Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to honor seven individuals who last year made the ultimate sacrifice. The crew of flight STS-107 was tragically lost aboard the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. Debris from the vehicle was found in several cities and towns in my home State of Texas, where memorials will be raised to the mission's memory. Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Specialist Michael Anderson, Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown and Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut, admirably exemplified our commitment to human space exploration. These men and women labored for years to join the select group of NASA astronauts. Their 16-day mission was dedicated to research in physical, life, and space sciences. They conducted approximately 80 separate experiments comprised of hundreds of samples and tests, for 24 hours a day in alternating shifts. This selfless toil has repeatedly formed the basis of NASA's significant discoveries about our universe. The Columbia crew, by participating in this effort, fully endorsed manned space exploration, which has been among NASA's missions since its inception in 1958. Beginning with NASA's earliest Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions which first put men on the moon, to this year's Mars rovers, the benefits of space technology are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American. The work of people like those lost last year has led to myriad tangible benefits here on Earth, such as the life-saving CAT Scan. This very American desire to cross frontiers and explore our surroundings drives critical innovation and development, and it does not exist without people like those we commemorate today. I believe these cherished husbands and wives, sons, daughters, parents, and friends deserve to be counted among another exclusive number. For their bravery, dedication, audacity, and perseverance, these astronauts should be posthumous recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal, which is awarded as the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. According to convention, this measure must be cosponsored by 67 Senators before it can be considered, and I am certain my colleagues hold the Columbia crew in the same high regard as I do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to honor seven individuals who last year made the ultimate sacrifice. The crew of flight STS-107 was tragically lost aboard the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. Debris from the vehicle was found in several cities and towns in my home State of Texas, where memorials will be raised to the mission's memory. Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Specialist Michael Anderson, Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown and Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut, admirably exemplified our commitment to human space exploration. These men and women labored for years to join the select group of NASA astronauts. Their 16-day mission was dedicated to research in physical, life, and space sciences. They conducted approximately 80 separate experiments comprised of hundreds of samples and tests, for 24 hours a day in alternating shifts. This selfless toil has repeatedly formed the basis of NASA's significant discoveries about our universe. The Columbia crew, by participating in this effort, fully endorsed manned space exploration, which has been among NASA's missions since its inception in 1958. Beginning with NASA's earliest Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions which first put men on the moon, to this year's Mars rovers, the benefits of space technology are far-reaching and affect the lives of every American. The work of people like those lost last year has led to myriad tangible benefits here on Earth, such as the life-saving CAT Scan. This very American desire to cross frontiers and explore our surroundings drives critical innovation and development, and it does not exist without people like those we commemorate today. I believe these cherished husbands and wives, sons, daughters, parents, and friends deserve to be counted among another exclusive number. For their bravery, dedication, audacity, and perseverance, these astronauts should be posthumous recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal, which is awarded as the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. According to convention, this measure must be cosponsored by 67 Senators before it can be considered, and I am certain my colleagues hold the Columbia crew in the same high regard as I do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much of our morning business time has elapsed?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the 9/11 Commission report, the war on terror, and the progress we have made since we were attacked 3 years ago in this country. For years, terrorists have attacked the United States with little or no reaction from us. We have highlighted time and time again the trail of terror that led to September 11, 2001. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing 6 people and wounding more than 1,000. It is still not fully solved. In 1996, terrorists bombed the U.S. military living quarters at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 brave Americans and wounding scores more--never solved. In 1998, followers of Osama bin Laden attacked U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing and wounding hundreds--never solved. In 2000, Osama bin Laden's followers attacked the U.S.S. Cole in a harbor in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more--not solved. Sadly, it took four hijacked airplanes being turned into weapons of mass destruction and the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans and visitors to our country for us to resolve that we had been attacked, our way of life had been attacked, and the United States of America is going to fight back. We are in a war on terrorism. The 9/11 Commission is going to report on Thursday, and we know there will be blame for everybody about the failure of our intelligence capabilities. The administration of President Bush provided unprecedented access and cooperation to the Commission because the President said we want to know what went wrong so we can make it right. The President himself said: The 9/11 commission will issue a report this week and will lay out recommendations for reform of the intelligence services of the United States. I look forward to seeing those recommendations. They share the same desire that I share which is to make sure that Presidents and Congress get the best possible intelligence. I have spoken about the reforms, and some of the reforms are necessary--more human