort to interpret a 1999 law passed by the Texas State legislature requiring parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. Most of the groups opposing Justice Owen strenuously opposed passage of that law in the first place. But the Texas legislature did approve a parental notification requirement with a strong bipartisan majority, favoring it in both the Texas House and Senate. The House was controlled by Democrats at the time, and it required any minor seeking an abortion to notify at least one parent, or receive permission from a judge to bypass that step. It was later up to the supreme court to interpret that bill. The law did not provide clear direction to the justices on several key points. We are talking about 13 cases that came to the supreme court for review. As sometimes occurs, the court was divided in how to interpret the law, particularly the portion allowing a minor to bypass parental notification by going to court. Some justices--a majority-- looked to other States on how their courts interpreted their parental notification statutes, even though those States that had different laws and different legislative histories. Other justices, including Justice Owen, looked first at the intent of the Texas legislature. She then looked to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. She reasoned, correctly, that the legislature had attempted to fashion the law to conform with Supreme Court rulings. Still other justices, I should add, took a different approach to analyze the bypass provision and, in some cases, they would have required greater restrictions on use of the judicial bypass than Justice Owen would have imposed. One of Justice Owen's colleagues on the supreme court at that time was Alberto Gonzales, now the U.S. Attorney General. The opposition to Justice Owen rests much of its case on a single phrase in one of then Justice Gonzales's opinions in which he referred to judicial activism. He later, and under oath, clarified what he was talking about. He said: ``My comment about an act of judicial activism was not focused at Judge Owen or Judge Hecht; it was actually focused at me.'' This is a tragically misleading statement to be used against Justice Owen. First, judges disagree. That is why we have a nine-member court. They argue with each other. They accuse each other of misreading the statutes. That is exactly the way it goes in many opinions. In fact, every member of the Texas Supreme Court was accused by one justice or another of judicial activism during the course of their service on the court. Attorney General Gonzales has testified under oath that he was not referring to Justice Owen's opinion when he wrote the offending phrase. He said he was referring to himself. That by itself should dispose of the matter. Elsewhere in the same opinion, Justice Gonzales wrote another sentence. Curiously, that sentence is never cited by opponents of Justice Owen. Let me quote what Justice Gonzales wrote: Every member of this court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the legislature. In other words, he specifically stated that none of the nine justices on the Texas Supreme Court is a judicial activist. Finally, let me point out that Justice Gonzales was White House counsel when President Bush nominated Justice Owen for the Fifth Circuit in 2001. In other words, General Gonzales was in charge of the process that produced Justice Owen's nomination. Does anybody seriously believe he would select a nominee for this position if he thought she were a judicial activist? I want to look at the 13 cases from a statistical standpoint. Justice Owen is solidly in the mainstream of her court. In these 13 rulings, Justice Owen was in the majority 10 times and found herself in dissent only on 3 occasions. She disagreed with the majority decision three times. In those 13 cases, the Texas Supreme Court required notification 6 times and facilitated a judicial bypass 7 times. So Justice Owen voted to require parental notification in nine cases and to facilitate the judicial bypass in four. Remember, no case on judicial bypass reached the Texas Supreme Court at all unless it had first been denied by two courts and by up to four judges. This is important, because under our system, the trial court is charged with ascertaining the facts in a case. In other words, Justice Owen is being faulted for being more willing to defer to trial court findings of fact because she knows trial judges have the unique ability to assess a witness's demeanor and credibility. Now, was Justice Owen's approach in the mainstream? Earlier this week, the Senate was visited by a group of six Texans. They represent diverse views, but they came to Washington to support Justice Owen and asked for fair treatment of her. They included Tom Phillips, who was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court for most of the time Justice Owen had served. It included Elizabeth Whitaker, past president of the State Bar of Texas--one of 15 past State bar presidents, Republicans and Democrats, who are supporting Justice Owen's nomination. In the group was Linda Eads, a former assistant State attorney general, who is now a professor at the Southern Methodist University School of Law. She specializes in constitutional law. Linda Eads describes herself as strongly pro-choice. She also said she disagreed with Justice Owen on parental bypass. But she emphasized that Justice Owen's judicial approach to these cases was thoughtful and rational. She said it was easily within the respectable judicial mainstream on interpreting legislation. She ended by saying she strongly supports the confirmation of Priscilla Owen. Finally, I want to talk about the intent of the Texas Legislature. I served in that legislature for two terms, years ago. I know most of the members of the Texas House and Senate. It is interesting to me that opponents of Justice Owen accuse her of misreading legislative intent by requiring more parental involvement than the legislators intended. I believe the opposite might well be true. In fact, the legislature is currently in the process of discussing a new law that would strengthen parental involvement and require parental consent, not parental notification. That bill has passed the Texas House and the Texas Senate. It is now in a conference committee. Justice Owen is highly respected in Texas. Allow me to quote from a letter sent by Senator Florence Shapiro, the chief sponsor of the parental notification act approved by the legislature in 1999. She says: As a Senator in the Texas Legislature, the manner in which the Texas courts review and interpret our laws is extremely important to me. Justice Owen's opinions consistently demonstrate that she faithfully interprets the law as it is written, and as the Legislature intended, not based on her subjective idea of what the law should be. I am saddened to see that partisan and extremist opponents of Justice Owen's nomination have attempted to portray her as an activist judge, as nothing could be further from the truth. Her opinions interpreting the Texas Parental Notification act serve as prime examples of her judicial restraint . . . I appreciated that Justice Owen's opinions throughout the series of cases looked carefully at the new statute and at the governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent upon which the language of the statute was based, to detennine what the Legislature intended the Act to do. I, along with many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--filed a bipartisan amicus curiae brief with the Texas Supreme Court explaining that the language of the Act was crafted in order to promote, except in very limited circumstances, parental involvement. Prior to the passage of the Act, a child could go to a doctor and have an extremely invasive procedure without even notifying one of her parents. At the same time, school nurses were not even permitted to give aspirin to a child without parental consent. Like legislators in dozens of states across America, we realized that something needed to be done to respect the role of parents--that at least one parent should be involved in a major medical decision impacting their minor daughter. Because this was not an ``abortion'' bill but a ``parental involvement'' bill supported by lawmakers on both sides of the abortion debate, we were able to pass a bipartisan law that promotes the relationship between parents and their minor daughters and is exceedingly popular with the people of Texas. Justice Owen is the kind of judge that the people of the 5th Circuit need on the bench--an experienced jurist who follows the law and uses common sense. I strongly urge the committee to reject the politics of personal destruction pushed by Justice Owen's extremist critics and vote positively on her nomination. She merits immediate confirmation. That is a letter from State Senator Florence Shapiro. Let's be clear about what is going on here. A number of interest groups fought against legislative enactment of the parental notification law. They