Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to correct an inequity in our tax code. Currently, we use inconsistent standards to tax different types of political campaign committees. Congressional campaigns are taxed at the applicable corporate rates: depending on how much taxable income a campaign generates, it will be taxed at rates that vary from 15 percent to 35 percent. However, all other campaigns must pay the highest corporate rate of 35 percent. This is unfair. It's wrong to tax some campaigns at rates that change according to income level and then arbitrarily charge others at the highest possible rate. This disparity particularly hurts local and State candidates who generally have relatively low levels of taxable income but have to pay the same 35 percent rate as campaigns that may generate more than $10 million in taxable income. The bill I am introducing today will eliminate this inequity by taxing all campaign committees at the corporate rate based on their level of income. No longer will congressional campaigns be allowed to receive preferred tax treatment. All campaigns will be treated the same. I hope my colleagues will support this effort to improve the fairness of the tax code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to correct an inequity in our tax code. Currently, we use inconsistent standards to tax different types of political campaign committees. Congressional campaigns are taxed at the applicable corporate rates: depending on how much taxable income a campaign generates, it will be taxed at rates that vary from 15 percent to 35 percent. However, all other campaigns must pay the highest corporate rate of 35 percent. This is unfair. It's wrong to tax some campaigns at rates that change according to income level and then arbitrarily charge others at the highest possible rate. This disparity particularly hurts local and State candidates who generally have relatively low levels of taxable income but have to pay the same 35 percent rate as campaigns that may generate more than $10 million in taxable income. The bill I am introducing today will eliminate this inequity by taxing all campaign committees at the corporate rate based on their level of income. No longer will congressional campaigns be allowed to receive preferred tax treatment. All campaigns will be treated the same. I hope my colleagues will support this effort to improve the fairness of the tax code. 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 reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Air Cargo Security Act will make such a difference in our Nation's air security. I think we have done a lot since 9/11. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have made tremendous progress in transportation security. We have created a new Department of Homeland Security. We have established the Transportation Security Agency and invested heavily in personnel and equipment. However the one thing we have not done in the same way that we have protected the top of the airplane and the airport, is that we have not yet secured the belly of the aircraft. This is where the cargo is shipped. That is what the bill we are passing today would do. The Air Cargo Security Act would establish a reliable known-shipper program, mandate inspections of cargo facilities, direct the Transportation Security Agency to work with foreign countries to have regular checks at facilities that bring cargo into the United States. The legislation develops a training program for air cargo handlers, and give TSA the power to revoke the license of a shipper or freight forwarder whose practices are unsound. As the Senator from California mentioned, her amendment will allow cargo pilots to participate in the same security training as airline pilots and the legislation will require background checks for all noncitizens who would undergo flight training. These are just a few of the provisions that I think will go a long way to securing the entire aircraft and our country. I think we have seen a dramatic improvement in the safety of our aircraft and our airports. I want to make sure that America has the safest aviation system in the world. I think we can do it. This air cargo bill will make a difference. This bill passed the Senate last year, and I hope very much that the House will pass the bill this year and the President will sign it. Then we will give TSA the authority it needs to do this very important work. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that the traveling public is considerably safer than we were on September 10, 2001. That is important to recognize. Our screeners undergo background checks, training and testing. Checked bags are scrutinized. Flight crew training has been improved. We all are traveling under a more secure system. While our efforts in the 107th Congress have dramatically enhanced security, we in the 108th must continue to strive for seamless operations. This responsibility includes closing the cargo security loophole. It makes no sense to inconvenience airline passengers with security screening and baggage checks if we do not establish controls over the cargo traveling in the belly of the same plane. Currently, twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, only a tiny fraction of which is inspected. That is inexcusable. Last year, Senator Feinstein and I commissioned a GAO report on the security of our existing air cargo system, and the Commerce Committee held a closed hearing on this issue. The report reveals some very troubling facts. Security considerations prevent the report from getting too specific. But the GAO found that air cargo is vulnerable to theft and tampering while it is in transit, and while it is in supposedly secure cargo facilities. According to the report, identification cards used by cargo workers are generally not secured with fingerprints or other biometric identifiers. They can be counterfeited. Background checks for cargo employees are inadequate. Perhaps the weakest link in the cargo security chain is the freight forwarder. These are the middlemen who collect cargo from shippers and deliver it to the air carrier. Regulations governing these companies are lax, and the TSA is finding security violations as it conducts inspections. Under current law, however, TSA lacks the authority to revoke the shipping privileges of freight forwarders that repeatedly violate security and procedural rules. The Air Cargo Security Act gives TSA that power. Air cargo security is not a new problem. In 1988, Pan Am 103 went down over Lockerbie, Scotland because of explosives planted inside a radio in the cargo hold of a passenger airplane. The 1996 Valujet crash