intelligence, better ability to listen and see things and better coordination among the various intelligence gathering services. This is what President Bush said about the 9/11 Commission. He went further to say: Based on published accounts, we expect the commission report will show that government institutions failed to adapt to the threat of terrorism over more than a decade, enabling terrorists to exploit dangerous weaknesses in our defenses. We expect the commission to confirm that the blame for the 9/ 11 attacks lies squarely and exclusively with al-Qaida. It is clear as the threat of international terrorism evolved over more than a decade that our national security and counterterrorism institutions did not resolve to meet the threat under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Republican and Democratic Congresses. The kind of systematic changes and reform that might have made it more difficult for the terrorists to strike on 9/11 did not take place. We have established that we can put the blame everywhere--in Congress, with Republicans, with Democrats, with administrations of the past and administrations of the present. We have taken some steps already as the Commission hearings have resolved. We have taken the steps of implementing a new policy on terrorism by holding to account terrorist groups and the states that sponsor them and not allowing dangerous threats to gather overseas unchecked. We have cut off their money supply in many instances where we could with cooperation from allies. We have transformed the FBI into an agency focused on preventing terrorist attacks through intelligence collection and other efforts while also trying to help it perform its traditional role as a world- class law enforcement agency for investigating terrorism and other crimes. We conducted the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since 1947 by creating the Department of Homeland Security, bringing unparalleled focus and resources to homeland security efforts. We have dramatically increased security on airplanes and other transportation systems on our borders and in our ports, providing significantly increased support for America's first responders. We have broken down the unnecessary ``wall'' between law enforcement and intelligence gathering with the USA PATRIOT Act and with internal procedures and guidelines that are reformed so that our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies can do their job without artificial restrictions that would keep them from doing something as simple as tracing through cell phones potential terrorists who are planning some kind of action against innocent law-abiding Americans. We are going to challenge these security issues. We are not going to ignore them. We are not going to wait for a future tragedy. Recently, President Bush articulated three commitments in our strategy for peace. First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We are not sitting here waiting for the enemy to come back to America; we are taking the fight where the enemy is. We are taking the fight to the Taliban resurgents in Afghanistan. We are taking the fight to Iraq where, Heaven knows, we have seen the brutality of Saddam Hussein in his support for terrorists by giving $25,000 rewards to suicide bombers in Israel. Second, we are protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. We are laser-beam focused in the war on terrorism. We are working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action for our common security. We are not facing a security threat just in the United States; we are facing a security threat to every freedom-loving country. Every country that lives in freedom is a target. We have seen it in bombings throughout the world, and recently in Spain. Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy. It is absolutely proven that in democratic and successful societies, men and women will not allow the malcontent and zealots and murderers to stay among them. They turn their labor to rebuilding and to better lives. Is there one person in the world who has children who doesn't want the best for them? Is there a person in the world who doesn't want an education for their children so their children will have a better life than they did? Is there one person in the world who doesn't want that? It is clear that the way to get education for every child and a quality of life that would be good for every child to grow up in is democracy and freedom. That is how you get it. That is what we are trying to provide. We are doing it in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq where they haven't known freedom for years. We have some successes. Look at Afghanistan. Three years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, ruled by the Taliban, the most cruel of regimes imaginable. The things they did to women and children are unimaginable in our country. Today, Afghanistan is looking at a presidential election this fall. The terror camps are closed. The Afghan Government is helping us to hunt down the remnants of the Taliban. The American people are safer because Afghanistan is now stabilized with a great President, Hamid Karzai, who wants for his people the same thing that everybody wants-- freedom, democracy, education, good health care, jobs, and an economy. He is trying to provide it, and we are helping him, and we are safer because of it. Let us look at Pakistan. Three years ago, Pakistan was a country that openly recognized the Taliban. Al-Qaida was active. They were recruiting in Pakistan. The United States was not on really good terms with Pakistan at that time, but today, we see a great ally in Pakistan. President Musharraf is a friend to our country. He is making reforms in Pakistan and trying to root out the same Taliban/al-Qaida network in the remote regions that have terrorized Afghanistan and, in fact, have hurt the people of Pakistan as well. It was Pakistan that helped us capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11 attack on America. Who could say we are not safer today because we have an alliance with Pakistan and an alliance and a stake in the stability of Afghanistan? Iraq, 3 years ago; where were the people of Iraq? The ruler of Iraq was an enemy of our country. He was a mass murderer. He had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Today, we see pictures of him in a system of justice which he never allowed his own people. But he is going to have justice. It is going to be given justice by the people he treated so horribly. The people of Iraq are seeking justice. The people of America are safer because Saddam Hussein is gone. He is not giving $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber to blow up a bus in Israel and kill children. We are safer because there will be elections in