Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who through his service and dedication made a significant difference in the lives of those who work at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in my home State of Arkansas. Mr. Robert C. McWilliams passed away recently, and the State will mourn his loss. Robert McWilliams, was commissioned into the Army in 1964 as a second lieutenant of armor. He served two tours in Vietnam as an Army aviator and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal, Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal and was decorated with Senior Aviator Wings. After his service in Vietnam, he was stationed at Pine Bluff Arsenal, where he served as Provost Marshal, Chief of Security, and finally president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees. It was in that last position that Bob truly emerged as a tireless advocate for the hundreds of men and women who work at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, toiling on behalf of our nation's security. I enjoyed the many conversations I had with Bob, for he never wasted an opportunity to argue for higher wages and more job security for those he represented. I knew that whenever I needed a candid opinion of how decisions made in Washington, D.C., would affect life in Jefferson County, I could call on him. Now that he is gone, I will miss him. Robert C. McWilliams served his nation with dignity and honor. To those who knew him, he is remembered with fondness. I wish to extent my deepest sympathies for his passing to his family and loved ones.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug- Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001. This important legislation will reduce the number of employees who engage in substance abuse while on the job and will thus directly improve worker safety. As employee substance abuse declines, there will be a corresponding decline in the number of drug-related fatalities, injuries, and lost workdays. Workers who abuse substances not only hurt themselves, but their coworkers as well. Approximately 1,000 workers are currently being injured and killed each year as a direct result of their own and their coworkers' substance abuse. Prior to 1993, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, reported that toxicological reports for occupational fatalities indicated that one-sixth of the nation's workers who died on the job were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Unfortunately, the true extent of this problem is not definitively known as a result of the Department of Labor's decision to order the BLS to discontinue the tracking of this statistic. In the meantime, we can commit to providing additional funding to enhance drug-free workplace programs. The Drug-Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001 would simply amend the Small Business Act, SBA, to authorize another $10 million, $5 million each, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for grants to states and non-profit organizations working with small businesses to promote drug- free workplaces. I ask my colleagues to join me in this simple, non- partisan attempt to enhance the safety of American workers and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Harkin, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Thomas to introduce the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001. This important legislation will authorize the funding necessary to ensure that rural law enforcement agencies are able to secure the technical assistance, education, and training they need. As in my home state of Arkansas, many rural law enforcement agencies are comprised of a handful of officers and don't have the financial resources to provide them with crucial technical assistance, education, and training. However, the need for these services is greater than ever as these officers are increasingly facing violent crimes that were once confined to urban settings. When one considers the fact that ten officers in 100,000 die in the line of duty each year in rural counties and communities with a population less than 25,000, as contrasted with seven in 100,000 in the largest cities, this legislation becomes necessary. I am very proud that, under the leadership of Dr. Lee Colwell, the former Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas has taken the lead in addressing this problem. Since 1985, the Center has been providing the technical assistance, education, and training that rural law enforcement agencies so critically need. For instance, the Center is currently providing Internet access, forensic science education and training, and model management and investigative policies to rural law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. Its effectiveness is readily apparent as it is strongly supported by law enforcement agencies located in the following 40 states: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001 will establish eight regional centers to compliment the Center and thereby expand the technical assistance, education, and training available to local law enforcement agencies throughout our nation. Thus, I ask my colleagues to join with me as I work to see that this important measure is enacted into law and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug- Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001. This important legislation will reduce the number of employees who engage in substance abuse while on the job and will thus directly improve worker safety. As employee substance abuse declines, there will be a corresponding decline in the number of drug-related fatalities, injuries, and lost workdays. Workers who abuse substances not only hurt themselves, but their coworkers as well. Approximately 1,000 workers are currently being injured and killed each year as a direct result of their own and their coworkers' substance abuse. Prior to 1993, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, reported that toxicological reports for occupational fatalities indicated that one-sixth of the nation's workers who died on the job were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. Unfortunately, the true extent of this problem is not definitively known as a result of the Department of Labor's decision to order the BLS to discontinue the tracking of this statistic. In the meantime, we can commit to providing additional funding to enhance drug-free workplace programs. The Drug-Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001 would simply amend the Small Business Act, SBA, to authorize another $10 million, $5 million each, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for grants to states and non-profit organizations working with small