in the Everglades was caused by high-pressure tanks that never should have been place aboard a passenger aircraft. This legislation will strengthen air cargo security on all commercial flights. Specifically, this bill establishes a more reliable known shipper program by requiring inspections of facilities, creating an accessible shipper database, and providing for tamper-proof identification cards for airport personnel. It also gives the TSA the tools required to hold shippers accountable for the contents they ship by allowing the administration to revoke the license of a shipper or freight forwarder engaged in unsound or illegal practices. This Air Cargo Security Act also requires the TSA to develop a comprehensive training program for cargo professionals as well as an approved cargo security plan. The rules and procedures in this bill were developed in consultation with the TSA, the airlines, and the cargo carriers to ensure that the requirements are aggressive, but will not cause hardship to an already-stressed industry. In 2001, cargo accounted for about $13 billion, or 10 percent, of the passenger airlines' total revenue. I helped craft the assistance package set forth in the recent Supplemental Appropriations bill, and I applaud the way the unions have stepped to the plate and engaged in good faith negotiations to relieve financial stress on the carriers. I will fight to protect the one million aviation-related jobs nationwide. However, the aviation industry can never afford another 9/11. Air cargo is the largest loophole left in our aviation security network. It must be closed. We will oversee the bill's implementation to ensure that it is accomplished with a minimum of expense to our critical, yet endangered aviation industry. To strengthen air cargo security and passenger safety, I urge my collegues to support the Air Cargo Security Act. I thank all of my colleagues for their support. I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. McCain, and all of those who worked with me on this. I think we are doing a great job. Senator Lott, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, has worked with me on this. We have worked with the airlines. We don't want to burden the airlines at this time because they have had many shocks to their system. So we have worked with them to make sure that the actions we take are done in a responsible way. I ask my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 76, S. 165, the air cargo security improvement bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I was interested in the previous discussion because I think they were talking about going back to NATO to discuss some contingencies that might occur and how they would be addressed. That is the subject of my view on this issue. I support the entrance of these new countries, but I think we need to take a step back and make sure NATO is going to remain the greatest defense alliance that the world has ever known. In 1999, when the Senate voted to ratify the addition of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, I said at the time that we needed to reassess the mutual threat to NATO nations to assure the strength of our alliance in that agreement. Four years later, as we prepared for what became Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were disappointed, to say the least, to watch three NATO countries refuse to support the defense of our ally, Turkey. That was an initial signal that we have reached the point of stretching the alliance. That Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are candidates for NATO is both a miracle and a testament to the effectiveness of NATO itself. They survived brutal totalitarian regimes during the cold war. Now they are free to fully join the world community as valued members of NATO. But what is the state of the alliance they seek to join? The world has seen three NATO members refuse to support disarming Iraq. In the view of the United States, this was the same as the failure to come to the aid of a member country that has been attacked, a renunciation of our mutual agreement. Now is the time to ask: What is the mission of NATO today? Is NATO going to protect the future or defend the past? For NATO to remain relevant, we must agree on its fundamental mission. Our alliance should recognize that the concern threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have replaced the common threat of Soviet imperialism. After the most recent break in our bonds, it is essential to establish a new mission to counter a new threat. NATO has always been unified around a common purpose, but if it becomes nothing more than a patchwork quilt, we will be wasting our money and endangering our own national security by continuing to pay its bills and diverting our attention. Fifty-four years ago this month, the United States pledged to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact. We were steadfast in our commitment. We based 300,000 troops in Europe continuously throughout the cold war and keep 119,000 troops there now. We have paid a quarter of NATO's costs, even though we are only one of 19 nations belonging to the alliance. Clearly, our commitment played a vital role in NATO's victory in the cold war. After the cold war ended, we turned our attention to areas of the world that cried out for stability. We went to Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans, with varying degrees of success. We became central to peace negotiations in the Middle East. We focused more on our commitments abroad and less on our own national defense closer to home. All that changed on September 11, 2001, when terrorists and the countries supporting them tried to destroy the icons of democracy, capitalism and American power. Those attacks on our homeland marked the end of our policy of containment. The global war we are fighting against terrorism and our forceful disarming of Iraq has forged new alliances unthinkable before September 11. Our relationship with Pakistan in the war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan is one example of this dynamic shift. But the war on terrorism has strained other longstanding, traditional alliances. Many of our friends in Europe do not comprehend the impact September 11 had on America. They viewed what happened within our borders from arm's length, not acknowledging it as an attack on our country that required a firm response. This disconnect has caused a rift among NATO allies that would have been unthinkable before September 11. That split was manifested in the refusal to help disarm Iraq. As we prepared for Operation Iraqi Freedom, our long-time allies, France, Germany and Belgium, countries we have been committed to defend from attack for over half a century, opposed us at every turn. Even today, they are thwarting the rebuilding of Iraq by refusing to lift the U.N.