Iraq. By next January, we will see the people of Iraq speaking about their own government. In fact, U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has named a career diplomat to the post that has been vacant since suicide bombers blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad last August, killing the last U.N. representative there. America is safer because Saddam Hussein is behind bars and because his sons are no longer torturing and maiming hundreds of people in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, 3 years ago; Saudi Arabia had terrorists within its midst and they were looking the other way. Today, Saudi Arabia says they are trying to find the attackers. They are finally realizing the growth of these terrorist regimes hurt their people, too. We are going to try to help Saudi Arabia in every way they ask us to help, to root out the terrorists who have fomented in their country. If there is no place for the terrorists to hide in the Middle East, and if people are starting to see an economy, and if there are democracies emerging in places such as Iraq, it will change the course of the whole Middle East. Libya, 3 years ago; Libya, a longtime supporter of terror, was spending millions of dollars to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. Today, thousands of Libya's chemical munitions have been destroyed. The Libyan Government finally saw that the civilized world was not going to sit back any longer and let it continue to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Muammar Qadhafi, in Libya, said: We are going to abandon any chance for nuclear weapons to be produced in our country. We are seeing the breakdown of the terrorist regimes, one by one, in the Middle East. Why are we seeing the regimes go away and the beginnings of democracy come forward? Because our President has been focused. He has not relented in the war on terrorism. He has not relented in his responsibility to protect the people of America. Everything he has done has been with one goal in mind and that is to protect the people of America. That is the President's focus and that is why we are as far along as we are. Let me read from an AP story about the success of the newly emerging Iraq stock exchange. From the AP on Sunday, July 18: The miniature Liberty Bell clanged. Elbows flew. Sweat poured down foreheads. Sales tickets were passed and, with the flick of the wrist, 10,000 shares of the Middle East Bank has more than doubled in value. The frantic pace Sunday of those first 10 minutes of trading typified the enthusiasm behind the Iraq Stock Exchange--a new institution seen as a critical step in building a new Iraqi economy. In just five sessions, trading volume has nearly quadrupled and the value of some stocks has surged more than 600 percent. . . . The exchange's chief executive, as he eyed the activity on the trading floor, which is housed in a converted restaurant because looters had gutted the old exchange, looked out and said: How can I not be excited about this? The unofficial figures of the day's trade tell the story. Over 10 million equivalent dollars in stocks changed hands, reflecting the movement of 1.43 million shares--although only 27 companies are listed on the exchange. That is just one more step in the stabilization of Iraq. America is going to stay to help Iraq as they recover from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. As long as we are asked to stay to stabilize, we will be there. When we are no longer needed with the allies that are staying with us, we will happily leave that country in the hands of trained military personnel for security and in the hands of elected democratic leaders selected by the vote of the people. Today, we see the emerging of the temporary government of Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, working together to create a unified Iraq that will be able to hold elections for that country. We have more to do. We all know we have more work to do. Our President has done so much in 3 years, rebuilding the areas of New York that were hit by terrorists, building up our security network, spending billions for homeland security, focusing on airline, airplane, and airport security, port security. We live in a big country. We live in a free country. It is hard to get control in a free country of every potential site that a terrorist might attack. But because we are free, the people of our country are stepping up to the plate, too; they are helping. They are being vigilant. They are looking for things that are strange and reporting them. We believe attacks have been averted because of the vigilance of the President and Congress and the people of the United States. We must remain a united country. When I hear some of the debates in the political arena, it is as if people are saying, we are two different countries; we are a divided country. We are not a divided country. We need leaders who recognize we are not a divided country. We are a unified country. We need leaders who will unify America and talk to the people about what we can do together that will make us stronger, standing up and celebrating our diversity, showing how it can work in a free and democratic society. That is what we are proving by leading as unifiers. We have a President of the United States who is leading for security and unification of our country. We must work with the President as a united Congress to combat terrorism for the security of our people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation creating the childhood drinking prevention semi-postal stamp. Alcohol is the number one substance used and abused by America's children. Nearly a third of children begin drinking before the age of 13, and forty percent of children who begin drinking by age 15 will develop alcohol abuse or dependence later in life. I do not believe most parents or adults intentionally ignore this issue, however many Americans do not realize the prevalence and seriousness of childhood drinking. Several national surveys, including those conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, demonstrate the serious consequences associated with early alcohol use. For example, in 2002, 1.5 million youths between the ages of 12 to 17 needed treatment for alcohol abuse. Early alcohol use is more likely to kill or injure young people than all illegal drugs combined. If the onset of drinking is delayed, a child's risk of serious alcohol problems could be decreased or even prevented. That is why I am pleased to propose the passage of a semi-postal stamp on childhood drinking prevention. A semi-postal stamp will publicize this important children's health issue in every home, school, and community across the nation. Profits from the childhood drinking prevention stamp would be dedicated to support education and prevention efforts. I would also provide a further platform for millions of Americans to raise awareness about the importance of keeping children alcohol free. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation creating the childhood drinking prevention semi-postal stamp. Alcohol is the number one substance used and abused by America's children. Nearly a third of children begin drinking before the age of 13, and forty percent of children who begin drinking by age 15 will develop alcohol abuse or dependence later in life. I do not believe most parents or adults intentionally ignore this issue, however many Americans do not realize the prevalence and seriousness of childhood drinking. Several national surveys, including those conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, demonstrate the serious consequences associated with early alcohol use. For example, in 2002, 1.5 million youths between the ages of 12 to 17 needed treatment for alcohol abuse. Early alcohol use is more likely to kill or injure young people than all illegal drugs combined. If the onset of drinking is delayed, a child's risk of serious alcohol problems could be decreased or even prevented. That is why I am pleased to propose the passage of a semi-postal stamp on childhood drinking prevention. A semi-postal stamp will publicize this important children's health issue in every home, school, and community across the nation. Profits from the childhood drinking prevention stamp would be dedicated to support education and prevention efforts. I would also provide a further platform for millions of Americans to raise awareness about the importance of keeping children alcohol free. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about the Federal marriage amendment before the Senate. It is important that we focus on this very important issue and look at the reason we are taking it up. Some people come up to me and say: Why are we doing this now? We already have the Defense of Marriage Act. Additionally, people say: Is this such a pressing issue that it needs to be discussed right now? I cosponsored this amendment because if we wait until the Defense of Marriage Act is taken through the courts and potentially declared unconstitutional, questions would arise about what marriage is in our country. I do not think many would disagree that the traditional concept of marriage is what must be protected. Traditional marriage has been the foundation of our families for generations, in fact, centuries. It is best for our children now, and is the best chance our children have for brighter futures. Inevitably, single-parent households exist due to death or an inability to keep marriages together. But it is proven, that if possible, a married couple, a man and a woman, raising a family give children the best chance to succeed in their lives. Today, same-sex couples from 46 States have traveled to Massachusetts, California, and Oregon to receive marriage licenses with the intention of returning to their respective States to challenge their State's laws. Forty-two States have specific laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. My State of Texas has such a law. Activist judges and lawyers have been using the judicial system to undermine the traditional definition of marriage without public consent or debate. This is not just an attack on our families, but also on our democratic form of government. Elected representatives of the people are supposed to make the laws of our country. In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act--it was passed 85 to 14 on the Senate floor--to protect marriage by allowing States to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage. I have heard arguments that DOMA would not withstand a full faith and credit Constitutional challenge, but we continue to see courts, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and officials in California deny the laws of this country and their particular States. I do not think the Constitution should be amended lightly. I would like to see our Constitution amended only when it is absolutely necessary to correct a fundamental problem. However, this is one of those times. This is one of those times when we have judges acting as legislators. This must be stopped and can only be stopped by the Constitution. The full faith and credit clause of our Constitution says: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. The full faith and credit clause should not be used by the courts to validate marriages because marriages are not legal judgments, they are civil contracts. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a change where activist judges are making laws with their judgments, and the full faith and credit clause faces enormous challenge. Currently, there are 11 States facing court challenges to their marriage laws. Recent court decisions indicate that neither State attempts to define marriage nor DOMA may be sufficient to protect the ability of States to define marriage. At least seven States will have State constitutional amendments on their ballots in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In my State of Texas where the legislature passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, controversy now exists about how State courts must treat civil unions. The State attorney general has said that Texas does not recognize Vermont civil unions, and, therefore, no divorce or separation must be granted in Texas for this union. These are just a few of the questions that are beginning to arise because of the acts of judges in Massachusetts and local officials in California. It is very important that elected representatives make this decision. People must have the right to hear the discussion, talk about it, and be represented by their elected officials. That is the issue here. I do not think we will have the votes on Wednesday to proceed to this critical issue, but this is an important step toward starting the debate. Marriage between a man and a woman that produces children and strong families is fundamental to our society and demands this safeguard. This is the core and fabric of our society. I hope in the next few days, weeks, and months we have a civilized debate. This is not about being anti-homosexual. Not at all. I think everyone believes gays and lesbians should have the ability to lead their lives as they choose, as should all consenting adults. But we don't want to tear down traditional marriage and the American family. We need to protect traditional marriage. We should not allow some States to impose their definition of marriage on other States. States must have the right to accept or reject anything that has not been demonstrated the will of the people through their representatives. I appreciate being given the time to speak on this issue. It is an important issue for our country, and I hope we will carefully consider the ramifications if we do not take action to protect traditional marriage and the American family. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes off the side of Senator Leahy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Leon Holmes' nomination to the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution imposes profound responsibility on the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on appointments of individuals to lifetime positions. I rarely voted against a judicial nominee or even opposed one under President Clinton. I have never opposed one under President Bush. On the rare occasion when I did oppose a judicial candidate, it was because a nominee had failed to show proper judicial temperament, or if questions about judicial philosophy arose, and there was no judicial record on which to base a vote of confidence. I take very seriously the responsibility of confirming an individual for a lifetime appointment. These Federal judges do not answer to anyone after they take office. So when someone's views raise a question or concern and there is no record as a judge to show he or she can set personal views aside, I believe caution is warranted. For my vote, such is the case with Leon Holmes. Dr. Holmes is a gifted man and a capable attorney. He has had a strong career and demonstrated commitment to his community. His rich spiritual conviction and work ethic are traits for which he is commended. I have listened to Dr. Holmes' supporters. I read statements in support of his candidacy presented by the Department of Justice. I know his distinguished career. I have read carefully his writings and public statements, including those for which he has subsequently clarified or apologized. I met Dr. Holmes to talk about his nomination. Mr. President, we have made mistakes like this in the past. Last month a judge on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a judge who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 1994 with my vote, made a disturbing public speech. In it, he compared President Bush's election in 2000 to the rise of power of Mussolini. The judge has, of course, apologized. We have all made remarks we wish we had not made. But in this case, coming from a judge, the blatant partisanship and political bias revealed by this remark, reduced the value of the subsequent apology. Now, it is a fair question, if a Republican-oriented litigant comes to the Second Circuit, can he or she be assured of an impartial justice by that judge? In 1980, Leon Holmes wrote: The concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami. I differ with him absolutely on this issue. If one rape victim is pregnant, she deserves protections and rights. She is a victim our society must acknowledge. What of the 14-year-old pregnant girl--a victim of incest from her father? Should she be cast aside as inconsequential? If you talk to any person who has served on a grand jury, in any urban area of our country, they have seen such a case. It happens. Thousands of rape victims in our country become pregnant every year. The Houston Chronicle recently reported that the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimates 25,000 rape-related pregnancies occur annually. Are these victims to be ignored by our laws and society? To his credit, Dr. Holmes has acknowledged that these comments were insensitive, but in conjunction with his other writings, that isn't enough for a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship. My vote will not be in any way related to his views on abortion or his personal religious beliefs. It is based on his body of statements over a 25-year period that lead me to conclude he does not have a fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society. I have supported all of President Bush's previous nominees. In each instance, if there has been a controversy, I have tried to make an independent judgment without employing a litmus test, and without employing my own discrimination based on the nominee's personal practices or ideologies. In each case, I felt the candidate met the requirements. But I have a constitutional role that I must, in good conscience, uphold as I see it. I believe in the overwhelming majority of cases, the President should be granted his appointments to the bench. The role given to the Senate was to allow all possible information about a nominee to come forward to assure that a person is fit. Personally, I doubt that the writings of this nominee were known to the Administration when the appointment was made. But since his statements have come to the attention of the Senate, we must use our judgment about the overall ability of this nominee to give impartial justice in all cases. I conclude that I cannot provide my consent for Leon Holmes. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to concerns related to cancer care reimbursement. Today, many oncology services are paid for through drug administration reimbursement because most are not covered by Medicare. These services include specially-trained oncology nurses and supportive care services important to performing first rate cancer care. Although the new Medicare law increases reimbursements to physicians and provides much needed compensation for oncology nursing, it reduces how much Medicare will reimburse for chemotherapy beginning in 2005. While I support the sound and innovative advancements the Medicare law provides, it is important not to jeopardize cancer care through decreases in reimbursements. Congress understood the impact the Medicare law would have on patient access and included a temporary one-year increase in physicians' practice expenses. However, this provision will expire in 2005 and could reduce access to care. The ``Ensuring Quality and Access to Cancer Care Act of 2004'' would extend the one-year transitional period already established in the law for an additional year. It allows a compromise so Congress has the time it needs to further debate this issue, ask important questions regarding the impact of payment reductions and better understand how Medicare should reimburse for services provided to cancer patients.

Ms. HUTCHISON