lost. Now they are trying to undercut a judge who, as honestly and fairly as she could, attempted to interpret that law. They are entitled to their opinion. They should vote their convictions. Priscilla Owen deserves an up-or-down vote on her nomination to the Fifth Circuit. I want to respond to the distinguished Democratic leader, who this morning said that Owen and 10 other nominees have all received votes in the Senate. Senator Reid left out one important detail, and that is--if she had gotten a confirmation vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Justice Owen would be sitting on the Fifth Circuit today. Indeed, this Senate has taken four cloture votes on Priscilla Owen, and each time she has received more than a majority--the standard for confirmation in the Senate--until the Congress of 2 years ago. She would be confirmed by the Senate. Senator Reid is correct that nominees have received cloture votes, in an attempt to override filibusters. But requiring a 60-vote threshold to proceed to confirmation is not the Senate's practice. Justice Owen continues to wait patiently for the Senate to confirm her; she has been waiting for four years. The Senate Republicans have asked the minority to allow the Senate to vote, but they have refused and continue to vote no on cloture, thereby changing the Constitution without going through the process of a constitutional amendment. When the Constitution requires a supermajority, it is explicit. Just before the advise and consent part of the Constitution, it does have a standard of a two-thirds vote, but that was not put in the article on confirmation of judges. The clear constitutional interpretation is that if a supermajority is required, it is stated in the Constitution. And for over 200 years, this body has recognized that and has made a majority vote the standard until the last session of the Senate. It is disingenuous for the other side to suggest that these 10 nominees have had votes because if they had, they would be sitting on the benches for which they were nominated. But instead, Priscilla Owen, after being confirmed by the Senate four times, is back again. I think we can do better. I think we can acknowledge the Constitution and acknowledge that if we are going to amend the Constitution, the Senate should start the process of a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is clear that a majority vote is required, and that has been the standard for over 200 years in the Senate until the last session of Congress. I hope Priscilla Owen will get an up-or-down vote, because if she does, the tradition of the Senate and our respect for the Constitution will be clear. Again, if they want to change it, perhaps they should go about it in the right way, and introduce a constitutional amendment to require a super-majority for confirmation of judges. I think the Founding Fathers were geniuses and knew a balance of power had to be delicate among the three branches of Government. They envisioned a President appointing circuit court judges with the Senate having the authority to confirm or reject them with a simple majority vote. The balance of power in our Constitution has kept our country strong and has been the anchor for our democracy. Priscilla Owen is a wonderful human being who has been demonized for 4 years. She has already displayed her judicial temperament by not responding to the unfair criticisms, by showing no bitterness, and by harboring no anger. But she is a human being, a good person, and she deserves an up-or-down vote. When she gets an up-or-down vote, she will be confirmed and become a brilliant member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope the Senate is on the brink of doing the right thing by these nominees, by acting as the lofty body it is, can be, and should be. I hope we will treat everyone who comes before us with respect. I do not think that has been the case for this very fine supreme court justice for the State of Texas. I hope that is going to change. I hope we will treat her as she should be treated. I hope she will get her up-or-down vote which will show that her 4 years of patience have allowed us to do the right thing and she will be able to serve our country in a way that I know she will make all of us proud. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am very pleased my colleague, Senator Cornyn, has made a wonderful statement about Priscilla Owen. He is one of the few people who has actually served with her, being a member of the Texas Supreme Court with her. So having his insight into her as a professional is, I think, very enlightening for the record of this debate. I thank my colleague from Texas, who is one of the few people in the Senate who actually has been a state Supreme Court justice. I think that gives him a particular advantage in talking about her as a judge with judicial temperament, the demeanor of a judge, and her qualities as a judge. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I am going to talk today about Priscilla Owen as a person. I think it is a part of this debate that has never really been brought forth. I am here to support her because she has been a stellar representative of the judges in our country, as she has waited more than 4 years since she was nominated to have an up-or-down vote by the Senate. We have voted on Priscilla Owen, and she has won confirmation four times in the Senate. But here we are again trying to get a vote that will put her in the office to which she has been nominated and for which she has received the majority vote. I have heard my colleagues, and some interest groups, use very extreme language to describe Priscilla Owen. These statements are coming, in many cases, from people who have never met her and whose minds were made up before they ever learned one thing about her. I want to spend a few minutes talking about Priscilla Richman Owen, the person that is known to those of us in Texas who have seen her as a professional. Last month, I was sent an interesting document. It was the newsletter of the graduating class of Texas A&M University, the class of 1953. A prominent story had the headline: ``Pat Richman's Legacy.'' It told a story almost nobody in the class knew--that Pat Richman, of Palacious, TX, who had died tragically only 2 years after their graduation from Texas A&M and had left a baby daughter, that daughter of their beloved classmate is now at the center of a national controversy. Pat Richman was a leader of the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, first sergeant of his company, and later its battalion commander. He was one of the stars of the class, one of its most promising leaders. Pat Richman entered active duty in the U.S. Army upon graduation and was shipped to Korea eight months later, but not before marrying his long- time sweetheart. When the boat left, his wife was pregnant. Pat returned from Korea in May, 1955, having served his country, having done his duty to our Nation. Priscilla was 7 months old. He had never seen his baby daughter. On the way back across the Pacific, news came to the ship. Researchers, led by Jonas Salk, had created a vaccine to combat the scourge of polio. One of Pat's best friends remembers him exclaiming: ``This is wonderful. This means my daughter will never have to worry about being crippled by that disease.'' When Pat arrived back in Texas and was discharged, he accepted a job with the extension service that took him to south Texas. Suddenly, over a single weekend, he contracted bulbar polio. He was rushed into an iron lung--and died in a Houston hospital. Priscilla Owen was 10 months old. As you would expect, the sudden death of this promising young man sent his entire family into shock, especially his wife. Priscilla's mother retreated to a family farm in Collegeport, Texas. She stayed there for five years grieving and trying to reassemble her life. Eventually, she remarried, and the small family moved to what was considered the big city, Waco, Texas. That is where Priscilla Richman Owen grew up and went to school. Priscilla became a top student. She was a class officer. She worked part time in high school and college at her stepfather's insurance business, and she sent out premium notices and posted payments. During summers, she returned to Collegeport, helping run cattle and work in the rice field. As a teenager, she spent long days during the rice harvest driving the auger wagon, taking rice from the wet fields to a kiln and drying them. Priscilla Richman started college at the University of Texas at Austin. After a year, though, she returned home to Waco to be closer to her family, and she enrolled at Baylor University. Her academic record was good, we should say, but it was not perfect. It was not perfect. She got one B-plus--one B-plus in all of her days in college and law school. The rest were A's. Priscilla Owen advanced to law school after only three years of college. She was named editor of the Baylor Law Review. She finished college and law school after five years and three months, and