-imposed sanctions that would allow oil to be sold to pay for new infrastructure in that country. A strong alliance cannot maintain its strength under such strain. It is imperative that NATO establishes a new, common mission or risk withering into irrelevance. If our purpose is a common defense, then we must form a consensus in defining our common threats. And those who agree should reconstitute a strong NATO. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we created a valuable template for how the world community can bond in this era of reckoning. We now should lead the effort to reconfirm a coalition of the willing to stand together against the common threat of terrorism to our democracies. The seven invited countries have all demonstrated they are prepared to contribute if they join NATO. Every one of them supported the U.S.- led coalition to disarm Iraq. As the United States develops plans for the reconstruction and administration of postwar Iraq, we are consulting with all seven of these nations to determine how best to proceed in this process and how they can contribute. All have indicated a willingness to consider the requests of the United States or other international organizations to help restore Iraq. Just this week, Bulgaria pledged to provide combat troops under international command. By doing so, Bulgaria has stepped forward--among the first of the world's nations--to internationalize the U.S.-led occupation. These seven countries are showing they are ready to do what it takes within their means to make the world more secure. Madam President, I am certainly going to vote to support this round of NATO expansion because I do believe all of these prospective members have a clear understanding that NATO has new threats and new missions, and they will make a positive contribution to this alliance. But I do hope we will take the lead in bringing to NATO a clear focus, a clear focus on the common threats that we all face, and the methods for defending against those threats. That is what it will take to assure that this great alliance will be a great alliance in the future and not just something we talk about in the past with great regard. Madam President, 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. Mr. President, I want to talk today about Justice Priscilla Owen. On Friday, it will be the 2-year anniversary of the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and also for Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. These are two qualified nominees in every respect who are being filibustered to keep them from taking their seats. They have both received a majority vote of the Senate, but neither of them is confirmed because we are now being asked to have a 60-vote threshold for these qualified nominees. It is not right, and I think it goes against the Constitution and affects the balance of powers. The balance of powers was very clearly and purposefully set out by our Founders so that each branch would be separate and equal. In the Constitution, it says the President will nominate Federal judges and the Senate will give its advice and consent. Historically, advice and consent under the Constitution has meant a majority vote for judicial nominees. It does not mean a 60-vote threshold. And it does not mean that the Senate can dictate to the President whom the President can nominate. We should give the President's nominees an up-or-down vote when they get out of the committee. The committee is there to have hearings, to question these nominees. If a person gets out of committee, that person deserves a vote on the floor. When the Founding Fathers did think that a supermajority should be required, they clearly provided for it. For example, article II, section 2, gives the President the power to nominate ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.'' Immediately following this provision, the Constitution gives the President the power to make judicial nominations ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' period. By clear omission, the Constitution does not require a supermajority for judicial nominees as it does for treaties. Congress has no right-- it has no power, as outlined by the Constitution--to assume a different role in the nomination and confirmation of judges. A filibuster requiring 60 votes on a judicial nominee is beyond the intent of the Constitution. Furthermore, the 25th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, approved by the Senate in 1965, demonstrates, I think, the intent of the Founding Fathers in confirming a nominee. In this case, the Vice President ``shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.'' If we are required to approve the Vice President of the United States by a majority vote, how could we possibly require a 60- vote threshold for a Federal judge? I understand that cloture votes are needed sometimes for procedural reasons, such as a time-management device, but with the nomination of Miguel Estrada this has not been the case; with the nomination of Priscilla Owen this has not been the case. This kind of filibuster is unprecedented in Senate history. So I hope we can do one of three things: We can start talking about changing the Senate rules so that, in the case particularly of judicial nominations, we will not ever have a 60-vote threshold, which is not contemplated by the Constitution; or we can require a vote, ask for a vote, get a vote for these qualified nominees; or we can file a lawsuit, asking the courts to decide if the balance of powers in the Constitution is being violated by this 60-vote threshold. I do hope we will get an up-or-down vote on these nominations. The fact that they have received over 51 votes--both of them--shows that they would be confirmed if they had their right to an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Priscilla Owen, of course, is from Texas, so I know her and I know her reputation. She has the strongest bipartisan support you could possibly ask for. She is a person who graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School, made the highest grade on the State bar exam when she graduated. She has been elected to the supreme court by over 80 percent of the people in Texas. She is universally well regarded. She is not a judicial activist. In fact, it is her strict adherence to the letter of the law and Supreme Court rulings that has been one of the problems with this nomination because she didn't make law. She didn't try to put words in the mouth of a