Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that other Senator's wish to speak. I was not sure if Senator Nelson wanted to speak before we passed the bill. I want to make sure we pass the bill. I don't know if we need to wait for other Senators before we do that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thirty-eight.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to Calendar No. 566, S. 2896.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I heard the last part of the remarks of the Senator from Arizona about what happened today in the Judiciary Committee to Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, who was voted down on a straight party line vote. I have never seen a case in which a person who is totally qualified, a person who has shown integrity on the bench, and who has the academic credentials to be a great Federal judge would be turned down for, really, I think a litmus test on issues. In the past administration--the Clinton administration--I voted for a number of judges with whom I disagreed philosophically, judges who I knew would rule differently from what I thought would be the ``right vote'' on the court. But I tried to see what their qualifications were. I certainly tried to see if they would be strict constructionists to the Constitution, if they would adhere to the law rather than be traditional judicial activists. I voted for people with whom I disagreed many times. Today, I don't think that could be said for members of the Judiciary Committee. I am told there has never been a nominee who had the unanimous qualified recommendation from the American Bar Association and the support of both home State Senators who has been turned down for a traditional nomination. I am sad today because I know Priscilla Owen. I know what a fine person she is. Not only did she graduate right at the top of her class in law school, but she had the No. 1 grade on the Texas bar exam when she took it. She has sterling credentials academically. She is very well regarded by the former Democratic attorney general. The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas was very supportive of her and came out publicly for her. The other Democratic member of the Supreme Court of Texas with whom she served came out strongly for her. It is just stunning that someone who never had one smirch on her record of integrity, who was totally well qualified and unanimously certified by the American Bar Association, and who was reelected to the Texas Supreme Court by over 80 percent of the vote would be turned down by the Judiciary Committee. I think this is a sad day. But I will say this: I talked to Justice Owen today. I said: You lost the battle today, but you could win the war because I am absolutely certain that President Bush will renominate her if there is Republican control of the Senate. If that happens, she will be confirmed, because she deserves to be confirmed. It is very hard on a personal level to see someone as committed as Priscilla Owen--she is basically a nonpolitical individual. She did not even know when she was asked to submit her name for the Supreme Court of Texas if she had voted in the primary before. This judge is not political. But George Bush--Governor of Texas at the time--appointed her. She then ran for election after her appointment and was endorsed by every newspaper in Texas and was just thought of by both Republicans and Democrats as the most qualified person who had been put forward for this particular seat on the bench on the Fifth Circuit. It is a sad day, but I think this is not over. I do believe that President Bush will reappoint her in the next Congress if the Republicans control the Senate and he believes that she will get a fair hearing. I believe she will win the vote of the Senate, and she will show what a great judge she can be because she will be sitting on the Fifth Circuit bench. But this is a tough day for her. I think she did not deserve this treatment. I will say that in the parts of the hearing that she had that I saw, she was outstanding and did as good a job as anyone I have ever seen who was a nominee for the Federal bench. She did so well that she won the endorsement of the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the Wall Street Journal. She had accolades from newspapers across America. She does not deserve to have the treatment that she got today. But we will have another day, and I believe Priscilla Owen will go down in the records as a great Federal judge, because I believe she will be one eventually. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am introducing today with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, legislation to improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist in various States. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous job that those involved in AMBER alerts are playing and we seek to build on their efforts. In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. An AMBER alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred. As we have seen this summer, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 27 children nationwide. Many communities and states have outstanding AMBER plans, however, the vast majority of States do not yet have comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively communicate between plans. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted child is taken across State lines. The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with their AMBER plans. An AMBER Alert Coordinator is needed to address situations such as the recent examples of interstate travel with abducted children. We have witnessed several successful stories of AMBER plans helping to recover a child within a region, however, many gaps exist between the various AMBER plans around the country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law enforcement in setting up additional AMBER plans. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to help states coordinate when necessary. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will help to reconcile the different standards for what constitutes an AMBER alert. In doing so, the Coordinator will work with existing participants, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, local and state law enforcement and broadcasters to define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used to meet its intended purpose. In addition, the bill provides for a matching grant program. The grant program will help localities and states build or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this end, the matching grant program will fund road signage and electronic message boards along highways, dissemination of information on abducted children, education and training, and related equipment. Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this legislation to further protect America's children.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am introducing today with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, legislation to improve the current system of AMBER Alert plans that exist in various States. Our legislation recognizes the tremendous job that those involved in AMBER alerts are playing and we seek to build on their efforts. In 1996, 9-year-old Amber Hagerman of Arlington, Texas was abducted and brutally murdered. Her death had such an impact on the community that local law enforcement and area broadcasters developed what is now known as AMBER Alert, America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. An AMBER alert is activated by law enforcement to find a child, when a child has been abducted. An Alert triggers highway notification and broadcast messages throughout the area where the abduction occurred. As we have seen this summer, AMBER plans in different communities have worked to bring children home safely. To date, AMBER Alert has helped recover 27 children nationwide. Many communities and states have outstanding AMBER plans, however, the vast majority of States do not yet have comprehensive, statewide coverage and lack the ability to effectively communicate between plans. This is a critical issue particularly when an abducted child is taken across State lines. The bill I am introducing today establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with their AMBER plans. An AMBER Alert Coordinator is needed to address situations such as the recent examples of interstate travel with abducted children. We have witnessed several successful stories of AMBER plans helping to recover a child within a region, however, many gaps exist between the various AMBER plans around the country. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER alerts, particularly with interstate travel situations, and will assist states, broadcasters, and law enforcement in setting up additional AMBER plans. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will set minimum, voluntary standards to help states coordinate when necessary. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will help to reconcile the different standards for what constitutes an AMBER alert. In doing so, the Coordinator will work with existing participants, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, local and state law enforcement and broadcasters to define minimum standards. Overall, the AMBER Alert Coordinator's efforts will set safeguards to make sure the AMBER alert system is used to meet its intended purpose. In addition, the bill provides for a matching grant program. The grant program will help localities and states build or further enhance their efforts to disseminate AMBER alerts. To this end, the matching grant program will fund road signage and electronic message boards along highways, dissemination of information on abducted children, education and training, and related equipment. Our bill has the strong support of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and the National Association of Broadcasters, who play essential roles in the AMBER Alert system. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this legislation to further protect America's children.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill on which we will be voting at about 1:30 this afternoon. It is high time we pass this bill. The President asked for emergency appropriations to fund the Department of Defense and the war on terrorism about 4 months ago. It is critical. It contains $14 billion to fund the war on terrorism. With the cost of antiterrorist operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere exceeding $2 billion per month, these funds are certainly needed. Because Congress has taken so long to produce this bill, the Pentagon has already reached into $3 billion worth of funds budgeted for ongoing activities in the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year. Last week, the Pentagon's comptroller warned of dire consequences if Congress did not provide the funds soon. He said the Department would have to suspend ship deployments and aircraft training operations for units that are not forward deployed, with the result that many units would no longer be able to respond to any crisis that might emerge. Many spare parts and supplies no longer could be ordered, and both ship maintenance and maintenance on critical aircraft, such as the EA- 6B jammers and the F/A-18 fighter/attack aircraft, would come to a halt. Scheduled moves for military personnel would be disrupted, jeopardizing school years for children and job opportunities for spouses. As many as 35,000 civilians could be furloughed from the Department of defense. Passage of this bill will guarantee our military does not run out of funds before the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill is sent to the President's desk, hopefully by October 1 of this year. This bill also helps Texans who have been devastated by two disasters at the same time--a severe lack of water in the Rio Grande River Valley in south Texas and heavy flooding in central Texas. This emergency legislation will help south Texas farmers by providing $10 million to make up for some of the losses they incurred during the last crop year due to lack of water. Families are suffering because their livelihood depends on water and Mexico has failed to deliver, under the United States-Mexico water treaty of 1994, the water that is owed. This treaty obligates Mexico to allow 350,000 acre feet of water to flow to the Rio Grande river annually while obliging the United States to allow 1.5 million acre feet of water to flow to Mexico from the Colorado River. Since 1992, Mexico has incurred a debt of 1.5 million acre feet of this water to the United States, while the United States has continually complied with our water obligations under the treaty. Because Mexico has failed to deliver its treaty obligated water, south Texas has lost over 5,000 jobs each year and suffered $230 million per year in lost business activity. The economic loss to the region since 1992 is estimated to be $1 billion. This situation has become critical due to the continuing drought conditions in both south Texas and Mexico. The bill also provides $100 million in assistance for emergency use-- $50 million for fires, $50 million for floods--to hundreds of thousands of Americans who courageously fought to survive the wrath of scorching wildfires and unyielding flash floods that swept across New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, and many other areas of our Nation. These