businesses to promote drug- free workplaces. I ask my colleagues to join me in this simple, non- partisan attempt to enhance the safety of American workers and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Harkin, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Thomas to introduce the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001. This important legislation will authorize the funding necessary to ensure that rural law enforcement agencies are able to secure the technical assistance, education, and training they need. As in my home state of Arkansas, many rural law enforcement agencies are comprised of a handful of officers and don't have the financial resources to provide them with crucial technical assistance, education, and training. However, the need for these services is greater than ever as these officers are increasingly facing violent crimes that were once confined to urban settings. When one considers the fact that ten officers in 100,000 die in the line of duty each year in rural counties and communities with a population less than 25,000, as contrasted with seven in 100,000 in the largest cities, this legislation becomes necessary. I am very proud that, under the leadership of Dr. Lee Colwell, the former Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas has taken the lead in addressing this problem. Since 1985, the Center has been providing the technical assistance, education, and training that rural law enforcement agencies so critically need. For instance, the Center is currently providing Internet access, forensic science education and training, and model management and investigative policies to rural law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. Its effectiveness is readily apparent as it is strongly supported by law enforcement agencies located in the following 40 states: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New Jersey; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin; and Wyoming. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2001 will establish eight regional centers to compliment the Center and thereby expand the technical assistance, education, and training available to local law enforcement agencies throughout our nation. Thus, I ask my colleagues to join with me as I work to see that this important measure is enacted into law and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution, along with my colleague Senator Wellstone, calling on the Administration to introduce a resolution at the upcoming meeting of the United Nations (U.N.) Human Rights Commission highlighting China's human rights abuses. This Senate resolution makes a simple statement. The U.S.should lead the effort in Geneva to speak for freedom in China, both by introducing a resolution and by garnering the support of key cosponsors. Mr. President, in a report issued just two days ago, Amnesty International documented the extensive use of torture in China. According to the report, ``Torture is widespread and systemic, committed in the full range of state institutions, from police stations to `re-education through labour' camps, as well as in people's homes, workplaces, and in public . . . Victims can be anyone from criminal suspects, political dissidents, workers and innocent bystanders to officials.'' The common occurrence of torture points to a wider trend-- China's human rights record is appalling. The Chinese government continues to repress any voice it perceives to be a threat to its power--religious groups, democracy activists, people trying to expose corruption, people trying to use the Internet for the free exchange of ideas--anyone who will not bow to the government. I expect that the State Department's annual report on human rights, which will be issued soon, will once again confirm this trend. The destruction of places of worship is nothing new in China. But in recent months, scores of churches have been destroyed, in what some experts have described as the most destructive crackdown since the Cultural Revolution. Beginning in November, in counties around Wenzhou, over 700 churches have been destroyed. Over two hundred others have either been banned or taken for other purposes. I am disturbed by this worsening campaign against religious believers in China. The Chinese government has also stepped up its campaign against spiritual movements like the Falun Gong and Zhong Gong, not only imprisoning leaders but also sentencing marginal followers to lengthy terms and penalizing family members of practitioners. Pro-democracy activists, including Xu Wenli, one of the founders of the China Democracy Party, are still languishing in prison for legally and peacefully expressing their views. Huang Qi, a middle class computer user and an Internet webmaster, is on trial for subverting state power simply because he posted information about topics like the democracy movement and the Tiannanmen Square Massacre. He could face ten years in prison. This attempt to control Internet usage should be of great concern to the international community, especially those who have touted the Internet as a revolutionizing force in China. Mr. President, all of these human rights abuses point to a much needed response--a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. There is no more appropriate place for highlighting these abuses in a multilateral setting, because this multilateral forum was established just for this purpose. If we do not use this forum for bringing up obvious abuses, then we undercut its very viability. The U.S. has traditionally led the effort on China's human rights abuses. This year should be no different. China is already intensely lobbying other countries to defeat any such resolution. We must begin as soon as possible to obtain support for a resolution. I understand that the Administration is in the process of deciding whether to advance a resolution at Geneva. I hope that they will look to the Congress and understand that there is broad support for a Geneva resolution. This Administration has the opportunity to set a tone for its approach to China and all of Asia. If the mistake of the Clinton Administration was bowing to China's demands and centering its efforts in Asia around China, then the Bush Administration has the chance to stand firm, to be skeptical of the Chinese government's offers and promises. I urge the Administration not to look at China's offer of ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, as anything an empty promise--a distraction that will quickly fade away once the Commission meeting is over. Finally, Mr. President, last year when the Senate and Congress as a whole passed PNTR for China, proponents argued that passage of PNTR in no way signified a diminished concern for human rights. I believe that now is the time to demonstrate this continuing concern for human rights. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to respond to my distinguished colleague on his always very insightful observations regarding the President's tax cut proposals. I want to strongly commend the President for coming out with a well-conceived tax program that will provide broad-based tax relief for the American people; for every American taxpayer will experience relief from the onerous burden placed upon them by this Tax Code and tax burden we have. My distinguished colleague spoke of the need for investment. Too often when we talk about not giving tax relief because we have to ensure we have enough resources to invest in the Federal Government, what we are really talking about is: Let's make sure we don't give it back to the American people so we have it to spend as we see fit. So investment equates to big spending programs. That would be ill-advised. If we do not enact broad-based tax relief, as the President has proposed, I can assure you that over the next 10 years the projected surplus will not go to debt reduction, as everybody would like to see, but it will, in fact, be spent by a Congress that enjoys spending all too much. When Senator Lieberman speaks about a cautious approach, I agree. What the President has done and proposed is cautious and prudent. He has proposed that we spend one-fourth of the projected surplus by returning to the American people tax relief. One quarter of every dollar out of the projected surplus would be returned to the American people who pay the bills. As my friend Senator Enzi has often said, the surplus is a tax overcharge, and at least a quarter of it ought to go back to the American people.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a part of the President's tax program and part of his education program, which is the education savings accounts. My colleague, Senator Torricelli, spoke on this earlier today. I join him and am pleased to cosponsor the education savings accounts legislation with him. I am honored to take up this cause from its previous Republican sponsor, the Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell, and it is in his honor and memory that this legislation is named. Senator Coverdell was an ardent supporter of education savings accounts. He worked for years to ensure that families and children across America had the best educational opportunities available to them. I, with all of my colleagues, am sad that Senator Coverdell is no longer here to continue his exemplary work on this issue. He believed education was one of the five pillars of freedom. Not only did he work tirelessly on this issue, but he coordinated the floor debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act last May. He was dedicated to the issue of education and its importance in shaping the future of our country. While this legislation was passed several times by the Senate under the leadership of Senator Coverdell, I will work with Senator Torricelli to ensure that his dream of expanded, broader education savings accounts is not only passed this year but is signed into law. This legislation, which we call the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts Act of 2001, allows parents, grandparents, or other scholarship sponsors to establish an education savings account to save for a child's education expenses. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 allowed families to establish individual education accounts for higher education expenses, but it allowed contributions of only $500 per year. That is simply not enough. This legislation would build on that legislation by increasing the annual limit on contributions from the $500 to $2,000 per child per year. Furthermore, and equally as significant, it expands the account so that savings may be used for elementary and secondary education expenses, including tutoring, special needs services, books, home computers, and tuition. Education savings accounts place the power of education in the hands of those who should be in control, and that is the parents. These accounts allow parents to invest their own money over time to plan for their children's future. Parents would have a real incentive to save for their children's education expenses, and as these accounts grow and accumulate interest, they build compound interest so parents can have significant resources to pay for many of the services associated with educating their child. My colleagues, even public education is no longer free. Parents often have to pay for tutoring, for afterschool programs, for uniforms in many schools, home computers and software, and they pay that out of their own pockets. These accounts can help pay for that. May I say, as an aside, public school teachers are going to be big beneficiaries of these Coverdell accounts. They are going to benefit because those who are hired to do tutoring, those who will provide additional help for children who need that special time are going to be the public school teachers who are going to see their incomes and limited salaries oftentimes supplemented by these education savings accounts. In addition, this legislation would expand who can contribute to the education savings accounts so that corporations, charitable organizations, foundations, and labor unions can contribute to these education savings accounts in the name of a particular child. So I can certainly envision major employers deciding this would be an ideal benefit to employees and their children by establishing these education savings accounts, making contributions to them. I certainly can imagine labor unions being supportive of this and seeing this as a wonderful benefit for their members and ensuring that their members are going to have the resources necessary for their children's education and for their employees to have all of the options available as they look at what is best for their children. So this proposal will inject billions of new dollars into education that would not have been spent previously. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for companies and unions to offer education savings accounts as benefits for their employees--a benefit particularly helpful to low- and middle-income families who otherwise could not save much. According to a previous analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, 70 percent of the families expected to take advantage of this legislation have incomes of $75,000 or less. These accounts are only available to taxpayers making less than $95,000 or $190,000 jointly. The Joint Committee on Taxation also estimated that 75 percent of all families using these accounts will have children enrolled in public elementary or secondary schools. That means public schools aren't the losers; they are the winners under education savings accounts. The injection of billions of dollars, 75 percent of which is going to be benefiting families with children in public schools, is a tremendous boon to public education. So education savings accounts benefit low- and middle-income families who currently struggle to meet the education needs of their children, and they benefit families not only of lower income but those who are enrolled in public schools. One of the arguments against these savings accounts is that you are going to take the cream of the crop out of the public schools because in their education savings accounts, they can save the resources for private school tuition. Yes, they could, but the fact is, this legislation is really targeting low- and middle-income families, those who otherwise don't even have those choices. An affluent family can look at private schools, parochial schools, all kinds of options. They can afford tutors. It is the low- and middle-income families who heretofore have not had those options, but with education savings accounts they can look at these options. Public schools, private schools, and parochial schools are all enhanced by that competitive atmosphere. This legislation leaves public money in public schools. Only private resources could ever be used for tuition in a private school. We are going to have a healthy debate about the ``V'' word-- vouchers--this year, and I commend the President for his portability provision on title I so disadvantaged children don't have to remain in a failing school, trapped in a school not meeting their needs, and parents will be able to take a portion of Federal money out of title I and move to another school. We are going to have a heated debate on that. There are Republicans for and against it, and some Democrats are for and against it. This is something Republicans and Democrats, provoucher and antivoucher forces, can agree upon because it is only private money that would be utilized in going to other public schools, and only public money would go to the public schools. Instead of creating a new Federal education program, should we not allow parents to realize a maximum return on their savings by allowing for these accounts? It is estimated that education savings accounts will infuse more than $12 billion of additional funding into education. That far outweighs the cost of the bill. What better way to stress the importance of education than by allowing parents the opportunity to make their dollars count. I look forward to working on this bill with the original cosponsors-- Senators Gregg, Frist, Enzi, Sessions, Thompson, Hagel, Brownback, Santorum, and Breaux--as well as the chief cosponsor, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, who has fought this fight and who has been on the floor with Senator Coverdell in past years and has taken a courageous step for something that in the time since it began was controversial. I commend him and look forward to working with him as we move this legislation forward. Parents deserve this chance of empowerment to provide a better education for their children. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation which I hope is the first of several steps taken by Congress to correct a terrible injustice currently imposed on seniors who have worked hard all of their lives and are receiving Social Security benefits. Many people do not realize that, after they have paid Social Security taxes throughout their work careers, up to 50 percent or 85 percent of the monthly benefit they receive from Social Security may be taxed again. Prior to 1993, up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits were taxable for individuals with incomes above $25,000, and couples with incomes above $32,000. In 1993, after President Clinton raised the portion of Social Security benefits which are taxable up to 85 percent for individuals with incomes over $34,000, and couples with income over $44,000. President Clinton's 1993 tax increase on senior citizens made a bad policy even worse. Essentially, this graduated tax scheme penalizes seniors with fixed incomes who have worked hard to ensure their retirement security. S. 237, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act, which I have introduced along with my colleagues, Senators Cochran, Frist, Inhofe, Lott, Murkowski and Warner, would repeal the 1993 Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits and rolls the tax levels back to their pre- 1993 levels. By eliminating the taxation of Social Security benefits, we will allow seniors to have more money to pay for prescription drugs, medical care, housing and food. This legislation provides greater tax fairness for increasing numbers of middle-income seniors. It is widely agreed that Social Security was never intended to be the sole source of income for retirees. In light of Social Security's financial troubles, now is the time to remove disincentives for those who wish to save and plan early for their retirement. Hopefully, this legislation is a first step toward the repeal of all taxes on Social Security benefits. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to provide tax relief to seniors by passing this important legislation and by examining ways to make the system as fair as possible for all beneficiaries who have paid into the system and who may or may not be subject to taxes on their benefits.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as Congress considers President Bush's comprehensive tax relief plan in the coming weeks, I sincerely hope that we will examine ways to make the tax system more equitable to small business. As we look at the economic indicators, it is clear that the economy could use a boost. One way we can do this is to encourage the further growth and success of small businesses, which for decades have been the cornerstone of our growing economy. A proposal I would like my colleagues to seriously consider is the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2001, which I introduced last week. Small businesses owners generally have restricted cash flow, as well as limited access to credit. Funds are not readily available to invest in new equipment that may be needed to operate the business effectively. Small businesses need to be allowed to expense a significant portion if not all of the costs for new equipment purchases in the year the purchase was made, rather than depreciating it over many years, which frees up necessary capital to make necessary investments and improvements. Specifically, the Small Business Tax Fairness Act provides small businesses relief from an outdated rule