Ms. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the nominee we are going to vote on, Jane Boyle, has served our country in so many positions: U.S. magistrate, where she had an outstanding record, as our U.S. Attorney, where she had an equally outstanding record. She has shown fairness, a judicial temperament, and great leadership in every position she has held. Mr. President, I am proud to have recommended her nomination along with my colleague, Senator Cornyn, and before that, Senator Gramm. We have never been disappointed in Jane Boyle's performance, and know she will be an outstanding judge. I urge a vote for her nomination.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an American legend, President Ronald Reagan. Like all Americans, I was saddened to learn of his passing over the weekend. I had left our Republican State convention at a time when it was moving across the floor that he might be in his final hours. Of course, all of us started reminiscing. It was a moment of great loss, but yet a recollection of his humor, his contagious optimism, and the historic accomplishments he made for our country really were comforting and engendered so many wonderful moments. Although I was not a Member of this body while he was in office, I have lived and served under his conservative principles and ideologies. He was in his political prime when I was just beginning in politics. During his first campaign, my husband Ray was chairman of the Texas Republican Party and spent many hours traveling with him across Texas. In 1992, I was honored to be temporary chair of the Republican National Convention in Houston, TX, when he delivered his very important message that turned out to be his goodbye to America. It was there that he left us with these final thoughts: Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. . . . May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. . . . My fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill. At a time of great despair in our Nation, Ronald Reagan came into office and restored hope. He was an unequaled champion of freedom, smaller Government, and market-oriented principles. His philosophies guided our Nation to become the economic and military superpower it is today. Of course, he was often called the Great Communicator for his ability to give a rousing speech that could both rally the troops and yet make an individual in the crowd of thousands feel as if they were having a heart-to-heart talk. Beyond his optimism, his confidence, and graceful charm was a man of action who implemented great change in the United States of America. Under his leadership, our Nation sowed seeds of prosperity and reduced regulatory burdens on small business. He lowered taxes for all Americans, including reducing the top marginal rate from an oppressive 70 percent to approximately half that, offering new incentives to create wealth and jobs and rebuild America. He encouraged Americans to embrace their own destiny and realized that Government was not the answer to social ills; people were. Good people working in concert to better their communities and their fellow man could accomplish far more than bureaucracy, from his vantage point. Perhaps most important, President Reagan took the steps to ultimately win the cold war. He pursued peace through strength and achieved an overwhelming victory that was inconceivable to a generation that was raised with fallout drills and backyard bunkers. Who can forget the famous challenge he laid down when he cried, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''? They were indeed great, dramatic words but more importantly words of action. Two and a half years later, what once seemed a permanent divider through the heart of Berlin was torn down piece by piece, section by section, until it was reduced to a pile of rubble. Visitors to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC, can view a section of that wall donated by the people of Berlin in honor of the President and in recognition of his leadership. The segment, which is over 9 feet high and weighs almost 3 tons, is from a section of the wall near the Brandenburg Gate where President Reagan issued that challenge. It stands as a stark reminder of the great shift in global politics that spread freedom in Europe and encouraged new generations to pursue democracy. Today, we again find ourselves in a fight for freedom. This generation, like their World War II grandparents and cold war parents, has been called to stand and fight for freedom. Today, we are grappling with a new threat: global terrorism, an enemy with no borders, no uniforms, no respect for traditional rules of war, and more importantly no respect for human life. World War II took bitter years of fighting and sacrifice. The cold war took decades of dedication and patience. This battle against terrorism requires all that and more. The question is: Will our generation meet the test? Will we have what it takes to win the peace? I believe we do. I believe the strength, perseverance, and patriotism that Ronald Reagan embodied will help see us through. In 1987, he addressed a joint session of Congress saying: Let it never be said of this generation of Americans that we became so obsessed with failure that we refused to take risks that could further the cause of peace and freedom in the world. Since learning of his passing last weekend, elected officials, former Cabinet members, and newspapers across the world have been penning eulogies, remembrances, and tributes to the beloved President. James Baker, his former Chief of Staff and Treasury Secretary: President Reagan restored America's source of pride and confidence in itself. He was a wonderful person to work for and a truly great President. His willingness to stick to his principles changed the world. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: He will be missed not only by those who knew him, and not only by the nation that he served so proudly and loved so deeply, but also by the millions of men and women who live in freedom today because of the policies he pursued. To have achieved so much against so many odds and with such humor and humanity made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served as his National Security Adviser, said: President Reagan fueled the spirit of America. His smile, his optimism, his total belief in the ultimate triumph of democracy and freedom, and his willingness to act on that belief, helped end the Cold War and usher in a new and brighter phase of history. Mikhail Gorbachev, once Reagan's adversary, called him: A true leader, a man of his word and an optimist . . . He has earned a place in history and in people's hearts. Finally, his Vice President, later our President, George H.W. Bush, has been giving interviews about how much fun he was and how they had lunch every week together and sometimes they would talk substance, sometimes they would talk policy, and sometimes they would just have a good time. They were very close, and yet he never lost that laser beam focus on the big issues, the things that really mattered that would move us one step toward the peace through strength that was his guiding principle. Indeed, his lasting place in the hearts of all Americans has been evidenced by the outpouring of love and