legislator. She just followed what the legislature said in the parental consent laws in the State of Texas, the law of the State. She followed the letter of the law and the Supreme Court rulings and tried not to be a judicial activist. For that she is being accused of being a judicial activist. She was grilled twice by members of the Judiciary Committee. She had very tough hearings. I don't think I have ever seen a nominee do better. She knew every answer to every question asked, even the minutia of cases that had been heard by her court years ago. She knew what she had done and the reasoning for it. Her hearings alone would be enough to show her academic prowess and her qualifications for this bench. Further than that, the hearings also showed her judicial temperament. She handled herself so well, and she has gone through 2 years of a grueling experience--not something she is used to. Judges are not usually in the political arena. Even when they are elected, they don't usually have strong opposition. They don't have these spirited races such as we see in legislatures and the Congress. It wasn't that she was attuned to the slings and arrows of politics. She has handled herself so beautifully, I don't think you could ever argue that she does not have the judicial temperament. When you put that together with her clear academic excellence, she is the kind of person we want on the bench. I wonder if we turn down nominees like Miguel Estrada, who came to this country from South America when he was about 18 years old, didn't speak English, worked his way through Columbia, was Phi Beta Kappa, went to Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude, then had an outstanding record in the Solicitor General's Office, winning very complicated Supreme Court cases, and is known as one of the outstanding appellate lawyers in America--if people like Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada are not the kind of people we are going to put on the court, we are going to start having mediocre people on the court. We will have people who never have said anything, people who don't have the stellar reputations. These scholars, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, are people who are willing to take pay cuts in order to serve, because they like the intellectual challenge. They like what they are doing. They like public service. They are willing to take huge pay cuts for serving, and they are willing to do it. And they are quality people. What are we doing? What are we doing holding up quality qualified people like this? These nominations should not be controversial. They obviously are because they are not being passed, but these are not controversial people. They are mild-mannered, brilliant, fair, evenhanded, temperamentally sound people. We are putting them through the political meat grinder. I have to ask: Who are we going to get, as we go down the road and good people watch what has happened to Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada? Who is going to submit themselves to be a Federal judge, if they have to go through this kind of political process? I hope the Senate can amicably resolve the issue of nominations, especially judicial nominations where the Constitution and the balance of power are at stake. I hope we will allow these votes for these two people who deserve an up-or-down vote and deserve to be on the bench. They will both make excellent judges. May 9 is Friday. We are going to have cloture votes tomorrow, May 8, the day before the 2-year anniversary of these qualified nominations. I hope those who are filibustering them will see their way clear to let the majority rule. Both of these nominees have now gotten 52 and 54 votes respectively. They have the majority. In any other case they would be on their way to sitting on the circuit courts of appeals. That is where they ought to be. That is where they deserve to be. I hope my colleagues will allow Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen to take their rightful place on the bench. They have earned the majority vote. They have received a majority vote, which is what is required by the Constitution. They should be allowed to be confirmed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased, of course, the Senate will be voting on Judge Ed Prado to move to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been a judge on the district bench for a number of years--actually, since 1984--and he has an outstanding record. He was a great choice by the President, and this is a circuit that needs these vacancies filled. There is no question it is a judicial emergency. We hope to fill this seat with Judge Prado, and then we hope Justice Priscilla Owen will also fill the other vacancy for the Fifth Circuit, that is open, from Texas. Judge Prado has an outstanding record. He graduated from the University of Texas and the University of Texas Law School, a great university in our Nation. He also has served as U.S. Attorney for the Western District. He served as judge on the State district court. This is a man who has made public service his career, and an outstanding one at that. He is so well regarded in San Antonio and by the people who have gone before him. They know they will get fair and impartial justice in his court. That is why I am pleased to support his nomination. This nomination has moved very quickly. We are very pleased because of the vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. But the ABA agreed that he had the ``well qualified'' unanimous approval of their committee. There is just no controversy at all with this wonderful judge. It is my pleasure as a Texan to support and urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Ed Prado.