Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been here for 10 years now. There are many in the Chamber who have been here longer than I. But I know one thing. Anytime we do something that is very major and very complicated, it is easy to pick it apart. It is easy in 30 seconds to say why you are not going to vote for something that has so many facets. That is much more politically feasible and it is much easier. It is harder to vote yes on something that isn't perfect. How can you ever expect a bill this complicated to suit every person in this body perfectly? Of course, you can't. That is why we have 100 Senators from 50 States. It is why we go back and forth and compromise. Yes, there is compromise in this bill. But let me tell you in a few minutes why I am voting yes. I am voting yes because senior citizens do not have benefits for prescription drugs. We must start. No one would say this is perfect. Who could expect a perfect bill that is this comprehensive? This is the bill. Of course, you don't agree with every word in it. But are we going to throw it away and not even start? I hope not. Those who have been around here longer than I know that we will come back and we will adjust where adjustment is necessary, as we do in every major piece of legislation that is far-reaching. I am voting for this bill because for the first time everyone in our country will have the chance to put aside money in a health savings account to build up for their copays and for their premiums on health care insurance. It will be a tax-free buildup, and it will be tax free when you take it out for your health care needs. I am voting for this bill because it increases the reimbursement for our people who give medical services. Our rural hospitals are dying all over our country and they will have a better reimbursement rate, something Senator Kennedy and I worked on very hard. This is not what I wanted in totality, but we are going to increase the teaching hospital reimbursement because the teaching hospitals are the ones that treat our poor. Our teaching hospitals are where our up-and-coming physicians and nurses learn how to treat patients. We are increasing the reimbursement. Senator Kennedy and I worked very hard on that. It is not everything we wanted but we can come back and we will make it even better. There will be millions of dollars going into our teaching hospitals and every State in our country has a teaching hospital. The reimbursement to physicians is going to increase. How many physicians have said, I am not taking Medicare patients anymore; I cannot afford it. We want physicians to take our Medicare patients. We also want a freedom to choose, which our Medicare patients do not now have and which we will have in the future. That is why I am voting for this bill. It is the harder vote. I urge my colleagues to step up to the plate and help us start.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. After I use 3 minutes. Thank you. Mr. President, while the medical community has ridden the technological wave of the future, pushing the envelope in research into new pharmaceuticals, treatments and life-saving measures, Medicare has been stuck floundering in the 20th century. The venerable program, designed to provide healthcare for the elderly and the disabled, has failed to meet all of the needs of those it set out to serve. After years of talk, Congress is poised to enact the most sweeping change for America's seniors in nearly 40 years. We have the opportunity to bring Medicare up-to-date and take advantage of the incredible advances in prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals are one of the miracles of modern medicine. Ailments that traditionally required an expensive in-patient hospital stay and invasion surgery can now be treated with medication. But most Medicare recipients wouldn't know it. While the government pays for costly heart surgery, it currently will not pay for the preventative drugs that may have precluded the need for an operate in the first place. An estimated 9.9 million Medicare beneficiaries do not have private prescription drug coverage, almost 600,000 in Texas alone. Some seniors who could lower their cholesterol by ingesting a simple pill like Lipitor have to pay out their pockets for the drug which retails at $108 per bottle, placing this simple solution out of their reach. The bill before Congress would give America's seniors access to a prescription drug benefit for the first time. Beneficiaries would pay a $35 monthly premium and a $250 deductible, after which they would pay 25 percent of drug costs between $275 and $2,250 and 100 percent between $2,250 and $3,600. Costs over that threshold would require an average copay of $2 for generic drugs and $5 for brand name drugs, or 5 percent of the total drug cost depending on the plan. Until these reforms are in place, a prescription drug discount card offering savings of up to 25 percent will be available in 2004, providing some relief immediately. This measure also offers additional and unprecedented assistance to those with low incomes. Medicare beneficiaries at the poverty level and below will pay no premiums or deductibles and will have nominal cost sharing responsibility, with copays of $1 for generic drugs and $3 for other pharmaceuticals. Those at 135 percent of the poverty level, or $12,123 annually for individuals, will not pay premiums or deductibles and will have co- payments of no more than $5. Beneficiaries at 150 percent of the poverty level, or $13,470 annually, will have a sliding scale subsidy for premiums, a $50 deductible and $2 and $5 co-pays. These changes will mean more than 680,000 low-income Texans will pay no more than $5 per prescription. Furthermore, with the Federal Government providing drug coverage for those individuals who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, my State will save $1.7 billion over an eight-year period. Though much of the attention surrounding Medicare reform has focused on the prescription drug benefit, there are a number of other elements that are important. In the end, the legislation is a good compromise and addresses the fundamental problems. One significant element is choice. This plan provides access to a broad array of healthcare options, similar to what