natural disasters rip through our towns, threaten our families, wreck our homes and businesses, destroy our heirlooms, and leave us stripped of resources to begin putting the pieces back together. On the Fourth of July, when most of the Nation was celebrating America's birthday, central Texans were evacuated from their homes by the thousands. Texas rivers were on the rise and were cresting at record levels, more than 20 feet above flood stage in most locations. By the time most of America's firework had burned out, the Medina River crested at a ferocious 44 feet above flood stage south of San Antonio. The storm left Texas with four people injured, four missing, and mourning the tragic deaths of nine. I thank the Texas Department of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, for their rapid response and rescue efforts for thousands of people who evacuated their homes, some of whom had only a few precious minutes to muster their families and secure their most valuable possessions. Imagine having to choose between saving your family photo album, your great-grandfather's journal, or your family Bible. I particularly want to thank Joe Albaugh, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who toured with some of us in the congressional delegation to see the floods firsthand so he could come back and make sure he had made all of the efforts that could be made, all that were possible to give help to the people of south central Texas. The flood waters have dropped in Texas and people are now diligently working to clean and repair their homes and businesses. The total damages are still being assessed, and it is estimated they will reach another billion dollars. So I urge my colleagues to agree to this supplemental appropriations conference report to help them begin to put their lives back together in south central Texas. In addition, I want to mention Amtrak because this bill does restore a commitment to Amtrak, and $4.4 billion in vital highway funding to the States that would have been lost due to a decrease in gasoline tax revenue. Amtrak, in particular, deserves our continued attention. Our national passenger rail system is teetering on the edge of the abyss. The bill merely pulls it back a few inches. We must find a way for Amtrak to achieve long-term financial security through a dedicated funding source similar to the way we fund highways and aviation transportation. Otherwise, we will face these emergencies every year, and service will continue to deteriorate. At the same time, Amtrak's new leadership must eliminate this regional bias which has infected the railroad since its inception. Amtrak must stop sending all of its resources to the Northeast corridor, which is probably the only place in America with reliable rail service. Even so, the Northeast corridor is losing money every bit as fast as the rest of the system. I have inserted language into the Amtrak authorization, of which I am a cosponsor, that would force the railroad to spend its money proportionately throughout the system. That way, passengers in Texas, Washington State, and Mississippi can enjoy the kind of service that Northeast commuters have had for decades. I think we can have a national rail system for our country. I think it is important that we do so. We have the outline of such a railroad system today in Amtrak, but we have not funded it at a level where we could have and expect stable service. So I hope we will not only give Amtrak its lifeline today--which I believe that we will--but let's look at ways we can stabilize Amtrak so all the places that now get service can get reliable service, ontime service. Every time Amtrak threatens to pull the long-haul lines--which they did earlier this year--we lose thousands of reservations from people not knowing if they are going to be able to use their tickets, if they are going to go somewhere and not be able to get back, so it hurts the system even more. That is why we need to have stability so people can count on the service for which they are paying. We owe them that. We cannot possibly judge Amtrak unless we give them reliable service that would give us fair criteria. But to think we are going to do it on an operationally self-sufficient basis is ludicrous. We are not. No country in the world does. We are going to have to give it a stable revenue base and then hold the officers and board accountable for knowing how to run a railroad. I think it is time we do all these things and keep the commitment to having rail service in our country. Rail service is every bit as important an alternative as highways, as buses on the highways, as airports and aviation. We need all kinds of transportation in our country. In some places, freight is most easily and efficiently transferred from State to State across our country via rail. In some places, people cannot get to an airport. They do not live in a place that even has bus service. So they need another alternative that will allow them to travel across our country. This is part of national security. It is part of a stable economy. I think we need to just make a commitment and do it right. We have not been doing it right. We have been putting Band-Aids on Amtrak ever since we revived it years ago. Now is the time to do it right. I think this supplemental appropriations bill is a good one. It meets the needs of our military and our homeland defense, which certainly have been in a crisis situation for the last few months as we have debated this bill. It also addresses the emergencies in our country, from fires raging across the western part of the United States to floods in my home State of Texas. And it does help us revive Amtrak, hopefully to give the leadership of Amtrak--new leadership, I might add--the ability to get this job on track and hopefully to do it right. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. The organization literally grew from a shoebox full of names in Dallas, TX, to the Nation's largest private source of funding for breast cancer research and community-based outreach programs. Our current U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Hungary, the Hon. Nancy Brinker, is the founder of the Komen Foundation. As a founding member of the organization, I can recall the very first meeting we held in Nancy's living room. She is a woman of conviction, with talent and energy to match. While it is too soon to tell, I believe the establishment and launching of the Komen Foundation will be Nancy Brinker's most remarkable legacy to humankind. When her older sister Suzy died of breast cancer at the age of 36, Nancy set out to keep the promise she had made to Suzy: to do everything in her power to eradicate breast cancer as a life- threatening disease. Today, 20 years after the Komen Foundation's inception, we recognize the ``Power of Promise'' Nancy made that day. I am proud to have worked for the Komen Foundation in the Senate, and mark today's celebration by noting the truly great things people can do when they answer a call, see a need, and set out to make things different. Twenty years ago, breast cancer was a term rarely spoken in public, and a subject that almost never appeared in newspapers or magazines. There were no self-help books and those who survived the disease did not readily share their stories. What is worse, breast cancer was viewed as a certain death sentence. Few treatment options existed at the time, and those that did were drastic and disfiguring. At its inception, the Komen Foundation began to educate people and help them recognize the seriousness of breast cancer in our society. People began giving of themselves as volunteers and as financial donors so that research into new breast cancer treatments, screening, and educational outreach efforts could be funded. The Komen Foundation boasts over 100 affiliate groups in cities across the U.S., three European affiliates and a cadre of 75,000 dedicated volunteers, many of whom are survivors. In the past two decades, the Foundation has raised more than $450 million for research, education, screening and treatment programs--many of which reach into traditionally medically underserved areas. The Komen Race for the Cure had over 112 races this year with 1.2 million runners and walkers participating. Each race event is an occasion of hope and survivor pride for participants and their supporters. On the 20th Anniversary of the Komen Foundation, let us all renew our promise in the fight against breast cancer so that one day we will have something miraculous to celebrate: the end of breast cancer as a life- threatening disease.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking Republican on the committee that has the bill before us for military construction, and I am pleased to have worked with Senator Feinstein, chairman of the subcommittee, to bring out a bill that does address the priorities of the Defense Department. I noticed that the Senator from Arizona targeted the Appropriations Committee, saying that a large percentage of the Appropriations Committee were taken care of, as if this were some pork-barrel spending. The fact is, the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized every project in this bill. We don't have projects in the appropriations bill that have not been authorized by a completely different committee that focuses totally on defense and has determined that these projects should be authorized. I am very pleased to support this bill. It provides new mission facilities for the Department of Defense consistent with the Department's request. The priorities are articulated by the military departments. It also enhances quality of life for servicemembers and their families--a commitment we made to these people who are representing our country and fighting for our freedom on the plains of Afghanistan and in Kuwait today, based there for us. We are going to take care of them. Finally, it makes a significant downpayment on renewing the Department of Defense aging infrastructure. Every project in the military construction appropriations bill is authorized in the Defense authorization bill, a completely separate bill. Two committees have looked at these priorities. Every project in the bill is on the Pentagon's future year defense plan, and every project the committee added was the base commander's highest priority. The committee added funds to the military construction bill because we were concerned with the sharp drop in funding, particularly for the Guard and Reserve forces. That is where much of the funding we have added is focused. Our Guard and Reserve forces are fighting side by side with our active-duty forces in Afghanistan and providing the bulk of our homeland security forces here at home. Adequate training and readiness facilities are essential for the Guard and Reserve, particularly during this time of increased demand on their skills and services. The bill provides greatly needed facilities for the Guard and Reserve and will help them prepare for and execute their missions. The bill also provides funding for two key transformation initiatives in support of President Bush's strategic vision for transforming the Department of Defense: $100 million for Army transformation, and $100 million for Air Force mobility transformation. Earlier this year, both the Army and the Air Force identified unfunded transformation military construction requirements to the Congress. Many of these requirements were refined after development and presentation of the 2003 President's budget, so we added them because they are critical to the Army and the Air Force to make them more mobile and capable to face the 21st century battle conditions. The committee funded another initiative, the BRAC environmental cleanup initiative, which provides $100 million to accelerate the cleanup of dangerous environmental contaminants at closed and realigned bases throughout the Nation. Until the cleanup of these bases is completed, the properties cannot be returned to productive use in these communities. In my own State of Texas, we have terrible environmental bills, both at the former Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio and the former Navy Air Station in Dallas. There are reports like this across the country, and we are trying to address those concerns wherever they may be, so that these closed bases can be returned to productive use, as we have promised these communities they would be. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It is a bill that stresses the priorities of the Department of Defense and the President. It also has added areas that were not able to be added earlier because the Department of Defense wasn't ready, and we certainly added more than the President's budget allowed for Guard and Reserve units. I think the priorities are right, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can get on with the business of revamping our aging military infrastructure and increasing the quality of life for those who are fighting for us as we speak on this floor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, the chairman of the committee. We certainly have worked together on this bill, and Senator Feinstein outlined some of the problems we faced in trying to make up for some of the shortfalls in the budget that we had before, particularly in the environmental cleanup and Guard and Reserve accounts. We have been able to address the major issues for the Department of Defense and also try to stay on the course that we set to improve the