that currently only allows a business to expense $24,000 per year for new or used equipment. S. 236 proposes two key changes to the equipment expensing rule that will ease the cost on small businesses when necessary updates are needed in their facilities: The bill increases the current $24,000 allowable equipment expensing amount to $100,000; and It increases the cap beyond which limits the equipment expense deduction from $200,000 to $400,000. Another important provision of this legislation directly impacts small businesses which are restaurants or franchises. Because restaurants find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with other businesses, such as convenience stores, which are allowed a 15-year depreciable life, the Small Business Tax Fairness Act would allow restaurants to depreciate the cost of their original building, and any subsequent renovations or improvements to the building, at a same rate of 15 years, instead of the current depreciation schedule of 39 years. Unlike other commercial buildings, restaurant buildings are specialized, single-purpose structures that are rarely converted to non-restaurant use. Restaurants also experience considerably more traffic, and remain open longer than most retail buildings. This daily assault causes rapid deterioration of restaurant properties, and forces restauranteurs to constantly repair and upgrade their buildings. Because restaurant facilities do have a much shorter life span than other commercial establishments, this bill would alleviate the punitive depreciation schedule for restaurants that currently exists. Similarly, most franchise contracts cover a span of 15 or 20 years. By reducing the depreciation period from 39 to 15 years for franchise and restaurant properties, this legislation more accurately reflects the true economic life of the properties. S. 236 is supported by the International Franchise Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Women Business Owners, and the National Restaurant Association. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I also applaud President Bush for his leadership on the tax relief issue. He has come forward with a plan that I think will have the support of the American people and will provide them much needed relief. Senator Enzi very correctly called the huge surplus that is projected over the next 10 years a tax overcharge. That is precisely what it is. The CBO has estimated the Federal surplus will total $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Setting aside Social Security surplus revenues, the Federal surplus will total $3.1 trillion. So if you take away the Social Security--put it in that lockbox--you still have $3.1 trillion over that same period. Our country and our Government has experienced a surplus for the last 3 years running, and we have paid down the national debt now by over $363 billion. It is clear, we have to continue that path of fiscal responsibility. We have paid down the public debt $363 billion. President Bush has pointed to a very real problem that exists, and that is the increase in personal debt, consumer debt, in this Nation. One of the imperatives for providing tax relief to low- and middle- income working Americans is that that increasing personal debt, consumer debt, in this country can be addressed while we simultaneously address the problem of the national debt. The Government also has an obligation to the American taxpayer who is now paying more in taxes than the Government is spending every year. The Federal tax burden is the highest ever during our peacetime history. Americans, as Senator Enzi pointed out, pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing. Instead of growing Government bureaucracies, and devising new Federal programs on which to spend that surplus, it is incumbent on Congress to give taxpayers back some of the money they have overpaid because it is, in fact, their money. President George W. Bush has proposed that we give back about one- quarter of the projected surplus, which allows us to pay down the national debt, protect Medicare, and ensure the viability of Social Security, and not touch the Social Security trust fund--all at the same time--and give back to the American people one-quarter of the tax overcharge, of the surplus. I think that is extremely prudent. It is a smaller tax relief package than that which was proposed under President Reagan a number of years ago. If, in fact, we do not return that money to the American people, the temptation will be so great in Washington, DC, that we will most assuredly spend it; every day politicians are devising means by which we can spend that surplus. So while you will hear those who are opposed to broad-based tax relief, no one will say they are opposed to tax cuts completely. They are all couching it and saying: I favor tax relief, but we want to target it to those who need it most. That is Washington-speak for those who really don't want to provide tax relief for every taxpayer and who really believe that wisdom resides within the District of Columbia and that we can better decide where those precious resources should be expended than the American people. The fundamental question is, when it comes to a tax relief package: Whom do you trust more? Do you trust the American people? Do you trust American families or do you believe that it is wiser and smarter for us to collect the tax revenues and then, in our sense of priorities, decide where those revenues will go? We can prevent the tax relief debate from degenerating into a class warfare debate, and we can keep the focus on: Whom do you really trust, do you want to return the surplus to the American people, or do you want to keep it in Washington where we will divide it up and decide who are the winners and who are the losers and what programs should be started and what programs should be increased? That will be the debate we ought to have before the American people, and on the floor of the Senate. President Bush has a number of key reforms in the plan with which he has come forward. He replaces the current five-rate tax structure with four lower rates--10, 15, 25, and 33. I agree with George W. Bush: No American taxpayer should be required to give more than one-third of their income in Federal income taxes. There was a time, back before Ronald Reagan was elected President, when the top rate for some Americans was 70 percent. That was obscene. Frankly, 33 percent is too high. No American ought to pay more than a third of their income in Federal taxes. President Bush simplifies it by replacing the five-rate tax structure with four lower rates. The most common complaint about the current Tax Code is its complexity. While this isn't a panacea and it is not going to fix all of the problems in the Tax Code, at least it is a step toward greater simplification. I applaud that. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000. I was the original sponsor, when I was in the House of Representatives, of the $500-per-child tax credit which eventually was signed into law. President Bush says we must go further; we need to double that $500-per-child tax credit. He is right. Americans who have the greatest burden from our tax system are those who are trying to rear their children, trying to pay for their clothes, trying to keep food on the table, and trying to plan for college tuition. Those Americans facing the greatest economic challenges deserve that commitment to the American family that the child tax credit provides. When the per-child deduction was originally passed and put into the Tax Code, the goal was, the statement was, that our Tax Code was to say families are important. And they are important. But over time, the effects of inflation so eroded tax deduction that it became less than significant. The $500-per-child tax credit is a move in the right direction, and doubling it, as President Bush has proposed, is a big step in providing relief for American families. He reduces the marriage penalty. And he eliminates the death tax altogether. This has been an effort of Senators and Congress men and women on both sides of the aisle for years. It is a provision in our Tax Code that is widely recognized as being inequitable and anti-American: Penalizing savings, penalizing investments, penalizing the American dream of passing on part of what you accumulate in your life to your children and to your grandchildren. I applaud the fact that that death tax would be pulled up by the roots to no longer be a part of our American tax system. He expands the charitable tax deduction. This is very much needed as part of the faith-based initiative the President came forward with and will unleash charitable giving in this country. Contrary to the claims of critics that the Bush plan only benefits the rich, in fact low- and middle-income families will receive the greatest reduction in the amount of taxes they must pay each year relative to their income. There are going to be a lot of linguistic games played. It is true that those in higher income brackets may see a greater relief in terms of dollars because 5 percent of wage earners in this country pay 40 percent of the taxes. Even though President Bush's plan is highly progressive, it is going to benefit low- and middle-income taxpayers more in percentage terms, in raw dollar terms, because they pay so much more of the tax revenues of this country, they will receive more of the benefit. But every American taxpayer will receive relief. And those in low- and middle-income brackets are going to receive the highest percentage of relief relative to their income. A family of four making $50,000 a year would receive a 50-percent tax cut, which means an extra $1,600 in their pockets every year, enough money to pay the average monthly mortgage payment, depending upon where you live, or several months' worth of grocery bills for an average family. A family of four making $75,000 a year would receive a 25- percent tax cut, and a family of four making $35,000 a year would have a 100-percent tax reduction. Yet you will hear time and time again echoed on the floor of this body, as we debate this issue in the coming weeks, that this is a tax cut for the rich. You tell that to the family making $35,000 a year who will owe zero in their Federal tax liability; you tell that to the family of four making $50,000 a year who will see their tax burden cut in half, that this is a tax break for the rich. President Bush's tax plan would use approximately one-fourth of the surplus for tax relief while reserving a portion for debt reduction, Medicare, and for Social Security preservation. The Bush plan would decrease total Federal revenue by no more than 6.2 percent each year. By comparison, President Reagan's tax plan reduced Federal revenues by over 18 percent. My favorite Democrat, President Kennedy's tax proposal would have cut Federal revenue by over 12 percent. He saw the value of what tax relief would mean not only to the American people but to the economy itself. President Bush is proposing fair and responsible tax relief. The surplus doesn't belong to the Federal Government; it belongs to the hard-working Americans who pay taxes every year. I wholeheartedly support the President's plan and look forward to seeing it passed very much intact. May I inquire, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial I submitted last Thursday be stricken from the Congressional Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to take a few minutes to recognize the contributions of a patriot, a leader, and a good friend of this institution who has departed Government service to return to life as a private citizen. During, his 4-year tenure as Under Secretary, Acting Secretary, and Secretary of the Air Force, F. Whitten Peters had led his service to new heights of achievement, and the world is better for it. At a time when the global security environment became less predictable with each passing day, Whit Peters understood the need for the Air Force to become more responsive, more versatile, and more powerful--all at the same time. With boundless energy and enthusiasm, he set out to help the U.S. Air Force do those things and more. As the leading architect of aerospace power, Whit Peters drove a fundamental re-examination of the relationship between air, space, and information systems. As a result, the cold war Air Force he inherited is well on its way to becoming a modern, integrated aerospace force, designed to meet the challenges of a new millennium. During Secretary Peters' tenure, in the troubled skies over Serbia, a war was won using the strengths of our military--and we did it without losing a single American to enemy action. Today, despots and dictators hesitate to act because they know America's Air Force can bring power to bear at the point of decision in a matter of minutes or hours. And, millions of people, the world over, live better lives because of the humanitarian missions undertaken by our U.S. Air Force in the last 4 years. While busy guiding the evolution of the Air Force's operational capabilities, Secretary Peters also directed significant improvements in acquisition, logistics, and sustainment programs to ensure the best possible use of defense resources. He presided over the development of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle--a revolutionary pairing of Russian propulsion technology with the best United States commercial space-launch capabilities--which will