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to be notified when I have 1 minute remaining so Senator Hatch can take that last minute of our 3 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the chairman for yielding time to me to talk about someone I know well, someone I have observed over the years, and who is one of the most outstanding people I have ever seen nominated for a Federal bench. She is a legal scholar. She has the temperament for a judge. And I think nothing shows her temperament better than her demeanor during the ordeal through which she has been put. She has been held up since May 9, 2001. She has had two hearings--not one--in which she was grilled by members of the Judiciary Committee, and she came out spotlessly clean. And even Members who today are going to vote against her have said she is one of the most qualified legal scholars they have seen before their committee. In fact, I have to say, I think there are a number of Democrats who really think she should be confirmed, but they are being held back by the special interest groups and the pressures not to confirm this qualified woman. Justice Priscilla Owen is an 8-year veteran of the Texas Supreme Court. She graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School. She earned the highest score on the Texas bar exam that year. She was a practicing lawyer before she was nominated for the supreme court. And she has been elected since her nomination and won over 80 percent of the vote of Texans and was endorsed by every newspaper in Texas. She enjoys broad support. The American Bar Association, as the distinguished chairman mentioned, has voted her unanimously well qualified. The Dallas Morning News called her record one of accomplishment and integrity. The Houston Chronicle wrote: She has the proper balance of judicial experience, solid legal scholarship, and real world knowhow. This is exactly what we want in judges, people who have been in the real world, who have practiced law, who know what it is to be in a courtroom and see two sides of the issue. She also has the academic qualifications that you would want in a judge. I cannot think of any better qualification. She has been supported across the board by people with whom she has served, both Democrat and Republican. Let me read the words of former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hill, who also served our State as attorney general. He is a Democrat. He denounced the false accusations about Priscilla Owen's record by special interest groups. He said: Their attacks on Justice Owen in particular are breathtakingly dishonest, ignoring her long held commitment to reform, and grossly distorting her rulings. Tellingly, the groups made no effort to assess whether her decisions are legally sound. He said: I know Texas politics and can clearly say that these assaults on Justice Owen's record are false, misleading, and deliberate distortions. In addition, another judge with whom she served on the Texas Supreme Court, Raul Gonzales, gave her a sterling endorsement. Two former State bar presidents who are women--there have not been but three or four women State bar presidents, one of whom is Harriet Miers, who supports Justice Owen; she is now counsel to President Bush--yesterday Colleen McHugh, a Republican, a former State bar president, and Lynne Liberato, a Democrat, a former State bar president, ringingly endorsed Justice Owen. These are the people who have seen her in action, who have seen her opinions, who have worked before her court on both sides. They have won, they have lost, and they have given her the ringing endorsement. I think there are two areas where the other side has distorted the facts. It has continually been quoted, Judge Gonzales' opinion dissenting from the opinion of Justice Owen--hers was the dissent; his was the majority--in which he said he thought she was being judicially active. But Judge Gonzales is the very person who recommended her to the President for the Fifth Circuit slot because he looked at the totality of her record, and he felt that she was the best qualified person for this nomination. He held her in such high regard that he singled her out and took her from the supreme court to suggest that she should be on the Fifth Circuit because he knows that she follows the law as she sees it and does not allow her personal opinions to interfere, which is why I think she has been attacked by the pro-abortion groups who misunderstand her opinions. Texas has a parental notification statute on abortion. The law was passed in the year 2000. This is not parental consent; it is parental notification. So in the years since the law was passed, the supreme court has been called upon to look at the lower court opinions. Justice Owen has voted with the majority 11 times out of 14. And, in fact, out of those 14 cases that have come before the court, only 3 have reversed the lower court opinions. I think the reason Justice Owen has so adhered to the lower court fact finding is for the very reason we want her on the bench; that is, that she believes the trier of fact is the court that should make the decisions on fact; and unless there is a reason to believe that lower court has misconstrued the intent of the legislature under the law, that court should not be reversed. Even if she believes that maybe the court made a mistake on the facts, she does not put herself in the place of the fact finders since she is not the one who heard the facts in person. She is not a judicial activist. She is the opposite. In fact, her record shows that she has gone far beyond what most judges do not to put her personal opinions in place. I do not know what her views on abortion are. She has never told anyone what her views on abortion are because she does not ever intend to let her personal views skew an opinion on this very sensitive issue. She also said, in defending her record on these issues, that she took the Supreme Court of the United States interpretation of the words that would define when a young woman under the age of consent would be able to make the decision on her own without notifying her parents. She took the U.S. Supreme Court, which is exactly what a judge should do. So I think Justice Owen has been put into the political meat grinder in Washington, DC. Anyone in Texas you would ask--now, I am not saying that everyone in Texas would say she is their choice; I am not saying that because I have not talked to everyone in Texas about her in particular, but the vast majority of people who know her best, who have practiced before her court, who know the supreme court and what it takes to be a good judge, they have come up here, Democrats and Republicans--not just Democrats and Republicans, leading Democrats and Republicans, the former Democratic attorney general, the former Democratic supreme court chief justice, and another former Democratic justice on the supreme court--they have come forward to say she should be confirmed, that they support her, that she is the right kind of person for a judgeship. I hope we will be able to meet the 60-vote standard the Democrats are now setting for many judges. That 60-vote standard is wrong. It is against the Constitution. She deserves a vote. She should have the 51- vote standard as the Constitution intended. I hope the Democrats will give her that chance. She is the most qualified person for this position we could ever put forward. I know her personally. I know her integrity. I know what a wonderful human being she is. I have seen her demeanor as she has gone through this meat grinder. I hope the Senate will give her the dignity she deserves and confirm her today.