admiration that we have seen across the Nation and around the world. Ronald Reagan was a leader who touched people with his words, inspired them with his actions, and led by his example. On November 5, 1994, nearly a decade ago, President Reagan announced to the world that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, the illness that would ultimately take his life. His poise and hopeful spirit, even in the face of the heartbreaking years ahead, were remarkable. He said: . . . Let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you. Standing by his side through good times and bad, his beloved wife Nancy, a beautiful woman, very slight in stature but strong as steel. Theirs was a partnership in every respect and one of the great love stories of our time. Ronald Wilson Reagan was a great President. He left an indelible impression on our country. As we say farewell, our thoughts and prayers are with Nancy and his family. We thank them and we thank the Lord that he gave us Ronald Reagan at a time when our country needed him the most. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, it is my pleasure to introduce our guest chaplain, Dr. Prentice Meador, from Dallas, TX, the minister at Prestoncrest Church of Christ. Dr. Meador hails from Nashville, TN. Our majority leader and Dr. Meador have known each other for a long time. He is a graduate of David Lipscomb College and holds a Ph.D from the University of Illinois. He and his wife Barbara, a registered nurse, have three married children and 10 grandchildren. Dr. Meador served at the South National Church of Christ in Springfield, MO for 14 years before moving to Dallas in 1988. There he started serving as a pulpit minister for the Prestoncrest Church of Christ. Not only did our distinguished leader come over to say hello to our chaplain this morning, but also Senator Bond from Missouri, who when he was Governor worked with Dr. Meador on a summit for children. Dr. Meador has been very active in that regard as well. So we came in today, and not only was he there with me as his hometown Senator but also the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri came to greet him, which I think shows what a great impact he has wherever he goes. Dr. Meador has in fact adopted a wonderful philosophy of the modern church. He offers grace to imperfect people. He doesn't want to save the world and lose our own families. He offers God to people entangled in the web of today's culture. That take on the urban church has attracted large audiences of young adults. In fact, the average age in his church in Dallas is 28. Dr. Meador has done an excellent job of cultivating their interest by emphasizing relationship building, mentoring, and accountability groups. He is a member of the board of trustees of a great university, Abilene Christian University in Abilene, TX, and he is on the chancellor's council of another great university, Pepperdine University in California. Dr. Meador is listed in ``Who's Who in Religion'' as well as ``Who's Who in the Southwest.'' He has spoken throughout the world and has given frequent lectures throughout the United States. He is an accomplished author who has written several books, and has been the managing editor of 21st Century Christian magazine starting in 1992. He is a regular television contributor, including as a weekly panelist on the American Religion Town Hall, which is a national program. Dr. Meador has received numerous awards for his leadership and citizenship. It is an honor to have him with us today. I was so pleased to be able to be with him this morning. We had a good visit at our prayer breakfast about what we do in the Senate. I thank Dr. Meador for sharing his blessing on us at a very important time in our country. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Certainly.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore flexibility to small communities in the use of Federal transit funding. As chairman of the Senate's Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I recognize the value of mass transit. Public transit is the first choice of transportation for many Americans. Local options such as buses, light rail and subways are affordable, friendly to the environment, and reduce traffic congestion. I know the limited availability of Federal funds for the Nation's extensive transportation needs requires creative solutions. For this reason, I have introduced this bill to correct an inequity in current law. The 1998 TEA-21 bill phased out operating assistance for mass transit except in small communities, using a population of 200,000 as the benchmark. Nationwide, more than 30 cities that are generally considered small transit communities because they operate fewer than 100 buses at peak hours exceeded that threshold in the 2000 Census. In Texas, the city of Lubbock is caught in this discrepancy. The 2000 Census also treated metropolitan areas composed of two or more adjacent cities as one statistical unit, and many of these units, such as Denton and Lewisville in Texas, subsequently ceased to qualify as small transit communities without increasing the size of their transit systems. This bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to a transit system for mass transportation operating costs in an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit system operates less than 100 buses. Smaller communities have always relied on Federal operating assistance for public transportation. Although bus systems may generate profits, the revenues of such limited offerings are not enough to finance administrative and other overhead costs not associated with capital purchases. While Congress works to reauthorize highway and other surface transportation programs for another 6 years, the need for this technical correction cannot be ignored. To ensure quality mass transit in States, small transit communities operating fewer than 100 buses should be permitted to use Federal funding as needed for capital investments or operating expenses. I am proud to offer this bill that provides an important correction for small transit systems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore flexibility to small communities in the use of Federal transit funding. As chairman of the Senate's Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I recognize the value of mass transit. Public transit is the first choice of transportation for many Americans. Local options such as buses, light rail and subways are affordable, friendly to the environment, and reduce traffic congestion. I know the limited availability of Federal funds for the Nation's extensive transportation needs requires creative solutions. For this reason, I have introduced this bill to correct an inequity in current law. The 1998 TEA-21 bill phased