quality of life for our military personnel. In 2001, when President Bush took the oath of office, he made a promise to America that we would see a transformation of our military. He wanted to take a 25-year look at what our military needs would be, and he appointed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has the most experience of any Secretary of Defense, having been Secretary of Defense before, to do that very job. After 9/11, of course, our priorities immediately changed because we then became immediately involved in a crisis, a war on terrorism. Now we are prosecuting a war on terrorism at the same time that we still are trying to look to the future needs of our national defense. Our bill for military construction attempts to address the top priorities of the Department of Defense. It is a balanced bill and is quite bipartisan. I am particularly pleased to see that we are going to put a large part of this bill, $1.17 billion, in barracks and dormitories for our military quality of life; $4.23 billion for family housing. We are asking so much of our military today. Our military personnel on active duty know that they may well be deployed overseas and perhaps on dangerous missions. So we want them to have a quality of life for themselves and for their families that will allow them to serve, knowing that their families will be taken care of in good housing and with good health care. Our part is housing, and we are fully funding the new barracks, dormitories, and family housing. In recent years, we have made real progress in improving housing for single servicemembers and for families. We are also trying to improve workplaces. We have funding in this bill for the upgrading of the work facilities, the battalion headquarters, and the units where they are working. It is my hope that in future budgets we will see sufficient resources to continue this effort to modernize, renovate, and improve our aging defense facilities and infrastructure. The effects of sustained inattention by the Department and the military services to basic infrastructure are certainly apparent on nearly every military installation in our country. This will continue to have long-term implications as facilities continue to age disproportionately without sustained investment in maintenance and repair. This bill also provides $599 million for the Reserve components, which is a substantial increase over the President's budget request primarily because of the increased use of the Guard and Reserve since September 11. These are important increases that signal a renewed commitment to upgrading and rebuilding the infrastructure that is truly the backbone of our Nation's military, which has so long been neglected. Guard and Reserve members have stepped up to the plate for our country, even before 9/11, but more so after. These are men and women with full-time civilian jobs. They answer the call when our country asks, and their employers sacrifice, too. We are asking a lot, and they always come through. That is why we are trying to upgrade the facilities and the equipment they need to do their jobs well. The bill also addresses several key Department of Defense initiatives. First are the Army and Air Force transformation initiatives. We have provided $100 million for critical infrastructure needed to support the Army's interim brigade combat teams and $100 million for the Air Force's aircraft mobility programs. Senator Feinstein discussed those programs earlier. These programs are essential to ensuring that the Army and Air Force have the infrastructure in place to move forward with the transformation efforts over the next several years. Without this assistance, they would not be able to meet their established milestones. The committee report also includes a $100 million increase over the President's budget request for environmental cleanup at military installations that have been closed as a part of the base realignment and closure effort. This additional funding is necessary to enable the military to accelerate the cleanup of dangerous contaminants at closed and realigned bases throughout the Nation. Senator Feinstein mentioned my home State of Texas where Kelly Air Force Base is one of those that were closed and where there are very significant reported health problems that many believe--and there is evidence to support--are caused by environmental contaminants at that closed base. Certainly California is experiencing similar problems. We are going to try to do what we said we would do for the people in the communities where we have closed bases. I support this bill. It is exactly what we need to address the infrastructure problems that will support our military and Department of Defense budget. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Feinstein, for her leadership in crafting this bill. She and her staff--Christina Evans and B.G. Wright--have done an excellent job in putting together a bipartisan bill. I also thank my staff--Sid Ashworth, Alycia Farrell and Michael Ralsky--for their invaluable work on our Committee on Appropriations every year. Michael Ralsky has done a wonderful job for me and will soon be going over to the Pentagon where we know he will contribute his expertise, gained from working in the Senate for so many years. Their support has been really terrific, and we appreciate that. I appreciate that Senator Feinstein also thanked Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their work. They do the Department of Defense budgets, and we certainly dovetail with them in our military construction budgets. I cannot think of any two people who are more committed to our strong military than Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye, two veterans who have served our country in the military and who would never, ever walk away from our responsibility to take care of our military personnel. They have been so supportive of this military construction effort that Senator Feinstein and I have put together. I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it when we vote tomorrow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee. I have worked very hard with Senator Feinstein, the chairman of that committee, to produce a bill that takes into account all of the priorities of the Department of Defense, the administration, and the Members' requests. I think we have done a good job. We didn't give every Member everything they asked for, of course, but I think we have done a terrific job in meeting the needs of the military and the requests of the administration. We need to pass this bill. I appreciate the support of Senator Lott, along with, of course, Senator Reid and Senator Daschle and Senator Feinstein, that we need to move this forward. However, I wanted to say