when she took the Texas bar exam in 1977 at age 23, she got the highest score in the State. Priscilla Owen was recruited into the Andrews Kurth law firm, one of the biggest in Houston, as a litigator at a time when women were not really in the courtroom very much. She was highly successful, creating a statewide reputation in oil and gas litigation. She chaired the firm's recruitment committee and was made a partner of the firm at the age of 30. In 1993, when she had been at Andrews Kurth for 17 years, she was asked to run for election to the Texas Supreme Court as a Republican. Although judicial nominees run by party in Texas, she was really apolitical. She had made donations to judicial candidates in both parties just trying to be a contributor and a community leader. I am amused when I hear interest groups say that Priscilla Owen is a partisan, an ideologue. In 1993, when she was asked to run for the Supreme Court of Texas, she could not remember in what primary she had voted. It would have been determined by the judge races at the time and whether there was a race in the Democratic or Republican primaries. She was told it would be difficult to run on the ticket if she had not voted in the primary in the previous election, and she had to go down to the courthouse to find out in which primary she had voted. It was Republican, and so she said yes. As it happened, in 1994, when she was running, I was running for reelection, and we campaigned together. I invited her to join me on campaign trips. I have to tell you, she is not a rabble-rousing speaker. Priscilla Owen is a judge. She is soft spoken. She is scholarly. She is what you would want a judge to be. She managed to win with 53 percent of the vote and became an immediate leader on the Texas Supreme Court. She also became a leader in a cause that makes me smile because I hear people on the other side of the aisle describing her as if she is some big partisan. She writes articles and lobbies the Texas Legislature to do away with partisan election of judges because, as she said in her articles, she thinks it taints the ability of the court to provide impartial justice. This is actually a controversial position for a judge in our State to say that we should do away with partisan elections, because most of the Republicans in Texas think we should keep partisan elections. But she is not a politician, she is a judge--exactly what we would want in a person nominated for the circuit court of appeals. When she was up for reelection in 2000, something happened that really had not happened very often to a Republican running statewide in Texas. The Democrats did not even put an opponent against her. She had a libertarian opponent, and virtually every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. She was returned to office with 84 percent of the vote. We will have a lot of opportunity on the Senate floor to discuss her court opinions, especially the mischaracterizations of those opinions that various interest groups have made. But I want to share with you what she does when she is not hearing and deciding cases because I believe it will shed light on the character of this person whom I do not recognize when I hear her described on this floor by many who have not even met with her. She gave up a highly lucrative private practice a dozen years ago at the height of her earning power to run on a reform platform for our State's highest court because there were scandals on the supreme court at the time and we were trying to recruit top-quality people to bring back the integrity and dignity of our supreme court. So she sought a State government salary and gave up her big law firm partner share. The Code of Judicial Ethics restricts her off-bench activities. She cannot help raise funds even for her church. But she has devoted countless hours toward helping the less fortunate, those in need, and improving access to the judicial system. For example, Justice Owen is a dog enthusiast and serves on the board of Texas Hearing and Service Dogs. This organization rescues dogs from pounds, provides expensive training for them, and then gives the dogs to quadriplegics, paraplegics, and the hearing and sight impaired-- people who cannot afford these trained animals on their own. The dogs perform all sorts of tasks that allow these disabled people to live more independent lives. She is a founding member of the St. Barnabas Episcopal Mission in Austin, Texas. She serves as head of the church's altar guild. And she teaches Sunday school to preschool, kindergarten, and grade school children. On any given Sunday, you can find Justice Owen hopping on one leg, reading stories, and helping these children find ways to make the right choices in their conduct. Justice Owen has also worked to ensure that all Texas citizens are now provided access to justice. Yesterday at a press conference, a former president of the Texas Bar Association, one of 15 former State bar presidents--Republicans and Democrats--who support her, told an interesting story. In the mid-1990s, the Congress sharply reduced funding for the Legal Services Corporation. The Texas legal aid system for the poor, including migrant workers, was in serious jeopardy. Priscilla Owen led a committee that persuaded the Texas Legislature to provide millions in additional funding for legal services for the poor. The funding filled gaps caused by the Federal cut to help give legal help for housing, domestic abuse, and food assistance eligibility to thousands of low-income Texans who otherwise would not have been able to have that help. Priscilla Owen was the supreme court's representative on the Mediation Task Force. The group worked countless hours over many months to resolve differences between lawyer and non-lawyer mediators. As we know, mediation often provides an effective alternative to expensive, full-blown trials, thus making justice more accessible to people who cannot afford expensive lawyers. Justice Owen is a member of the Gender Bias Reform Implementation Committee and the Judicial Efficiency Task Force on Staff Diversity. She was instrumental in organizing Family Law 2000 to educate parents about the effect of divorce and to lessen the negative impact on children. These are not headline-grabbing assignments. There is no public glory in this quiet work. I do not see pictures of Justice Owen in the newspapers about all of these activities she has undertaken just to make our State and her community a better place to live. Justice Owen is not a particularly public person. In fact, as you may have read in the press last week, members of her church had no idea what she did for a living until a story appeared about her and this controversy in the Austin newspaper. Throughout her four years awaiting a Senate vote, Priscilla Owen has not complained, not in public, not in private. She has sat quietly by as people who do not have the faintest idea what she is really like have vilified her, distorted her opinions, and questioned her motives. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have declined any opportunity to meet with this lovely person. They have refused to sit down and ask her questions, to see if the person who is portrayed in the propaganda is really the same person. It is their loss because they are missing the opportunity to know a truly exceptional human being. Over two years ago, an ordinary Texan named Nancy Lacy, who is Priscilla Owen's sister, attended her long-delayed confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee in Washington. She sat behind Justice Owen, and she later gave the Dallas Morning News a summary of what she saw. She said: It was eye opening. . . . It was a hard experience because no matter what she said, they were going to stick with the propaganda. It was obvious. I was hoping they were going to really give her a shot, try to get to know who she really is, ask thoughtful questions. But the information they had was wrong to begin with. I felt sorry for them at times; their staffs didn't do a very good job. It was obvious the special interest groups gave them the information, and they didn't research to see if it was true. The handwriting was on the wall. You know, Madam President, it makes you stop and think when real people come before committees in this Congress how they must feel when they are tortured and pricked and badgered the way we often do without realizing that these are good people. They are people willing to serve, even if you might disagree with them. They are willing to serve our country and they have not been treated well. I believe Priscilla Owen, especially, has not been treated well by this Senate. I am going to end with a wrap-up of the beginning of the speech that I have made. The Texas A&M class of 1953 held their annual reunion at a hotel in San Antonio last month. Priscilla Richman Owen, known to the group as Pat Richman's daughter, was their special guest. She was able to hear contemporaries of her father tell stories about him that she had never heard before to get a better idea of what