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the ``Overseas Military Facility Structure Review Act'' to establish a congressional panel to conduct a detailed study of U.S. military facilities overseas. This bill creates a bipartisan congressional commission charged with undertaking an objective and thorough review of our overseas basing structure. The commission will consider a host of criteria to determine whether our overseas bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st Century. The commission will be comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will present their findings to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, Commission, providing a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure. We believe it is important to determine our overseas basing requirements, assess training constraints, and provide recommendations on future realignments. As a result, we are proposing legislation that would create a congressional Overseas Basing Commission to review our basing strategy to ensure that it is consistent with both our short- and long-term national security objectives. We believe the time is right to move forward with a more structured approach to reviewing these overseas bases. Such a review is timely. The 2005 BRAC is just around the corner and some in the Pentagon have suggested it could result in the closure of nearly one out of every four domestic bases. Before we close stateside military bases, we must first analyze our overseas infrastructure. If we reduce our overseas presence, we need stateside bases to station returning troops. It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil in 2005 only to determine a few years later that we made a costly, irrevocable mistake. A painful lesson we learned in the last rounds of closures. Though our military force structure has decreased since the Cold War, the responsibilities placed upon our service members have significantly increased. While operational effectiveness is paramount, it would be irresponsible to build on an inefficient, obsolete overseas base structure, as we face new strategic threats in the 21st century, taking valuable dollars needed elsewhere.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the ``Overseas Military Facility Structure Review Act'' to establish a congressional panel to conduct a detailed study of U.S. military facilities overseas. This bill creates a bipartisan congressional commission charged with undertaking an objective and thorough review of our overseas basing structure. The commission will consider a host of criteria to determine whether our overseas bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st Century. The commission will be comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will present their findings to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, Commission, providing a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure. We believe it is important to determine our overseas basing requirements, assess training constraints, and provide recommendations on future realignments. As a result, we are proposing legislation that would create a congressional Overseas Basing Commission to review our basing strategy to ensure that it is consistent with both our short- and long-term national security objectives. We believe the time is right to move forward with a more structured approach to reviewing these overseas bases. Such a review is timely. The 2005 BRAC is just around the corner and some in the Pentagon have suggested it could result in the closure of nearly one out of every four domestic bases. Before we close stateside military bases, we must first analyze our overseas infrastructure. If we reduce our overseas presence, we need stateside bases to station returning troops. It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil in 2005 only to determine a few years later that we made a costly, irrevocable mistake. A painful lesson we learned in the last rounds of closures. Though our military force structure has decreased since the Cold War, the responsibilities placed upon our service members have significantly increased. While operational effectiveness is paramount, it would be irresponsible to build on an inefficient, obsolete overseas base structure, as we face new strategic threats in the 21st century, taking valuable dollars needed elsewhere.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will increase Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. While we corrected in the omnibus appropriations bill the reimbursement issue for physicians and rural hospitals, nothing was done to assist teaching hospitals or give hospitals a full inflationary update. Texas hospitals alone are facing a loss of $53 million in 2003 due to Medicare reimbursement cuts. Hospital admissions have risen from 31 million patients in 1990 to 33 million in 2000, and the number of days in the hospital is rising as well. Increased admissions, rising liability premiums, and the cost of advanced technology have forced hospitals to cut back on services. The cost of a pint of blood increased 31 percent in 2001, an additional $920 million burden to hospitals. Such costs are continuing to rise, yet Medicare reimbursements to hospitals are not keeping pace with inflation and their margins are slowly shrinking. Fifty-eight percent of hospitals are losing money on the Medicare patients they treat. This legislation, the American Hospital Preservation Act, restores the market basket update and the reimbursement for indirect medical education, IME, payments to teaching hospitals. The market basket update is an inflationary adjustment to account for the rising costs of goods and services, and the IME payments give teaching hospitals an additional Medicare reimbursement due to their higher costs of inpatient care. Both of these factors were cut by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Restoring the cuts means $289 million to Texas hospitals and $6 billion nationwide over the next five years. Major teaching hospitals are experiencing their lowest profit margin since the late '90s, 2.4 percent. Patients, especially those who are seriously ill, rely on teaching hospitals, which make up 78 percent of all trauma centers and 80 percent of all burn beds. Although only 23 percent of all hospitals are teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of charity care. Emergency rooms are increasingly used as a primary care clinic because patients cannot find a physician who accepts Medicare, and they are treating more individuals who are uninsured. In 2000, hospitals provided $21.6 billion in uncompensated care. Lower reimbursement rates coupled with bioterrorism risks and a workforce shortage make our hospitals a time bomb waiting to go off. Our hospitals are always open and must accept anyone who walks through their doors. It is our responsibility to ensure they have adequate resources from the Federal Government. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the American Hospital Preservation Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, Senator Frist, I announce the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may begin consideration of the budget resolution conference report which passed the House early this morning. In addition to the budget conference report, the Senate will complete action on the supplemental appropriations conference report when it becomes available, and the Senate may consider S. 196, the digital technology bill. The majority leader wishes me to say we have a lot of work to get done prior to adjourning for the Easter recess. I inform my colleagues, therefore, that votes are possible throughout the day and Senators should make plans to be here into the evening.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator. I understood that. Mr. President, it is my intention to give a very brief tribute and then ask Senator Hagel to manage the time on our side. I see Senator Lincoln is here and I am sure she will manage time for the Democrats for our daily tribute to the troops.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as I have said before, every day our troops have been in the field the Senate has opened with a tribute to them. We have had Members from both sides, from many States, talk about their own Members and colleagues. We have talked about different groups in the field. I begin today giving a tribute to a group of Navy reservists from Texas who are making history in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The unit is the Strike Fighter Squadron that hails from the Joint Reserve base at Fort Worth. As we speak, the members of this outstanding unit are flying jet fighters in combat against Saddam Hussein's evil regime. They are best known by their nickname the ``Hunters.'' When President Bush ordered the Hunters to active duty last October, this distinguished squadron joined the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt for duty in the Persian Gulf--the first time since the Korean War that an entire Naval Air Reserve squadron has deployed aboard an aircraft carrier. Since then, the Hunters have exceeded all of the Navy's requirements. The 12 Hornets that comprise the squadron have flown 1,500 sorties over Iraq. The air crews have made more than 500 landings aboard the Theodore Roosevelt at night and nearly twice that number during the day. But it takes more than just remarkable statistics to truly tell how well the Hunters are serving our Nation. You can hear the pride in their voices. One crew member described the personal sacrifices his comrades were making when he said, ``Some of us are taking pay cuts of $50,000 to $100,000 per year to be out here and make this happen. We're happy to be a part of this ship and this air wing, and we're ready to do our job.'' Many of the pilots left their jobs as civilian airline pilots to fight for our country. These brave Naval reservists also are facing what many feel is the worst part of a deployment: being away from family. That means missing birthdays, anniversaries, and other important family obligations that are gone forever. Yet they are undaunted. One proud member said, ``We're leaving our jobs and our families behind until this mobilization is done. Several members of the squadron are also geographic bachelors who don't live in Fort Worth, which means that they'll still be away from their loved ones after we've come back to base.'' The feeling among members of the squadron is that each volunteered to serve in the operation they describe as ``America's Big Stick.'' One officer pointed out, ``If our country needs us, we're going to step up, because this job is about something that's bigger than all of us.'' Mr. President, with volunteers like the Hunters, this operation and the future of our national security is in good hands. We owe them and their families a debt we never can repay. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will increase Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. While we corrected in the omnibus appropriations bill the reimbursement issue for physicians and rural hospitals, nothing was done to assist teaching hospitals or give hospitals a full inflationary update. Texas hospitals alone are facing a loss of $53 million in 2003 due to Medicare reimbursement cuts. Hospital admissions have risen from 31 million patients in 1990 to 33 million in 2000, and the number of days in the hospital is rising as well. Increased admissions, rising liability premiums, and the cost of advanced technology have forced hospitals to cut back on services. The cost of a pint of blood increased 31 percent in 2001, an additional $920 million burden to hospitals. Such costs are continuing to rise, yet Medicare reimbursements to hospitals are not keeping pace with inflation and their margins are slowly shrinking. Fifty-eight percent of hospitals are losing money on the Medicare patients they treat. This legislation, the American Hospital Preservation Act, restores the market basket update and the reimbursement for indirect medical education, IME, payments to teaching hospitals. The market basket update is an inflationary adjustment to account for the rising costs of goods and services, and the IME payments give teaching hospitals an additional Medicare reimbursement due to their higher costs of inpatient care. Both of these factors were cut by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Restoring the cuts means $289 million to Texas hospitals and $6 billion nationwide over the next five years. Major teaching hospitals are experiencing their lowest profit margin since the late '90s, 2.4 percent. Patients, especially those who are seriously ill, rely on teaching hospitals, which make up 78 percent of all trauma centers and 80 percent of all burn beds. Although only 23 percent of all hospitals are teaching hospitals, they deliver over two-thirds of charity care. Emergency rooms are increasingly used as a primary care clinic because patients cannot find a physician who accepts Medicare, and they are treating more individuals who are uninsured. In 2000, hospitals provided $21.6 billion in uncompensated care. Lower reimbursement rates coupled with bioterrorism risks and a workforce shortage make our hospitals a time bomb waiting to go off. Our hospitals are always open and must accept anyone who walks through their doors. It is our responsibility to ensure they have adequate resources from the Federal Government. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the American Hospital Preservation Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I want to open today by noting what we saw live from Iraq yesterday starting in the midmorning. It was truly uplifting to see what we hoped would be the end: The fall of Saddam Hussein, the cheering in the streets by the Iraqi people, the flowers for the American and British soldiers being thrown at the tanks by the Iraqi people. We are admonished by the President and by the Pentagon that this is not over. There are still areas--in fact, there was a firefight last night that was unexpected. There was one yesterday at the University of Baghdad. So it is not over. But we know the end is very near, and we know the people of Iraq now understand that they are going to have the taste of freedom. You could see it in their faces. You could see it in the tears coming down their cheeks. You could see it in the children reacting against the statue of the fallen Saddam Hussein. I think we are at the beginning of the end or at the end of the beginning. We are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, which is freedom for the Iraqi people and doing away with the many weapons that have been used in Iraq against its own people and that we feared would be used against ours. I open by saying thank you to the American troops, the young men and women on the ground, who have fought so valiantly to make this happen. I could not be more proud today, after seeing what is happening in Baghdad and the reaction of the people and the message left by the U.S. troops on one of Saddam Hussein's palaces: ``USA was here.'' I hope in the days to come we will see more Iraqi people beginning to see what it is to be able to form a government and take control of their own country; to start creating jobs again and an economy that will allow them to have a democracy, free enterprise, and know what so many of us have grown up with and appreciated. I thank the troops this morning. I want to turn over the management of our time to the Senator from Minnesota for the rest of this morning. He will also work with the Senator from Arkansas on the Democratic side to fill this time talking about the heroic and touching deeds that our troops have been doing in the field.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will only speak for about 3 or 4 minutes, I tell the Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate the recognition. I want to speak on the AMBER alert portion of this legislation because we have been working on it for several months. We passed AMBER alert legislation last year. Senator Feinstein and I cosponsored the legislation. Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy were very supportive. We passed AMBER alert again this year and hoped very much that we could get a clean bill that would be signed quickly by the President. However, I know provisions were added that are very good provisions. I am very pleased that we have finally gotten a bill that the House has passed and would be able hopefully to pass this legislation and send it to the President. Because the AMBER alert is proven to save lives, Senator Feinstein and I have been working very hard to get it passed through the Senate. Ed Smart, a constituent of the distinguished Senator from Utah, told us how important AMBER alerts were in helping to find his daughter Elizabeth. Even though she is one of the few abducted children who was found after a long period, it was the publicity that made the difference because a person who saw the picture of the suspect in the paper then saw the suspect on the street, and the police were able to walk up to the suspect and Elizabeth Smart was right there with him. So it does make a difference that we have this kind of publicity. To date, sixty abducted children have been recovered with the assistance of AMBER alert. In fact, the statistics show that 75 percent of recovered children are recovered within the first 3 hours. You can only do this with the large electronic road signs and with media helping you to get the word out that this is a child in peril. That is why the AMBER alerts do work, and the quick recovery is the best chance we have for a recovery at all. There are Federal grants authorized in this legislation that will help educate States about AMBER alerts and assist States so they won't be overused. The legislation will provide for a person who will be in the Justice Department--the AMBER coordinator--so that a law enforcement officer who believes a suspect may be going to another State can make one call to the Justice Department and not worry again about the recovery effort continuing. The Justice Department can put the word out to the other contiguous States and really make a difference. The AMBER alert bill has had a lot of supporters: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all been instrumental in passing this legislation. I had hoped we could pass it earlier. I had hoped we would have passed it last year to get other States up to speed, so they would have good, solid AMBER alert systems that would coordinate with the Justice Department. But it is April of 2003 now and it is time to pass this legislation. Senator Feinstein and I have worked very hard to do this. We thank Senator Hatch and we thank those who helped us with the original legislation. I know there are differences in some of the add-ons. Believe me, we would have liked to have had a clean bill. But we don't get exactly what we want in the legislative process. There are a lot of other people with different views and they have to be accommodated. So I am very pleased we have the bill before us. I intend to support it, and I hope we can pass it and send it to the President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That will be up until the 15 minutes for their side, and with that I agree to the unanimous consent request. There is another Senator coming for our 15-minute period.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield such time that the Senator from Tennessee may consume.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Michigan be allowed 5 minutes extra. I am going to withhold, and then my colleague from North Carolina will follow Senator Stabenow because there is a very important speech and a timetable for the Senator from North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan be recognized for 5 minutes, after which the Senator from North Carolina be recognized for 20 minutes.