that although Senator Kyl has objected--and I disagree with his decision to do so--I understand his frustration, and Senator Reid said he understands his frustration. We see it every night on the news--the fighting of these incredible fires, people being put out of their homes, ruining vast hundreds of thousands of acres of our forestland in this country, and we are running out of money. I hope that people have also seen the floods in my home State of Texas. The Governor is now saying that the damage is estimated to be $2 billion. It only happened last week, so I cannot tell you exactly what we are going to need to clean up the floods. But I know that the people are suffering. I am going to be there tomorrow with Joe Albaugh, head of FEMA, to look at the damage myself because I want to make sure we are doing the right thing for the people of Arizona, the people of Colorado, the people of New Mexico, the people of Idaho, and the people of Texas. We have always done that. So I understand Senator Kyl's frustration. I am sorry he is holding up this bill, but I am committed to seeking a vehicle for an amendment that would ensure that the money is there to fight the forest fires in this country and to clean up the flood damage that we see happening in Texas. We will do that. We will find the vehicle to do it. I commit that we will. We are not going to appropriate money that isn't needed. We are going to have a contingency appropriation so that if the money is needed, it is there. We all want to be careful with taxpayer dollars, but there has never been an earthquake, or a flood, or a fire that we have not responded to as a country and said we are not going to let people suffer when they have nowhere to turn but to us. We will be there for them. So I am committed to trying to find the right vehicle. I want to make the decision now so we can get on with MILCON. If military construction is the right vehicle, let's put that emergency appropriation on military construction. I would prefer to see it on the supplemental appropriations on which we are having a conference tomorrow. I would like to put it there. This is an emergency. We have had a change in circumstances since the President sent his request to Congress. It seems to me that it is common sense that we have had a change in circumstances that would warrant a change in the cap. That would be the preferred way to handle this emergency, which we all acknowledge we need to do. If we cannot do that, I want the commitment for Senator Kyl, for Senator Domenici, for the Senator from Colorado, that we will handle this issue. So if it is not going to be on the supplemental, then I am willing to try to help them put it on military construction. If it is not military construction, then I don't think we will be handling any appropriations bills until we get a commitment to address this issue. I yield the floor to my colleague from New Mexico.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President. I extend my congratulations to EDS and to its employees on the company's 40th anniversary. On June 27, 1962, Electronic Data Systems was incorporated in Texas, and EDS is still headquartered in Plano, TX. The company's initial goal was simply to help companies use their computers more effectively. Since then, EDS has been a leader in the information-technology services industry. EDS has flourished by adapting to its clients' needs and by providing information-technology and business-consulting services to every sector of the global economy. Evolving from a staff of fewer than 30 to a team of more than 140,000 employees in 50 States and more than 60 countries, EDS helps companies to excel in the digital economy. In the 1960s, when the business world's use of computers was still novel, EDS recognized an opportunity to help companies use their computers effectively. In the 1970s, EDS expanded into new international markets, which today include some of its fastest-growing opportunities. Over the last two decades, personal computers and Web- based business models have changed the way people and businesses interact and access information. EDS has worked to ensure the strategic technological alignment of its clients in light of these developments. EDS prides itself on consistently demonstrating resourcefulness and innovation, such as in aiding disaster recovery and providing information security in business continuity efforts. Responding quickly to unmet needs is a hallmark of successful businesses, such as EDS. I commend EDS for its vitality and innovation, and send the people of EDS best wishes for the future.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. When does morning business end?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to call up amendment No. 3928 to the Defense authorization bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be brought up, and I will speak on it, after which I will withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an amendment that 16 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have cosponsored. The amendment is very straightforward. It is to improve the minimum criteria for the 2005 BRAC Commission, that the military and the department must follow when evaluating the Nation's military infrastructure. The amendment would also make the process more transparent. I want to be clear that by offering this amendment, I do not intend to revisit the debate we had last year. While this Chamber remains sharply divided over the merits of another round of base closures, we can certainly agree a round of closures riddled with mistakes could be more costly than no closures at all. In fiscal year 2002, the National Defense Authorization Act unleashed a powerful bureaucratic process when it authorized another round of closures in 2005. The Pentagon has often said that there are 20 to 25 percent excess military structures and that nine members of the commission may well recommend the closure of as many as 100 military installations in this Nation. Those are not decisions to be taken lightly. We have seen from the Vieques fiasco that once a national asset like a training range is closed, it cannot be replaced. We have also seen past commissions commit costly blunders. In 1995, the commission recommended the closure of Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock, TX. The Air Force said it had surplus undergraduate training capacity. Only a few years later, the Air Force reported it was nearly 2,000 pilots short of its authorized end strength. At great expense to the taxpayer, the Air Force responded by standing up Moody Air Force Base. In 1995, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico was realigned, and all of its housing was conveyed to the community. Two years