he would have been like if he had lived into his seventies instead of dying when she was 10 months old. It was, by all accounts, a moving experience. I hope that when the class of 1953 and the people who went with Pat Richman to serve our country in Korea meet again, that Pat Richman's daughter will come back and she will be a member of the Court of Appeals, of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. I think she deserves confirmation. I thank the chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, earlier this week, I offered an amendment, which was passed unanimously, to eliminate the ability to toll existing interstate highways. I did this because I believe in using our tax dollars that we collect to support the Federal interstate highway program. But we ought to do it fairly. The majority of the highway system was designed in the 1950s to meet the needs of the westward expansion of a rapidly growing nation. Today, we face different needs. For example, new areas of population growth, especially along the southern tier, require new infrastructure, and also with the trade coming from NAFTA, we are seeing an even more increasing load that adds to the transportation burdens of our border regions. Strong trade partnerships with Mexico and Canada have provided great benefits for us, but the resulting traffic is damaging the highway network in my State and others, such as Arizona and Michigan. Most of the goods in our economy ride on our Nation's highways. In large part, over the past 50 years, the Federal highway aid program has assisted the States in producing one of the world's finest highway networks. To meet our needs, Congress must reauthorize surface transportation programs this year. States are responsible for converting the resources this legislation provides into infrastructure that allows traffic to move efficiently, and we want and need to undertake that construction. My major concern with the Federal highway program is that Texas has been a donor State for 50 years, contributing billions to other States to enable them to build their highway network. As a strong adherent of a National Transportation Safety Board system, I understand that large States, such as Texas, should assist smaller and rural States with their transportation needs because we all profit from the comprehensive highway network. What concerns me is the level of support Texas has been forced to provide to other States. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Texas and other donor States received as little as 76-percent rate of return on what our taxpayers send to Washington. With the 1998 bill, TEA-21, Texas's rate of return rose to 90.5 percent in the formula program. This program produced real dollars. From 1994 to 2003, Texas contributed $20 billion to the highway trust fund and received $18 billion in return. If not for other donor State Senators, such as the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Oklahoma, and improving the rate of return, Texas would have received only $15.8 billion. The additional $2.4 billion has been critical for us to meet our transportation needs. However, Texas has still given $2 billion to other States over this period. States such as Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan are contributing more and more, and we are the States that need the most new infrastructure to handle the greatest population growth. In addition, most of the donor States are border States with unique needs resulting from trade. Texas has more than 300,000 highway miles, the most of any State in our Nation. Texas highways are almost 10 percent of the national total. Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State of Texas. But while the entire Nation benefits from the resulting commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our highways. In 2003, more than 4 million trucks, hauling 18 billion pounds of cargo, entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border-crossing facilities. More than 3 million of those trucks, or 68 percent, entered through Texas. In addition, 90 million personal vehicles from Mexico also travel through the southwest border States. The donor States are the fastest growing States in America and are most responsible for the growth in the highway trust fund. Ironically, the formula in this bill offers the least relief to the States where cities are developing most rapidly. In 1998, Texas accounted for 7 percent of the highway trust fund receipts. In 2004, it rose to 9 percent, and during this bill, it may top 10 percent. In other words, we are paying a larger and larger share. The formula in the bill reported out of committee created a floor guaranteeing every State at least 110 percent of the total cash it received under TEA-21. To limit costs, no State may receive more than a certain percentage, 130 percent in year 1, of the TEA-21. So even if a State's contribution to the trust fund grows in excess of 130 percent, it hits the ceiling and it hits pretty fast on growing States such as Texas, capping our funding. Using cash as the measuring stick rather than the percentage a State contributes to the trust fund ignores whether a State is growing or shrinking, and it ignores whether it is giving more to the fund or less. This methodology hurts our growing States, and it helps the donee States which are contributing less to the trust fund. For example, Pennsylvania's share of contributions during TEA-21 was 4.1 percent, but it is expected to contribute just 3.9 percent of the trust fund during SAFETEA. It does not make sense to guarantee an increase in cash when a State is contributing less. The formula in the pending substitute is made worse. Not only does it increase spending for the bill by $11 billion, it increases the floor to 115 percent. So Pennsylvania is now guaranteed to receive 15 percent more cash than it received from Washington in 1998, even though it is contributing a smaller proportion of the trust fund. Superdonor States, such as Texas, move up to an average return of only 91.3 percent. While this is an improvement, it is not enough. The committee tells me I should like this legislation because while total spending grows 30 percent, Texas will see a 37-percent dollar increase compared to 6 years ago. However, Texas's increase has little to do with the formula and instead is the result of Texas buying more gas and paying more taxes into the highway trust fund. It is fair, if a State's contribution is growing faster than the average, that it should receive higher than the average in return. This bill does not give Texas the resources to adequately expand our infrastructure at the rate the traffic is growing on the NAFTA corridor of Mexico and around our fast-growing cities. If Texas received all of the money that we contribute to the fund, this disparity would be reduced. I believe the ability to pay for highway project needs with their own contribution exists for most States, with very few exceptions, particularly in the West, and funding increases should be based on growth and need rather than tradition. I am not suggesting that we cut off aid to other States altogether, but I do think we can reduce this disparity in the current donor-donee system. It has been too large for too long and unfairly limits the ability of States to benefit from their tax dollars. We all want the Federal highway system to be good throughout our Nation, and that may require some donor status, but donating almost 10 cents of every dollar is not necessary, and it is not fair. I recognize the needs of donee States vary widely, but we have never before created this special class of donor State to carry the heavier load, and I hope we will not do it when this bill is finished. At a minimum, we should all receive at least 92 percent in year 1 rather than having to wait until the final year to get to that level. I have worked with the chairman for a long time trying to come up with a formula that would help mitigate the border States' particular needs because we are border corridors and most of us are growing States. I have come up with a lot of alternatives. None of them have been acceptable to the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. It is my hope that as this bill goes out of the Senate, which it will, we will be able to work in conference for some more fair allocation that is based on a State's needs, a State's taxing, and a State's efforts. It is only fair that the States that are growing, that are putting more money into the highway trust fund should get some bonus for doing that to help them with the needs they have. I think we have gone in the wrong direction, and I certainly hope we will come much closer to a fair allocation. I am not saying there should be 100 percent, but 91.3 percent is a mighty price for Texans to pay when it is growing at such a fast rate and has the most highway miles of any State in our Nation. I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member as this bill does sail out of here. I cannot possibly support it in this current configuration. I still hold out hope that if we can come up to the 92-cent level, we would be in a much better position to feel good about this legislation, helping all of our States instead of just the donee States. And I hope the door will still be open to helping all of the States feel good about this effort. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I do understand exactly what has happened to the bill. I do understand the difficulty. The Senator is responsible for getting the number of votes he has to have to get the bill out of the Senate, and my colleague has those votes. I do hope, in conference, he will look at the border corridor issue which, when the bill came out of committee, was above the line, outside the formula, and did give some of the help to these fast-growing border States that have the NAFTA traffic coming in directly, which then fans out to the rest of the country where it is dissipated. I hope my colleague will take that into account. I was the one who authored the border corridor idea. It really did help when it was, as we discussed, above the line. I just hope, as you do fix particular problems for other States--whether they be pass- through States or other types of designations--you will look at the border corridor issue, which would help both northern corridor States such as Michigan and southern border States such as California, Arizona, and Texas. It is still going to make us very big donor States, but it would mitigate it, to a great extent, because that is where our biggest problem is. We have three border corridors and two of them are clogged completely, all the way through Texas. That is not helpful to anyone. I don't want to toll a highway that is already in place. We have spoken on that. But I think we need to try to look at that issue in conference--if you can do something that would mitigate that particular problem.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is going to try to take away the right of States to put tolls on interstate highways that have already been paid for and built by the taxpayers of our country. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in expanding opportunities to toll our Nation's interstate highway system. The interstate system was conceived and built with Federal tax dollars, so tolling interstates amounts to double taxation. Today, I, along with Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Shelby, Burns, and Pryor, offer an amendment which simply repeals a provision from the previous highway bill, TEA-21, the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, which is known as the interstate tolling program, which is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers. I have said if local communities and States want to come together and build a toll road, they should be able to do it. In these situations, the taxpayers know what they are getting into. Many times a vote is required to issue bonds, but at any rate the taxpayers can hold the elected officials accountable. To allow unelected transportation officials to simply install a toll booth on facilities already paid for by Federal tax dollars is unacceptable. Tolling existing highways will also increase the number of drivers on the free roads, resulting in greater congestion and more accidents. Studies show that drivers will choose to bypass the tolls by driving on local, small roads. We also know that tolls on existing interstates will produce substantial diversion of truck traffic to other roads, and our rural roads are not equipped to handle significant truck traffic. In Ohio, traffic tripled on US-20 after toll increases on the Ohio Turnpike. Unfortunately, fatal accidents on US-20 are now 17 times more common than those on the turnpike. In response, Ohio's Department of Transportation decided to lower the tolls, even though the action did reduce the revenues for the State. A recent study predicted that a 25-cent-per-mile toll on an interstate would cause nearly half the trucks to divert to other routes. This is an understandable economic decision for trucking companies considering that truckers' profit margins average 2 to 4 cents per mile and the rising price of gasoline has already affected profitability. Technology already exists to help truckers and other drivers evade tolls in a cost-effective manner. It does not make sense to invest in tolls that people will not pay. Tolling interstates would reduce the safety of nearby local roads, degrade the quality of life in neighboring areas, and hurt the economy. Eighty percent of the Nation's goods travel by truck, and they will travel more slowly and expensively if tolls are imposed on interstates. The Federal Government collects taxes to fund the Federal interstate highway system. The States should not have the right to come in and impose another tax via a toll. The idea of tolling Texas highways is more concerning to me because the Federal highway program has treated my home State pretty poorly. Texas is the single largest donor State over the program's 50 years of history. We have the most highway miles of any State and our drivers have contributed billions to other States to enable them to build their portion of the Federal highway network. In this bill, we will get a 91-cent return. It is better than the previous 5 years, but I am going to continue to work for parity. I have always defended States rights, but the flexibility to toll interstates has a clear effect on interstate commerce and fundamental fairness. If Arkansas, for example, decided to toll I-40, all deliveries coming into or out of Texas on I-40 would be subject to that toll. In effect, Texas businesses and citizens would be taxed for using that highway. As a donor State, our taxes have already helped to finance it. So it is clear from the studies that tolling an interstate will shift traffic to other roads and potentially to other States. These States would not share in the toll revenue but would bear the brunt of the costs for more accidents on their roads, more traffic, pollution, and added highway maintenance and expansion costs. I cannot support a program which could shift new traffic and related burdens to our State and others. The underlying SAFETEA bill establishes a commission to explore alternative sources of transportation revenue. The commission should be allowed to complete its work before we start experimenting with tolls or any other alternative. At the request of Senator Warner, we have modified the amendment to limit the interstate tolling program to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The senior Senator from Virginia and the State's congressional delegation have been working with Virginia's Department of Transportation for more than 3 years on the I-81 project. Virginia is the only State with an active application pending before the U.S. Department of Transportation. While I disagree with implementing this program, I am willing to defer to Senator Warner on the need to allow Virginia to finish its application and have therefore agreed to this modification. I am going to defer to the Senator from Nebraska, who is one of the cosponsors of the bill. I hope we will be able to pass this amendment. It is very important that the taxpayers of America know they are going to have the opportunity to use this interstate system their tax dollars for 50 years have gone to build. The purpose of having an interstate system was so we would have seamless transportation into all of our States and it is very important we keep those highways that have already been built free highways for the citizens who have already paid for them. I urge the support of my colleagues. I defer to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for being a cosponsor of the amendment. My colleague, Senator Nelson, signed on very early, as did Senator Burns. I really appreciate that. Mr. President, I urge the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from New Hampshire, as well as the Senator from North Dakota. It has been a lively debate. I rise to support this budget. The committee has done an outstanding job. I will talk about some parts of the budget and talk about what I hope we will see in appropriations, but in the main, this budget does exactly what the President asked us to do in that it achieves the goal of cutting deficits in half within 5 years from the level he projected in 2004. I heard the distinguished Senator from South Dakota earlier lament this was a budget that was going to somehow add to the debt service of middle-income Americans. It appears to me it does the opposite; that, in fact, it will cut the deficits in half. We are cutting the deficits in this country, while at the same time providing for the priorities in spending. We are providing, for the first time since I can remember, a contingency fund for the war on terrorism. The Senate voted in an overwhelming majority to include a contingency fund for the war. In the past, we have had supplementals; and we have seen what happens on supplementals. They become Christmas trees. We