drastically lower the cost of placing commercial and defense payloads in earth orbit. He led the consolidation of five Air Force aircraft depots into three, reducing depot over-capacity by 40 percent and saving the taxpayers over $377 million a year. And, he arrested a 10-year drop in aircraft readiness rates by putting 2 billion dollars' worth of additional spares on the shelf where they will be useful to aircraft maintainers. He was instrumental on an issue critical to my home State of Arkansas--his commitment secured Little Rock Air Force Base as the Nation's C-130 schoolhouse and the Center of Excellence for future generations. Most important, Whit Peters took care of his people. As every Member of this body knows, he fought hard for improved pay, housing, and medical benefits for every member of America's Air Force. He fought for better re-enlistment bonuses for people in hard-to-fill skills such as air traffic control, computer network administration, and over a hundred others. He pushed relentlessly for better child-care facilities to meet the demands of working families, and today 95 percent of all Air Force child care centers meet federal accreditation standards, compared to just 10 percent of child care facilities nationwide. No wonder the enlisted men and women of the Air Force honored him with their most prestigious recognition: Induction into the Air Force Order of the Sword. In the 53-year history of America's youngest service, no other Air Force Secretary has even been so honored. Nor has any service secretary been so respected by the men and women he leads. Like the men and women of the Total Air Force--the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, and the Regular Air Force--we hate to see Whit Peters go, and I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him the fondest of farewells. I have rarely known someone with greater commitment, greater work ethic, or a greater zeal for life than Whit Peters displayed. He is a rare leader and an even rarer person in this town: a true gentleman who cares more about others than himself. As the Air Force slogan says, ``No one comes close.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Wyoming for his very strong, clear, and forceful statement supporting tax relief for the American people. It was well reasoned. I applaud him for making his statement and associate myself with it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following editorial that appeared last week in the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette regarding the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General appear in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to enthusiastically applaud George W. Bush's community and faith-based initiative which he announced yesterday and is emphasizing and talking about this week. It is a very exciting prospect that we have a President who recognizes the vast untapped potential of the charitable and faith-based sector and who wants to rally what he calls the ``armies of compassion'' to solve the deeper social problems and the deeper social challenges we face in this Nation. The government can do many things. Some of those things it does well, but there are many things government cannot do. It cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives. This is done by churches, synagogues, mosques, and charities that warm the cold of life. It is done by the faith-based sector in our society. I am pleased the President has established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. By creating this office, we now will have a clearinghouse in the executive branch to point up where we have legislative and administrative barriers that have been erected to make it more difficult for people to encourage and support these faith-based initiatives. It will identify such problems in Federal rules, practices, and regulatory and statutory barriers in order that we might find relief and coordinate new Federal initiatives to empower and partner with faith-based and community problem solvers. As he rolled out this plan--some of it, I am sure, is going to be controversial, and that is where the media would like to focus--much of what the President has rolled out makes common sense if we go beyond welfare reform, passed a few years ago and signed by President Clinton. Welfare reform has had a dramatic impact. We have seen the welfare roles decline by half across the Nation. All of us involved in the effort understood that was but the first step, and if we were ultimately to get to the deeper problems in a welfare culture, if we were going to deal with the problems of drug dependency, if we were going to deal with the high rate of recidivism in our prisons that we had to embrace, we had to involve the faith-based sector. The President has suggested we should expand private giving, we should grant a charitable deduction for nonitemizers. The Federal charitable deduction, under the President's plan, will be expanded to 80 million taxpayers. Seventy percent of all filers do not itemize, and thus currently cannot claim this benefit. This initiative will spark billions of dollars in new donations to charitable organizations. He has suggested that we should promote corporate in-kind donations. The administration seeks to limit the liability of corporations that in good faith donate equipment, facilities, vehicles, or aircraft to charitable organizations, thus enhancing the ability of these organizations to serve neighborhoods and families. That, I say to my colleagues, is common sense. It should not be controversial. He suggested that we permit charitable contributions from IRAs without penalty. Under current law, withdrawals from IRAs are subject to income tax. This creates a disincentive for retirees to contribute some or all of their IRA funds to charity. President Bush supports legislation that would permit individuals, over the age of 59, to contribute IRA funds to charities without having to pay income tax on their gifts. He promotes a charitable State tax credit. He supports raising the cap on corporate charitable deductions and creating a compassion capital fund. All of these are a simple means in which we can use the Tax Code to encourage donations to the faith-based and charitable sector and unleash this vast source of energy to help solve these very deep-rooted problems that we have in our society. Among the new approaches, he suggests action that would help the children of prisoners, improving inmate rehabilitation, providing second chance maternity group homes, and more afterschool opportunities. I want to tell one such story from the State of Arkansas that I believe the President's initiatives will assist. We had a wonderful organization