most working Americans already enjoy. Seniors can stay in traditional Medicare, add a prescription drug plan or choose an HMO or PPO that includes a prescription drug plan. Unlike the current Medicare+Choice plans, which have been pulling out of communities, the bill guarantees all seniors will have access to an HMO or PPO plan. It also has provisions to encourage companies currently providing healthcare to their retirees to continue offering this important benefit. Another important component of the bill is an increase in the reimbursement rate for physicians, many of whom have stopped taking on new Medicare patients. Physicians were facing a cut in March of 2004 and another in 2005, but this legislation not only stops the reductions, it gives physicians an additional 1.5 percent reimbursement. Hospitals that treat a large number of illegal immigrants will receive some compensation for their services--a provision important for Texas hospitals and other providers. Another advantage that will benefit the general population, not just those within Medicare, is the creation of Health Savings Accounts, which will allow individuals and families to put tax-free money into an investment-type account dedicated to their medical costs. The money is not taxed when withdrawn for qualified medical expenses, giving Americans another tool to cover healthcare costs, such as deductibles and co-payments. As with any compromise, the bill is not everything I would want. I advocated larger teaching hospital reimbursement levels, and although the percentage is not as high as I proposed, in 2004 it increases the current reimbursement rate, from 5.5 percent to 6 percent in April and then to 5.8 percent in October, but it is still higher than the current rate. This increase means almost $13 million to Texas' teaching hospitals. Every State has at least one teaching hospital, with 1100 of the facilities nationwide. Teaching hospitals train nearly 100,000 physicians, and the Federal Government has traditionally recognized the higher costs inherent in training and educating those health care providers. They utilize newer technology and provide more indigent care. This increase will provide some much-needed assistance to our financially strapped rural and teaching hospitals. Let me be clear: this bill is not perfect, but as AARP President James Parkel said this week, ``Millions of Americans cannot wait for perfect. They need help now.'' After years of talk, we are taking the first step to bring this vital program up-to-date. For the first time, we can provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit that offers additional assistance for those who need it most and strengthen Medicare for future generations. I know my 3 minutes are up. I would like to add 2 minutes to Senator Hatch's 5 minutes with that added 2 minutes. I urge my colleagues to support this major first step.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be told in 3 minutes because I intend to leave 2 extra minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am proud to offer the Clean Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. Texas, like many States, faces increasingly difficult challenges in improving air and water quality. The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards and establishes deadlines for State and local governments to achieve those levels. Today, more than 90 communities across the country are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. These so-called ``non-attainment'' areas are threated with regulatory sanctions, such as loss of federal highway funding, if they do not meet mandated ozone levels by 2007. Texas has four non-attainment areas: Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas- Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston. The Houston area alone needs an estimated $4.1 billion annually in order to meet Federal air quality standards. These communities will not achieve compliance without assistance. Too many industrial plants need to install expensive equipment. If these environmental investments do not become more affordable, communities will either suffer sanctions or force industrial facilities to close and move offshore, causing substantial economic hardship. Texas and many areas of the country, especially in the Southwest and West, also face critical water and wastewater problems. Investments in sources of clean water must be made or we will face shortages in the coming decades. However, necessary water infrastructure improvements are extremely expensive. According to the Texas State water plan, the cost of water supply acquisition projects, water and wastewater treatment, and other infrastructure projects in Texas through 2050 will be more than $100 billion. Currently, air and water pollution control facilities cannot be financed by tax-exempt bonds. Even if they could, they would be limited by a cap which sets the total amount of tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by a state. Given the demands of other projects, such as housing, relatively few of the air and water pollution projects would have an opportunity to access this financing option. In order to help us meet the challenges, I am introducing the Clear Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. My bill will allow federal tax-exempt bonds to be used by private firms for air and water pollution control projects. Given the importance of these critical projects, these bonds also would be issued outside the constraints of the private-activity bond caps. The Texas Water Development Board estimates this could save 30 percent in financing costs for water projects. For example, this bill would allow tax-exempt debt to be used to finance private systems along the Gulf Coast that desalinate seawater and brackish groundwater, and to install air pollution facilities on electric utility plants. States and communities would have an important new tool for addressing air and water pollution control needs. Pollution control is a problem for all of us. It is to everyone's benefit to develop ways to promote public and private partnerships which can finance projects to improve air and water quality. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am proud to offer the Clean Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. Texas, like many States, faces increasingly difficult challenges in improving air and water quality. The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards and establishes deadlines for State and local governments to achieve those levels. Today, more than 90 communities across the country are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. These so-called ``non-attainment'' areas are threated with regulatory sanctions, such as loss of federal highway funding, if they do not meet mandated ozone levels by 2007. Texas has four non-attainment areas: Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas- Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston. The Houston area alone needs an estimated $4.1 billion annually in order to meet Federal air quality standards. These communities will not achieve compliance without assistance. Too many industrial plants need to install expensive equipment. If these environmental investments do not become more affordable, communities will either suffer sanctions or force industrial facilities to close and move offshore, causing substantial economic hardship. Texas and many areas of the country, especially in the Southwest and West, also face critical water and wastewater problems. Investments in sources of clean water must be made or we will face shortages in the coming decades. However, necessary water infrastructure improvements are extremely expensive. According to the Texas State water plan, the cost of water supply acquisition projects, water and wastewater treatment, and other infrastructure projects in Texas through 2050 will be more than $100 billion. Currently, air and water pollution control facilities cannot be financed by tax-exempt bonds. Even if they could, they would be limited by a cap which sets the total amount of tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by a state. Given the demands of other projects, such as housing, relatively few of the air and water pollution projects would have an opportunity to access this financing option. In order to help us meet the challenges, I am introducing the Clear Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. My bill will allow federal tax-exempt bonds to be used by private firms for air and water pollution control projects. Given the importance of these critical projects, these bonds also would be issued outside the constraints of the private-activity bond caps. The Texas Water Development Board estimates this could save 30 percent in financing costs for water projects. For example, this bill would allow tax-exempt debt to be used to finance private systems along the Gulf Coast that desalinate seawater and brackish groundwater, and to install air pollution facilities on electric utility plants. States and communities would have an important new tool for addressing air and water pollution control needs. Pollution control is a problem for all of us. It is to everyone's benefit to develop ways to promote public and private partnerships which can finance projects to improve air and water quality. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Certainly.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for shepherding this very important and very complicated bill to the floor. I have to say I have been in the Senate for 10 years, and I have tried to get an Energy bill through the Senate during all of that time. We have never been able to do that until the Senator from New Mexico became chairman of the committee. What he has produced is a balanced bill. There are many things in it that I don't like. There are many things in it that I am sure every one of us in this Chamber would do a little differently. But we are a legislative body, and people have the right to have differing views and come together in compromises. When we are making the decisions about how we are going to vote on legislation, we have to determine if the good outweighs the bad and if the bad is going to be unchangeable or more harmful than we should allow. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad in this bill. I was going to talk about the MTBE issue. I couldn't talk about it any better than the Senator from New Mexico. People forget that MTBE was a mandate from the Federal Government. It came as a result of a mandate to produce oxygenated gasoline to try to reduce smog in our country and reduce pollution. The manufacturers came forward with MTBE. It is a perfectly safe product if used properly. In fact, it did have the intended consequences of reducing pollution. The reason it is going to be phased out is that it has been misused, it has leaked into water supplies, all of which is very bad. But I don't think making the manufacturers of a product that was produced at the insistence and mandate of the Federal Government is good public policy. I think the MTBE issue has been used as a stalking horse for people who do not like other parts of the bill. In fact, I think this is a good Energy bill. We must have an energy policy that addresses the issue of self-sufficiency for our country. Between 1950 and 2000--50 years--overall energy consumption in the United States increased three-fold. We currently account for 24 percent of consumption worldwide. Yet, while demand has drastically increased, domestic exploration and the development of renewable sources have not kept pace. What we are doing today and tomorrow and as long as it takes to pass this bill, I hope, is promoting conservation, promoting increased efficiency, promoting reduced consumption, and promoting increased production from traditional sources. Some forms of energy are limited. They will exhaust themselves over time. But others are replaceable. In this bill, we encourage the replaceable sources. Geothermal technology offers a clean, sustainable energy created by the harnessing the Earth's heat. Geothermal resources can be found in shallow ground or in hot water and rock miles below the Earth's surface. Hydropower, currently the largest source of renewable power in the United States, yields electricity from flowing water. Solar energy harnesses sunlight to generate electricity, provide hot water to heat and cool, and light buildings. Wind energy is created by 16-ton turbine engines capturing the wind with two or three giant blades to generate