are trying to fund the war on Iraq and all of a sudden so many other things turn up as emergencies. This is what busts the budget. The distinguished committee did, in fact, put aside a $50 billion contingency fund to cover the costs of operations in Iraq. Maybe we will not have to have a supplemental next year; or if we do, it will be later in the year and will be fiscally responsible. This is a budget that continues to reduce taxes. Every time in the history of our country when we have reduced taxes in a major way, where it could be felt, it has not added to the deficit; it has, in fact, added revenue. We saw our economy start stabilizing when we passed the 15-percent tax on capital gains and dividends, which was a cut in that tax. This budget provides for $105 billion over 5 years in reduced taxes. It assures we have the stability in the Tax Code that lets people know in 2007 we are not going to have an increase in the taxes that have already been cut; that people can count on the 15-percent tax on dividends and capital gains, at least for the next 5 years. This would also accommodate the sales tax deduction on the Federal income tax for those States that do not have a State income tax. There has been an inequity in the Tax Code for years, where if you have an income tax in your State, you can deduct that income tax from your Federal tax because you should not have to pay tax on taxes. But if you are a sales tax State, you do not have that same opportunity. This bill will allow--although this bill does not mandate anything because that is a Finance Committee responsibility--the sales tax deduction to be continued. The budget allows for continuation of the teacher classroom expenses deduction. We know teachers--every one of us in this country knows teachers--who take money out of their own pockets to buy pencils or tablets or Crayons or whatever it is they need in the classroom, or which their pupils need and cannot afford, to make sure they have the tools for teaching. We allow them to deduct from their taxes the money they put into the classroom. We will be able to extend that deduction in this budget. We will have the opportunity to give teachers who are not paid enough a token of appreciation for the job they do. And finally, it ensures the AMT will not hit the middle class in our country. In the big picture, this budget is a very good resolution. Thank heavens, we are going to have a budget this year, which we did not have last year, so we will be able to say: Here is what we are going to spend, and we will stick to that spending level. I want to mention one area where the budget fell short from what the Senate wanted it to do, and that is in the area of the administration of justice function. This function is the area which funds the Border Patrol. The Senate passed $42 billion to cover the cost of more Border Patrol agents and other administration of justice functions. The conference report is $41 billion. It is $1 billion less. Now, I want to lay down a marker here because it is essential that when this budget goes to the Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Committee should set aside money for more Border Patrol agents than the 210 that were in the President's budget. This must be done so we can beef up our borders against illegal intruders. This is not a matter of illegal aliens coming here to work, although that is a major issue in this country. It is a matter of national security. We have seen some very brave people sitting on the border of Arizona and Mexico in the last few weeks. I have to say, these people have shown a commitment and a caring that should be acknowledged in the Senate, that they would care enough to realize that 10,000 people, it is estimated, are coming across the border illegally into our country every day. We are short of Border Patrol agents, and they are going out there and sitting a quarter of a mile apart to try to monitor and tell the Border Patrol when they see illegal activity. There has been no violence. But it has made a huge impact. It has made an impact on the number of illegal crossings. And it has certainly made an impact on this country to see that many people are volunteering their efforts to care about the integrity of the borders of our country. But it is not those volunteers' responsibility. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to patrol our borders and to assure that Americans are safe from illegal intruders. We are not doing the job. We are not doing the job when the FBI Director tells a congressional committee that people from countries with ties to al- Qaida are crossing into the United States through the border with Mexico. It is a security threat, and it is a homeland security threat. Now, I do believe the supplemental appropriations that is working its way through Congress right now is going to have some help in the Border Patrol area. I know the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire, is very aware and has visited the border himself to see what the problems are. So I do have confidence that in the Appropriations Committee we will address this issue. And we must. We must control our borders at a time when we know we are in a war against terrorism. Mr. President, 97 percent of the illegal intruders are coming in through the southwest border. But this is a national issue. These people do not stop in Texas and Arizona and California and New Mexico. They go all through our country. It is estimated by Time magazine that there are 15 million illegal people in our country, and it has been estimated that it is really even more, probably 20 million. Since 2001, 1,300 agents have been added to the force. But this is not sufficient to patrol 6,900 miles of border between Canada and the United States and Mexico and the United States. The issue that has recently started being observed is the aliens from countries other than Mexico who are crossing the border through Mexico, and because of a lack of resources, we are forced to release them practically immediately. This again, I hope, is going to be addressed in the supplemental appropriations. The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently said: We do not have enough agents; we don't have enough technology to give us the security we need. We need more agents and we need to do a smarter and better job. Two groups of Arab males were discovered by patrol guards from Wilcox, AZ. One field agent said: These guys didn't speak Spanish, and they were speaking to each other in Arabic. It's ridiculous that we don't take this more seriously. We're told not to say a thing to the media. We must take this issue seriously. The agent is correct. I believe that we can address this issue in appropriations, and I believe that with $41 billion in this account, which is in this budget today, we will be able to allocate the resources to increase the number of Border Patrol agents and to increase the number of detention facilities so we will not have to release the illegal intruders, the ``other than Mexicans.'' We can do it if we prioritize it. The reason I am speaking tonight is to say we must prioritize it. We must take this seriously. It is an issue for our whole country, and it is an issue we must take seriously. We have the funds to do it in this budget, but I want to make sure it is a priority. The Budget Committee has done a very credible job. This Budget Committee has presented a budget that will cut the deficit, over 5 years, in half at the same time that we are funding the war. And we have a contingency so we will not have to do it through supplemental appropriations. I thank the committee for responding to the will of the Senate when we voted overwhelmingly that we did not want to fund the war with supplementals. Fifty billion dollars is exactly the right amount to have in a contingency. That is responsible budgeting. I appreciate what the Budget Committee has done. They have addressed our priorities. They have cut back in nonpriority areas, and have cut back in discretionary spending. I hope that as we go into the appropriations process, we will remember the need for more Border Patrol agents and more detention facilities to address this critical issue for the security of our homeland. I believe we will. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Priscilla Owen to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I want to comment on the constitutional right of Senators to advise and consent to judicial nominations by the President, a right that is now being denied by tactics employed by the minority in the Senate. Priscilla Owen was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 4 years ago--4 years ago! She has been serving on the Supreme Court of Texas for 4 years, while awaiting her confirmation by the Senate. Yet she has actually had the votes to confirm her in the Senate four times. Four times the Senate has voted on her nomination, and four times she has received a majority. On May 1, 2003, a cloture vote: 52 to 45 in her favor; May 8, 2003, 52 to 45; July 29, 2003, 53 to 43; November 14, 2003, 53 to 42. In all these cases, she had a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation, but she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today. Why? Because her nomination is being filibustered by Democrats, and she has been held to a standard of 60 votes instead of 51. That is changing the Constitution of the United States. I know Priscilla Owen. I have watched her through this process. If anything confirmed my admiration for her, it is the incredible calm and measured response she has displayed in response to unfair attacks which have sometimes been personal, unfair, and have had political overtones. Yet she has remained totally professional. She has gone through two hearings with the committee. She has answered every question members asked. Some people have said she is the best witness that has ever come before the Judiciary Committee. It is because she knows what she is doing. She knows the law. And she is very bright. She earned both her undergraduate and law degrees from Baylor University. She earned the highest score--the No. 1 score--on the Texas bar exam, when she took it. She has had a distinguished career in the private sector for 17 years. And since 1995, she has served on the Supreme Court of Texas. The American Bar Association unanimously voted for her to have the ``well qualified'' recognition and rating. That is the highest rating they award, as they review judicial candidates--``well qualified.'' I would ask those who are holding up her nomination by putting a 60- vote threshold on it, in a completely partisan vote, what is it that caused her to have the entire Democratic conference come out against her? She has received bipartisan support nationwide. When she was reelected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000, she received 84 percent of the vote. Every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Some of her detractors, I have to say, opposed her before they had ever heard one word about her. There were outside groups that decided she should not be a circuit court judge. Three former Democratic judges, who sat on the Texas Supreme Court, have announced their public support for her. A bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the Texas Bar Association have come out in open support of Priscilla Owen. I have to come away with the view that this is really not a debate about Priscilla Owen. This is not a debate about this woman who has an impeccable record and an impeccable academic background. No, I do not think it is about Priscilla Owen. I think it is about the Constitution and the requirement of advice and consent. The minority has changed the Constitution by filibustering judicial nominees, for the first time in the history of the Senate. For the first time in the history of the Senate--over 200 years--we saw, in the last session of Congress, a filibuster of almost one-third of President Bush's circuit court nominees. No President has ever received fewer of his circuit court nominees than President George W. Bush. Almost a third were filibustered to death. Before the 108th Congress, there were only 17 cloture votes on judicial nominations. But there was never a judge who had the support of the majority who failed to get confirmed. That is the key. For 70 percent of the last century, the same party controlled the Senate and the White House, but there was no use of a partisan filibuster on nominees to prevent an up-or-down vote. It is not the rule that is being changed in this debate. It is the precedent of the Senate, for 200 years, that was changed in the 108th Congress, by requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges. And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges. Two hundred years of Senate precedent is being torn apart. Through Democrat majority control and Republican majority control over the years--the filibuster was not used as it was in the last session of Congress. As recently as March of 2000, more than 80 Senators were on record opposing the filibuster of judicial nominations because the filibuster was never intended to be used this way. The Senate's original cloture rule, in 1917, did not even apply to nominations because no Senator had ever used a filibuster for nominations. When the cloture rule was rewritten in 1949 to cover all matters, it was used most often for scheduling purposes. History demonstrates that there was no real precedent for the use of the filibuster to permanently block the confirmation of judicial nominations. And there has never been a cloture vote where the person received majority support and still was not confirmed. However, we are not trying to do away with the filibuster on legislative matters. This is a part of our tradition in the Constitution that everyone, I believe, wants to uphold; that is, the right of a minority to filibuster and require three-fifths of the people present and voting in the Senate to overturn it. It is a vital legislative tool. But when it comes to judges, the Constitution never envisioned a super-majority. In fact, where the Constitution has required a super-majority, it has specifically said so. A majority vote ensures the balance of power between the President's right to nominate and the Senate's role to give advice and consent. We are not only changing the tradition of the Senate with the filibuster of judicial nominations, we are changing the balance of power that was clearly set out in the Constitution and which has been one of the strengths of our democracy. The separation of powers and the balance of powers given to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our Government was the genius of the Founding Fathers. We value three independent branches in our Government and work to prohibit one branch from overruling another, beyond repair. These are the stakes in this debate. That balance of power is going to be disrupted if we allow a super-majority requirement for Presidential nominees or judgeships to be confirmed. It says a minority of 41 Senators, who are not in the majority in the Senate, will have the ability to dictate to the President who is acceptable as a nominee. That was not envisioned in the Constitution, and it was part of the careful balance between the right of the President to appoint the judiciary and the Senate's right to overturn that appointment by 51 votes, if necessary. But if the nominee gets the majority of 51, that person is confirmed. We are trying to uphold that constitutional balance. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the Senate. The Supreme Court has been clear. In the United States v. Ballin, the Supreme Court held that only a majority of the lawful quorum is all that is necessary to change the House or Senate rules, practices, and procedures. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the right to change rules, practices, and procedures is a ``continuous power'' that may be exercised at any time. Clearly, the Senate has the right to change its rules and practices by the majority. I want the tradition of the Senate, for 200 years, to be upheld without any need for a rule change. For 200 years, Democrats and Republicans had agreed on this principle. It was not until the last session of Congress, when President George W. Bush lost almost one- third of his judicial nominees for the circuit court benches that we saw sudden changes to the traditions of the Senate, with the effort to impose a 60-vote super-majority for nominations by the Democrats. I am here to talk about someone I know well, someone I have come to admire totally, even more than I did before she took this awesome responsibility to become a nominee of the President. She has withstood the slings and arrows. Her strength and sound judicial temperament has been consistent. Priscilla Owen has had the necessary 51 votes to be confirmed by the Senate four times. But still, we wait and have been waiting for four years. She deserves an up-or-down vote that will allow her to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals bench. I hope we will not let 200 years of tradition go. But if it is the will of the minority to continue to thwart 200 years of tradition and the Constitution of the United States, it is my hope we reinstate the long-standing practice on nominations in the Senate and adhere to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. We should not change the Constitution without going through the appropriate amending process, which has not been done. We have unanimous consent for two more speakers, which we intend to continue to hold. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there is something in the Texas soil that produces colorful characters. From Judge Roy Bean, the law west of the Pecos, to Admiral Chester Nimitz, to racecar driver Richard Petty, Texas has raised up men and women whose achievements and personal flair have made our world not only a better place, but more interesting. One of Texas' most popular people is Harris County constable Bill Bailey. Constable Bailey heads up a big operation, with 77 employees and a $4.3 million annual budget. He has been a constable for 21 years, whose leadership was recognized when he was named president of the Texas Association of Counties. This is a big achievement for anyone. But Bill Bailey is not just anyone. Born Milton Odom Stanley, he was always a gregarious attention-seeking youth. Before he graduated from high school, he landed his first job on a radio station in Temple. He called himself ``The Lone Wolf.'' When he graduated from high school in 1957, his career began to take off. He was hired by a station first in Round Rock, then in El Paso, where he enrolled at Texas Western College. Radio was so good, he dropped out of college and took a job with a chain. He ended up in Des Moines, IA, broadcasting as Lee Western. During his job there, he had his first child, who was born over Texas soil even though the birth took place in a Des Moines hospital. Bill Bailey's mom sent him some dirt from his hometown which he wrapped in sterile cloth and placed under the delivery table. That is an authentic Texan. On New Year's Day, 1960, he tuned in to listen to the University of Texas play in the Cotton Bowl. ``They cranked up `The Eyes of Texas,' and I just cried,'' Bill said. ``I came home to Texas without a job.'' Later, he walked into Houston radio station KTHT to apply for a position. The station had recently hired a man from St. Louis by the name of Bill Bailey and had invested heavily in a promotion using the song, ``Won't you come home Bill Bailey, Won't you come home?'' The problem was, the new man decided after two weeks to do just that and went back home to St. Louis. The station was desperate to recoup the cost of the advertising, so the deal presented to young Milton Odom Stanley was to become Bill Bailey. He kept the name ever since. Two years later, Bill Bailey was hired by KIKK, known as KIKKer Country in Houston, not long before the Urban Cowboy nationwide country music craze. By 1979, Bill Bailey was honored as the number one country music broadcaster in a major market, and Billboard magazine named him Program Director of the Year. At the top of his profession, Bill Bailey noted that radio personalities were beginning to coarsen their acts to get higher ratings. This went against the grain, because he knew young girls and grandmothers would listen to his show. Since he was opposed to using off-color humor, Bill Bailey began looking for a way to switch careers. The opportunity came when a vacancy opened for constable in Harris County Precinct 8. By this time, Bill had a law enforcement commission as a reserve officer in the Galena Park Police Department. In this respect, he was following in the footsteps of his great, great, great grandfather, Williamson County Sheriff Milton Tucker, who captured the legendary outlaw Sam Bass in 1878 the day after Bass had been mortally wounded by Texas Rangers in Round Rock. After winning a run-off election, he worked hard to make his office more professional and improved every aspect of its operations. Bill started many initiatives in his office, not least of which is guarding the homes of astronauts while they are in space. Another measure was to provide powered impact wrenches with all his patrol cars so deputies can rapidly change tires for stranded motorists. ``I've gotten more mail from citizens who have had flats fixed than all the other cops-and-robbers stuff we do,'' he said. I have known Bill for years. We rode horses together on the Salt Grass Trail and in the Houston Rodeo. He is a fine and good man. Bill Bailey's other activities include serving part-time as an announcer at the Texas Prison Rodeo for 15 years, and calling the calf scramble and grand entry salute at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. He has been active in that charity for 43 years. It is no surprise that a man this talented has had so many names: Milton Stanley, ``Poogie'', his nickname as he grew up in Galena Park, ``Lone Wolf'', Lee Western, Buffalo Bill Bailey and, finally, plain old Bill Bailey. Constable Bill Bailey may have had many names, but he has always been a devoted family man, a believing Christian and a colorful credit to our State. Please join me in congratulating him as the City of Pasadena and the Pasadena Rotary Club host Bill Bailey Day on April 29, 2005.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 379 and send a modification to the desk.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment to recapture unused EB-3 visas. Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy and I have worked on this to try to assure that 50 percent of the unused EB-3 visas help resolve our serious nursing shortage. It is very important. These visas go out of existence and cannot be recaptured except by an act of Congress. They have already been authorized. We need to recapture the unused visas from 2001 to 2004, add to the number of nurses we can bring to our country, as well as the EB-3 engineers and educated workforce that are waiting in the wings. Mr. President, I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on my amendment. We need to dispose of amendment No. 379, as modified.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator saying we are going to go immediately to cloture on the whole bill or the Mikulski amendment at 5 o'clock?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Byrd amendment. It is my understanding that, after I speak and after Senator Byrd has a few minutes to respond, we will have a vote on this amendment. The amendment put forth by Senator Byrd would take out $40 million requested by the administration in emergency funds to build a detection facility and security fence at Guantanamo Bay. I believe we must keep the $40 million to allow the Department to move forward to make better facilities at Guantanamo Bay, facilities that are more secure, and facilities that will make operations more efficient, especially in the use of guards. Currently, there are about 545 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. About half of those are housed in three camps, which are built as temporary facilities. I have seen these facilities. Many of us have gone to Guantanamo Bay to look at them. They are basically walls made of chain- link fences. Of course, there is no climate control, and there is not very much room for exercise of detainees. Building the more permanent facility would provide a better, more secure facility, and facilities that are better housing units. I think Guantanamo Bay is the perfect place to hold these types of detainees, many of whom are dangerous terrorists. I do not want these prisoners moved. I don't want them moved into facilities in communities in our country, on our shores, where they can pose a danger for our citizens and serve as a lightning rod for terrorist activity. Al-Qaida has shown that it will try to liberate--by force if necessary and with no regard to the loss of innocent lives--their fellow terrorists. U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have weathered such attacks and thwarted repeated violent escape attempts. Recent reports of tunnels, riots, and mortar attacks against detention facilities in Iraq have been well publicized in the press. Do we want to move that to the lower 48 States in the United States of America? I don't think so. Having them on an island, where other terrorist attempts to free prisoners are much less able to be put forth, is the exact right place for these prisoners. I want to make sure that we have the best facilities possible and that we have the permanent facilities on an island in Cuba so that there is not as much capability to do harm to innocent Americans as there would be if we moved those prisoners to places on our soil such as Atlanta, GA, or Florida. The detention facility that would be built will also reduce the number of required personnel. The current facilities require significant personnel to monitor detainees. A permanent facility would free 150 of them to perform other tasks in the global war on terror. It will be the same for the security fence; we could free up 196 people who are now guarding around the perimeter of Guantanamo Bay. So that is 346 fewer guards that would be needed if we had the permanent facilities. It is very important that we keep the $40 million asked for by this administration to make better, more permanent facilities at Guantanamo Bay. I want them to stay on that island, not moved into the United States where we know terrorists are dwelling, we know they are looking for ways to attack our country. The last thing we want is for them to start moving into detention facilities to try to free prisoners and, in the process, harm innocent Americans or the people who are guarding those prisoners. So I ask the Senate to vote this amendment down and give the administration and the Department of Defense the capability to house these prisoners in the most efficient way possible and certainly in a way that protects American lives to the greatest extent possible. I yield the floor.