out operating assistance for mass transit except in small communities, using a population of 200,000 as the benchmark. Nationwide, more than 30 cities that are generally considered small transit communities because they operate fewer than 100 buses at peak hours exceeded that threshold in the 2000 Census. In Texas, the city of Lubbock is caught in this discrepancy. The 2000 Census also treated metropolitan areas composed of two or more adjacent cities as one statistical unit, and many of these units, such as Denton and Lewisville in Texas, subsequently ceased to qualify as small transit communities without increasing the size of their transit systems. This bill would allow the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to a transit system for mass transportation operating costs in an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit system operates less than 100 buses. Smaller communities have always relied on Federal operating assistance for public transportation. Although bus systems may generate profits, the revenues of such limited offerings are not enough to finance administrative and other overhead costs not associated with capital purchases. While Congress works to reauthorize highway and other surface transportation programs for another 6 years, the need for this technical correction cannot be ignored. To ensure quality mass transit in States, small transit communities operating fewer than 100 buses should be permitted to use Federal funding as needed for capital investments or operating expenses. I am proud to offer this bill that provides an important correction for small transit systems, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, last weekend thousands of Americans flocked to our National Mall to pay tribute to the ``greatest generation.'' It was the dedication, as we all know, of the World War II Memorial. It has now been 59 years since the end of the Second World War, and at long last our Nation has a place that honors the 16 million who served in our Armed Forces, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort here at home. I was touched that those who served at home also were honored because that war brought our Nation together as we had never seen before, and perhaps since. I can think of no more appropriate honor than to recognize their commitment, dedication, and sacrifice with a permanent memorial to the men and women who fought to secure our freedom and stamp out Nazi tyranny. Today we are honoring those Members of this esteemed body who fought for our freedoms in World War II. Of the 114 Senators who have served in the war, I have been privileged to serve with 15 of them. Six are here with me today. Danny Akaka served in World War II with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a welder-mechanic. Ernest Hollings graduated from The Citadel in 1942 and received a commission from the U.S. Army. He served as an officer in the North African and European campaigns in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. Frank Lautenberg enlisted in the Army straight out of high school and served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Ted Stevens, during World War II, was a pilot in the China-Burma- India theater, supporting the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. He received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, and a medal awarded from the Republic of China. Today he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee. John Warner entered the Navy at age 17, and served on active duty in World War II. He went on to serve as a marine in the Korean War, and served in the Department of Defense for 5 years during the Vietnam war. Later, he served our country as Secretary of the Navy, and now serves as the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. Danny Inouye served in combat with the legendary ``Go for Broke'' unit in World War II, achieving the rank of captain and earning the Nation's very highest award for military service, the Congressional Medal of Honor. He also earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart with cluster. He is the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Committee. Two of Texas' recent Senators, Lloyd Bentsen and John Tower, were both proud Texans and veterans of World War II. Three of our Nation's Commanders in Chief, who served in the Senate-- Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon--also fought as part of the ``greatest generation.'' For anyone who has read Tom Brokaw's book ``The Greatest Generation,'' the stories of those who fought the bitter and brutal fight and then returned home to their families and went about their lives as if it were no big deal are today still sources of great inspiration to all of us because they had the commitment to do what was right, to answer the call to duty, to return without a complaint, with no second guessing, no protests. That was the mark of the ``greatest generation.'' Some of them went back to the factories and the fields, and back to their desks, and they did not even expect praise or admiration. Some went into public service. Those we have mentioned today did and are doing a wonderful job carrying the mantle of public service. They brought with them the scars of war, and they carry the mantle of freedom. Bob Dole, with whom all of us served as well, what a great leader and what a great hero of World War II. Strom Thurmond, once chairman of the Armed Services Committee, served, at the age of 40, in World War II and had to miss the 50th anniversary of D-day because his son was graduating from high school. What a legend. I am honored to stand here and look around this fabulous room, these hallowed halls, and pay tribute to every one of you who gave me the right to stand here, and who will be forever in my heart because you are continuing to do so much for our country. I want you to know I believe without the great leadership you provided, neither my children nor I would know the freedom we know today. We do stand on the shoulders of giants, and we salute you. Madam President, my distinguished colleague, the Senator who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said I forgot President George Bush, who also was a hero in World War II. That is certainly a huge omission, and I apologize, and thank you, I say to the Senator, for letting me set the record straight. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I would like to be notified at the end of 5 minutes, after which I will yield the remainder on our side to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided between the two votes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been asked for?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first vote.

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.