electricity. These turbines can be seen on hilltops where there is strong wind and not too much turbulence. These are becoming increasingly a common sight in my home State of Texas, one of the Nation's leaders in wind energy production. All of these sources are clean, natural, and renewable, and they can play a greater role in our Nation's energy policy. This legislation provides incentives for nuclear power. This has been overlooked in recent decades. Since 1978, no new nuclear plants have been built in our country. Fear of accident and extraordinary insurance costs have made nuclear energy a costly venture. While European nations have safely developed sophisticated nuclear capability, the United States has let development of this important source lag. By encouraging the development of nuclear energy, we will give American companies a kick start that will create the high-paying technology and construction jobs and provide probably the biggest source of clean energy to meet our high demand. One of the parts of the bill that I wrote is tax credits for marginal wells. Marginal wells are the 10-barrel-a-day wells, or less. When there are wells that produce a million barrels, thousands of barrels, a 10-barrel-a-day well is a small well. It takes a lot of capital to go out and drill a well. If a producer believes it is going to be a very small well, that producer is going to be less likely to incur the costs of drilling. But in fact, these little bitty wells, if they are going at full capacity in our country, and if we encourage them, can bring up the same amount of oil and gas as we import from Saudi Arabia every day. These little wells can be drilled by small business people. They can create jobs in the oil fields, and they can become a significant source of oil and gas for our country. We have tax credits for these small wells if the price goes below $18 a barrel. These people will go out of business at $18 a barrel. They cannot make it. They can't break even. They will have to close the well, which is also expensive, and let their people go. So you have a loss of jobs. With a credit for marginal wells, when the price goes below $18 a barrel, you can encourage these people to go ahead and drill the well, put people to work and keep producing oil and gas for our country. Hopefully, the price goes back up--and, of course, the price is up right now. So it wouldn't even take effect right now. But it gives that floor so that the little guys will take the chance to go ahead and drill that well. This provision was modeled after a Texas law that has also been quite successful in waiving certain State taxes for the little guy to keep those wells going. The other thing it does is allow expensing for delayed rental costs, and G and G--which is the geological and geothermal exploration. These are expenses that are incurred, and in any other business they are able to be written off. They would be able to in this bill as well. It encourages deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is quite expensive. We have had incentives over the last few years for this deep drilling. It has become the largest source of oil and gas we have in our country except for Alaska. Of course, we are not able to drill in ANWR. So this is a very significant resource for us, the Gulf of Mexico. All of these are provisions I put in the bill because I believe that keeping the small businesses in business is a very important part of energy self-sufficiency in our country and creating jobs. There is a national security issue. When 60 percent of our oil is imported--and we know how volatile the largest sources of those imports are in the Middle East--we know our country is going to be in a very bad fix if we lose those resources because of volatility or the war on terrorism. Our economy will be affected adversely. That will affect our jobs. It will affect our factories. It will affect our small business costs if we don't have our own sources of energy. That is why the Senator from New Mexico and the people on the committee who worked to forge this bill were addressing our national security interests as much as those who work on the defense issues. If we are energy self-sufficient, that means our economy will not be in upheaval if we have a huge loss in the ability to import foreign oil, and therefore the price goes up and it becomes prohibitively expensive. We need to have our own sources of energy. We need to be dependent on ourselves. We need to keep the jobs for energy in our own country. That is why this bill is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. No one said it is. I would not have written it this exact way, but it is a good bill. It will make us more energy self-sufficient, which also means we will be more secure in our country, more secure in our economy, and we will keep the jobs coming which are so important to keeping our economy strong and to have the recovery we have all been looking for to occur in the next year. I support this bill. I hope people will look at the big picture. I hope people will look at the rhetoric on MTBE and overlook some of the things they do not like in the bill by looking at the good things that will increase production, increase the renewable energy sources, increase the clean energy, and decrease our consumption all at the same time so we will have a better energy policy for our country. We have been working on this for over 10 years. The time has come. We will be able to fix things that do not work. We always do that with major legislation that is passed. The time has come. We have the capability to act now. I hope we will not lose it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Oregon, and then I will yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi. He was on the conference committee. He worked hard, knows how hard the compromises were. I appreciate his leadership because we can't depend on foreign countries for 60 percent of our energy needs and have a stable economy and keep the jobs we have and create more jobs for our recovery. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon also has been a leader in this field. I appreciate so much his remarks and his leadership in this area. I ask how much time remains in morning business?