later, U.S. Army South was relocated there from Panama. The Secretary was forced to come back to Congress to seek permission to rescind the housing conveyance. In 1995, Fort Greeley, AK, was realigned, its tenants relocated, and the housing area was relinquished. Five years later, the decision was made to utilize Greeley as the critical test bed for our emerging national missile defense system. As we can see, even in peacetime, correctly forecasting requirements, even just a few years into the future, is nearly impossible. The authorization bill already directs the commissioners to consider a handful of very broad criteria when evaluating our military infrastructure. But in an era where the meaning of commonly understood words is a matter of debate, specificity is everything. The amendment goes one step further. The Commissioners are authorized to consider additional criteria, many not included in last year's authorization bill. One of these is force protection. The threat posed by terrorists to our forces has been demonstrated too vividly to leave this out. Look at Khobar Towers, look at the USS Cole. We must have force protection wherever our troops are in the field, and it should be an additional criterion for any enduring installation. Lessons learned from previous rounds of closures include the disparities between anticipated and actual savings is another suggested criterion--who could oppose this commonsense suggestion? Of course, there are bases overseas as well as those in America that are affected by the base-closing commission, so the criteria in this amendment are in no way exhaustive or restrictive. The Commission may consider any other criteria it considers appropriate. But it is an attempt to enumerate a minimum number of criteria that would have to be addressed by the Commission when they are making their very important decisions potentially closing as many as 100 military installations. In addition to sharpening focus, this amendment would also increase transparency. It requires the formula to be used in assigning weight to the various criteria to be published in the Federal Register. By permitting greater insight into the workings of the Commission, we can reduce some of the anxiety communities will experience as we near 2005. Greater transparency will also help us limit the number of potential and very costly mistakes. We will place a tremendous amount of trust in the nine members of the Commission. Their decisions will impact hundreds of communities across our Nation. It is entirely reasonable to demand a degree of transparency into the process. In a recent letter, the general counsel of the Department of Defense wrote to express the Department's opposition to this amendment. The counsel justifies the Department's opposition by arguing that the proposed criteria ``are redundant to existing provisions,'' and ``the proposed requirement to weight the selection criteria is unnecessary.'' As an example of this alleged redundancy, the counsel points out that our amendment requires that the selection process address ``force structure and mission requirements through 2020,'' and that the current law also requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a force structure plan based on, among other factors, an assessment of the probable threats to national security through 2025. This is true. However, the general counsel fails to mention that the current law requires the Secretary of Defense to submit the plan in support of the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget. That budget will not be submitted to Congress until February or March of 2004, months after the December 31, 2003 deadline for publishing the proposed criteria for base closing in the Federal Register. Without our amendment, the criteria will be established before the Secretary has reported his assessment of our long-term threat, the necessary force structure, and hence the most appropriate infrastructure needs of the military. Members of this administration have said on previous occasions that doing a BRAC before our future force structure has been determined is like getting the cart before the horse. The general counsel also contended in the letter that the amendment's requirements that the criteria be weighted is unnecessary because the current law: . . . requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that military value is the primary consideration. . . . True. Our legislation would not change this. The real question is, Exactly how will the Department measure military value? Clearly, there are many factors that comprise this measurement. The current law contains at least five components of military value. Is it unreasonable to ask which of these is the more important? They can't all be of equal value. At some point the Commission will rank them, giving each criterion a different relative weight. All we are seeking is insight into the process. Without knowledge of how the Commission weights the criteria, we will once again be left, as we have seen in past BRACs, with a secretive process in which the nine members of the Commission go into a room with a list of bases and then reappear with a final list of closures. There is no public insight into the Commission's rationale at this point. Our legislation would require that the relative weighting be published, and thus provide the public with a greater understanding of the process. I think the general counsel's response shows a level of misunderstanding of the concern that people have about base closings. This has been a secretive process in the past, one in which there has been no necessity to reveal the rationale and the Commission has not. I do not doubt the Department will eventually start looking at these criteria more carefully. I certainly hope, before we go into this 2005 round, which will probably be the last round of base closures, that the Department will report on what our 20-year strategy is going to be, what our necessary force strength will be, and what our training infrastructure requirements will be. Today we don't know that. We could not know that today for 2020. The Department has not put that forward. Clearly the Department has been focusing on the war on terrorism, as they should. But to go into the next round of base closings, we must determine what our threats are going to be for 20 years and assess just how much it is going to cost to close a base or how much it would cost if we need to reopen it. It is clear that did not happen in all cases during the 1995 round. Costs continue to be much more than were estimated by the Commission. The environmental cleanup is still costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in the Military Construction Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member, and we are paying costs that were never envisioned by the 1995 base-closing commission. I am going to withdraw my amendment because I do think the Department of Defense has other concerns that are clearly taking priority at this time, and I understand that. But I am going to keep this amendment alive for the future because I believe the Department needs to come forth with weighted criteria, with a clear 20-year strategy before they set the criteria for base closings. We need to know what the war on terrorism is going to entail over the next 20 years. How are we going to protect our troops wherever they may be? How are we going to make sure we have the training capability that we thought we had at Vieques, but then all of a sudden people protested and we withdrew? So now we do not have a good live-firing training range for the Navy to substitute. How could we possibly go forward in 2005 without this information? I urge the Department of Defense to work with me to come up with clear, weighted criteria prior to the 2005 round of base closings. I withdraw the amendment and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota how long he is intending to speak?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be allowed to speak for approximately 3 to 4 minutes, after which I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I wanted to know how much time there is in morning business, and if there is any time for the Republican side in morning business time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to talk about Amtrak. Our Amtrak national rail passenger system is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. They have said they need $200 million in operating cash or the entire system will grind to a halt very soon. The effect of such a shutdown would be devastating. With the Independence Day weekend approaching, and the number of airline flights slashed since September 11, families throughout the Nation are counting on Amtrak to get them to their destinations. If Amtrak is not running, those families will add to the millions of cars already expected to crowd our Nation's highways. Amtrak has already received more than 100,000 reservations for the holiday weekend. Reservations account for about half of Amtrak's expected passenger load. I have noticed from articles in the paper that people are already beginning to question whether Amtrak service is going to be there, so they are already suffering cancellations, which adds to the deficits we already have. I have always been a supporter of Amtrak, but sometimes it has been hard because Amtrak has not really come to grips with the inefficiencies in the system. I hope Mr. Gunn, the new CEO of Amtrak-- and I appreciate so much his willingness to come in and take over this railroad operation at this time--will make a difference. He has already fired mid-level managers. Certainly, I think anybody looking at the labor situation in Amtrak would realize that the rail unions really are out of line with other workers in our country. Amtrak has never engaged in tough negotiations with its unions, even 4 years ago, when we were trying to reauthorize Amtrak. As a result, labor costs are out of line with other workers in our country. A 5-year severance package for Amtrak employees, as in other rail unions, is way beyond the norm for most union workers or other workers in our country. I do hope the unions will work with us to try to bring efficiency in both management, administration, contracting out, and overall severance packages that are in an alarming condition and have put us in such a precarious situation. Amtrak has not come forward with its true financial condition in many instances. Mortgaging Penn Station last year was quite irresponsible. I didn't like it at all. I think we should have met this head on. On the other hand, there are some Members of Congress who have been so recalcitrant about Amtrak; I can understand Amtrak's unwillingness to come and bare its financial soul to Members of Congress when they know they are going to get their heads chopped off. We need to step back and take a responsible approach. We need a passenger rail system. It is part of a multimodal system that will serve the needs of all of the people. A skeleton that would go across the top of our country, down the west coast, across the bottom/southern part of the country, up to the east coast with one line right down the middle would give us a solid national rail system where States could then form compacts and feed into those systems. In my State of Texas, the DART, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, is feeding its train into the Amtrak system. Those are the possibilities we have if we know we have a dependable national rail passenger system. This means a whole system. It does not mean just the Northeast corridor. One of the problems we have had is the rest of the system has been starved year after year while the Northeast corridor has gotten the lion's share of funding. We must acknowledge once and for all this is going be a national system. We are all going to be in this together. All of us who believe in a national rail system should say: This is not going to be a piece of a system that is subsidized heavily and another piece that isn't. We need to consider it as a system. We need to fund it well. Some people have said: We have to subsidize Amtrak too much. We have been subsidizing Amtrak to the tune of $520 million annually; whereas we have subsidized highways to the tune of $30 billion, and $10 billion per year on aviation. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We have seen the subsidies. Some are user fees but some are not. We just bailed out the airline industry because we knew it was essential for our economy. In Texas, we send billions of dollars to the highway trust fund. We get 88 cents on the dollar back. We are subsidizing other States' highways. I don't mean that I want Texas to have to get 100 percent. Our National Highway System is built on a national system concept. That is what we need for Amtrak. We need to say: Yes, some States are getting more than others. Maybe States should step to the plate more. I would be willing to say that my State should step to the plate and help in these subsidies, just as I think every State that receives service should. That would be a worthy reform. The bottom line is, this should be a national system that we support as part of our national security, our homeland security, a multimodal system that provides transportation for all the people of our country in a convenient way and in a way that is most necessary. We have aviation; we have highways. Rail is an important third part of our overall transportation system. I yield the floor.