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two monumental pieces of legislation that are coming this way and, hopefully, will be passed in the next 48 hours. I am hopeful that we will pass the Energy bill. The House has passed this Energy bill. I have heard a lot of discussion about it. It was a very hard-fought bill. Since coming to the Senate 10 years ago, I have tried to have a part in passing energy legislation that would make our country self- sufficient. Ten years ago, I said we were too dependent on foreign oil. We were dependent upon foreign oil for about 50 percent of our energy needs. Today, 10 years later, it is 10 percent more. We are 60 percent more dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs. It is a very important issue for our economy. Our economy is not the most stable right now, but it is in a recovery. We are dependent on energy for our factories, for our businesses, for our economy to remain stable, and for us to be able to continue to increase the number of jobs in our country. Having more energy self-sufficiency will be very important for our country to be able to strengthen our economy, put people back to work, and go into a full recovery. The bill we will have before the Senate in the next 48 hours is not a perfect bill, but it is a bill that I am very hopeful will pass so that we can start the process of having an energy policy that includes conservation, incentives for production, incentives for nuclear power. We have not had a nuclear powerplant built in America since 1978. It is our cleanest source of energy and it is energy that has the capacity to meet our needs. I am very hopeful we will pass this bill and we will work to fix some of the things not fixed in the bill. I am hopeful also that we will pass Medicare prescription drug benefits. That is a bill in progress. We are going to have an incredible ending to this legislative session if we are able to work those bills out and pass them, including the jobs created in the Energy bill and to begin the process of providing our seniors a prescription drug benefit. I see the Senator from the State of Oregon is on the Senate floor, and I yield to him up to 8 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to tell the rest of the story on Judge Carolyn Kuhl because I think a misimpression was left by the Senator from California regarding the case of the woman who was having a breast exam, and when she left the office, she asked who the doctor was, and the receptionist said: That wasn't a doctor, that was a pharmaceutical company representative. When I first heard about that, I definitely wanted to hear more because that did not sound like the kind of judge I would want on the bench, a judge who would dismiss the case against the pharmaceutical company for having a person in the room when the patient was not even told this person was not a doctor or who this person was. I, in fact, did look at the rest of the story and I found a very different story. In fact, the plaintiff sued both the pharmaceutical company and the doctor. The doctor was sued for negligence in not informing the patient and asking the patient's permission, or having the patient have the right to say, no, I do not want that person in the room. The plaintiff sued the doctor, the doctor's firm, and the pharmaceutical company. Judge Kuhl allowed the case to stay open, which she dismissed against the pharmaceutical company, because the case against the pharmaceutical company was common law intrusion upon seclusion, which was not settled law in California at the time, but she kept the case against the doctor for his failure to consent. The judge allowed the cause of action, the trial, to go forward against the doctor and the medical partnership for failure to obtain consent, and the plaintiff did recover. The plaintiff should have recovered, and the plaintiff did recover. Judge Kuhl allowed that to happen by keeping the lawsuit open against the doctor who was the person negligent in this case. I think it is very important that when we know the full story it shows Judge Kuhl, in fact, was very sensitive to this woman's claim and allowed it to go forward. She made sure it went forward, and, in fact, the woman did settle for a full recovery. I just wanted to set the record straight because I thought there was a misimpression in the record about Judge Carolyn Kuhl, and I would hope we would acknowledge she did let this case go forward and there was a recovery. I think Judge Kuhl is an outstanding judge. After looking at her record very fully, I am very pleased to support her. I am very aware she is supported in a bipartisan way by many people in California, and most certainly when we talk about needing some balance on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals I think Judge Carolyn Kuhl would be an excellent addition to bring some balance to this circuit that is the most reversed circuit in the entire United States of America. Of all the circuit courts of appeal in the United States of America, the Ninth Circuit is the most reversed by the Supreme Court. I think that would tend to show we need some balance on this court, and I would hope Judge Carolyn Kuhl would get a fair vote, because if she does, she will get the majority in this body. They will look at the facts in her record. They will see how qualified and balanced she is, and she will get confirmation if she has a fair shot. I thank the Senator from Alabama for letting me bring out the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, and make sure the record is complete on behalf of Judge Carolyn Kuhl.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy for the Senator to go forward and then we will come back at the end of the hour.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think in hearing the debate, the most egregious misrepresentation I have heard is about Judge Carolyn Kuhl and a case she had, where there was a woman who was being examined who had breast cancer, and there was someone in the room who was not a doctor, a person from a pharmaceutical company. It was said she callously let the pharmaceutical company be dropped from the case. Isn't it true, though, there was also an action against the doctor who was negligent, and she kept the lawsuit alive so that woman could have a recovery?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, just to get an understanding, after that 2 minutes 20 seconds, then it goes to the Democratic side for 30 minutes and then back to the Republican side? Is that the way it is?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that I have, I say I think the junior Senator from Texas made a very important point and that is the importance of the delicate balance of powers that was put in our Constitution. I think it is important that we do not say, well, 98 percent of the time we adhere to the Constitution. We need to adhere to the Constitution 100 percent of the time. The Constitution has always said, from its beginning, that we would have a majority required to confirm the judicial nominees of the President. Now, this is by implication, because when the Constitution meant to have a supermajority, it so stated. We have always had a majority, and that is what, by its silence, the advise and consent part of the Constitution has required for judicial nominees, until last year. In fact, I think the President is losing his constitutional right to appoint Federal judges. I think this whole situation is going to deter good people from offering themselves for the bench, and the judiciary must have good people if we are going to keep that very strong separation of powers with three separate but equal branches of Government. In his first 2 years of office, President Bush was able to get 53 percent of his circuit court judges confirmed. The previous three Presidents each had 91 percent in the first 2 years of their office in the very important circuit court judge appointments. Now, the circuit court, of course, is the next step below the Supreme Court. So a 53 percent record in the first 2 years is something that I think should not be accepted. It is very important that we try to get votes on these judges.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriations conference report for the Senate's consideration. This bill provides $9.316 billion for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure activities for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004. The negotiations over this conference report were uncharacteristically long and difficult for a military construction bill. This difficulty stemmed from two sources. First, and quite simply, there is less money this year for military construction. The administration's request was $1.6 billion below the amount appropriated last year. Even with an allocation slightly above the President's request, this conference agreement provides $1.4 billion less than last year. Compounding this difficulty were two very different points of view about military construction on the part of the Senate and House this year. The administration is in the midst of the most sweeping restructuring of our overseas basing structure since the end of World War II. This restructuring will involve the closure of hundreds of installations, the construction or expansion of perhaps dozens more, the return of significant numbers of U.S. troops to the continental United States, and major changes to the way our Nation stations and deploys its armed forces. This plan is still very much a work in progress. In testimony and briefings by Defense Department officials and military commanders this year--at this time--the scope, timing, and cost are not yet determined. In the face of this uncertainty, the Senate was unwilling to commit prematurely to all of the new construction proposed for U.S. facilities in Europe and Korea, and instead chose to shore up badly needed investment in U.S. military facilities in the United States. The House chose a different approach, voicing many of the same concerns as the Senate but agreeing nevertheless to fund most of the overseas construction. To pay for that construction the House made significant cuts to the President's priorities for domestic military construction spending, including nearly $50 million from already underfunded programs for the National Guard. These different priorities set the stage for the difficult conference we have just concluded. Fortunately, I believe we have crafted a conference agreement that accommodates the most pressing authorities of both chambers and the administration within the funding we were allocated. The Senate agreed to reinstate a number of projects in Europe for which our commander there, General Jones, made personal appeals. After hearing from General LaPorte, we also provided funding for two additional barracks projects in Korea on the condition that a facilities master plan and cost- sharing arrangements with the Korean government are completed before construction on these projects begins. Funding for domestic projects was decreased somewhat but we were successful in reinstating $108 million in cuts made by the House to the President's budget request, including over $42 million for sorely needed Guard projects. The conferees also agreed to create a commission that will study the structure of our overseas bases in light of changing political and military circumstances and provide Congress an independent assessment of our future basing requirements overseas. In short, the conference agreement represents what conference agreements usually do--a respectable compromise among competing priorities. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the ranking member on the military construction appropriations subcommittee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. We have worked extraordinarily closely throughout this process--and through two supplemental appropriations bills passed this year--and I have appreciated her counsel as we have faced these difficult issues. Her staff, Christina Evans and B.G. Wright, worked hand in hand with my staff, Dennis Ward and his assistant, Sean Knowles. I don't think a better cross-party working relationship exists in the Senate. This truly has been bipartisan effort. They have worked together to make the very best military construction bill that could possibly be made. I thank Senator Feinstein for her engagement and willingness to work together for our military. I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction appropriations conference report and recommend its adoption by the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Then I object.