started in Little Rock, AR, called PARK. It stands for Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids. It was established by someone whose name will be familiar to football fans across this country. It was established by Keith Jackson. Keith was raised in a single parent household in a low-income neighborhood of Little Rock. He held steadfast to his course of finishing high school, playing football, and ultimately graduating from college. Unfortunately for us, he played football for the University of Oklahoma. But he went on to the NFL where he had a stellar career. He returned to Little Rock with this burden to help underprivileged children in Little Rock. This is what he said in 1989. He said, while watching an evening newscast, he was struck by the number of stories involving teenagers and violent crime. He said: It seemed like every story was about a kid getting shot or robbing a liquor store or being in a gang fight. It really hit me for the first time that somebody had to do something to stop this. What we are doing now isn't working. He said the Government programs, as many and as well motivated as they were, were not doing the job. He established PARK. It is a wonderful program. It is an afterschool program. From September through May, the program operates 4 days a week. Kids ride schoolbuses to PARK. When they arrive, they eat a nutritious snack. They participate in the required academic program which requires homework, tutoring, reading or research in the library, working in the computer lab that is equipped with software designed to enhance skills in reading, math, and language arts. Volunteer tutors and mentors come in. After they spend the hour doing the academics, they then get to enjoy the recreation. They have a skating rink, a weight room, basketball courts, racquetball courts, and an arcade. Some kids may go so they can be involved in the recreation, but they first have to do the academic work. They have a summer program. They have a community service program. They emphasize parental involvement. When school is over, the buses take the kids to PARK, where they enjoy an extra hour of academic emphasis. Then they have the recreation. They have a nutritious snack. They have parental involvement. They have mentors and tutors. And they have a college prep program. All of this is done without one red cent of Government money. It is all from donations. It is all from foundations; not any Government assistance. Why shouldn't we make it easier for people who believe in programs such as PARK to be able to give and contribute and have a tax incentive to do that? I simply applaud President Bush for seeing this need and for stepping forward and being willing to take some of the barbed attacks he has faced, and will continue to face, for this initiative because it is sorely needed. I want to tell one more example. Here in Washington, DC, a group of Hill staffers, a few years ago, saw the need of children in disadvantaged homes in the District of Columbia, where many of them did not have the same educational opportunities as children from more affluent homes. They went out and they started a school called Cornerstone. They started it on a shoestring. They had no great resources. They had no great endowment. They had no great foundation. All they had was a vision and a dream. They are Hill staffers. They have started a school that is now serving scores of young people here in the District of Columbia. While we may argue about vouchers, we surely should not argue about making it easier for people to support faith-based initiatives such as Cornerstone.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to take just 1 minute to say a word of commendation for my colleague, John Ashcroft. As the Judiciary Committee, at this very hour, prepares to meet for a vote on his confirmation, I say that this man of honor and integrity has gone through an unprecedented ordeal in his desire to serve this country as Attorney General. I cannot imagine any person who comes to that position with greater qualifications or a greater sense of integrity. I do not believe my colleagues on either side of the aisle would question this man's commitment nor his faith. In fact, I suggest no one would argue but that he is the man of deepest faith in this body, and yet that very faith commitment has been turned on its head to make it an issue against his confirmation. I find that astounding and very disappointing. The fact that people would ask, can John Ashcroft enforce the laws because of his religion and his faith--John had the best answer to it when he said before the Judiciary Committee: I will enforce the laws of this land because of my faith. As someone who shares much of the same faith as John Ashcroft, I can relate to and understand exactly what John is saying. Though he may hold deep convictions--and he may or may not agree with all the laws of this land--it is because of his deep faith that he knows he must enforce the laws of this land--and will. Who in this body would question his sincerity or his honesty? And as he stood before the Judiciary Committee, and sat before that Judiciary Committee, and took that oath to tell the truth, and said he would enforce the laws of this land--whether he agreed with them or not--who would we be and which of my colleagues would dare question his sincerity or his honesty? It was interesting to me, as you look back historically at how we have previously confirmed Democrat nominees for the Cabinet, overwhelming votes, without filibusters, and without delay, here is a quote about the nomination process worth repeating: We must always take our advice and consent responsibilities seriously because they are among the most sacred. But, I think most senators will agree that the standard we apply in the case of executive branch appointments is not as stringent as that for judicial nominees. The president should get to pick his own team. Unless the nominee is incompetent or some other major ethical or investigative problem arises in the course of our carrying out our duties, then the president gets the benefit of the doubt. That statement was made by Senator Leahy. He laid down the right standard. He is right. The President should be able to pick his own team. I hope my colleagues recognize that and will support the confirmation of our distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator John Ashcroft. Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from across the aisle, Senator Reid, in introducing the Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001. With the swift passage of this act, we hope to put an end to a grossly unfair practice, to reform a system that, as it stands today, ends up hurting those veterans we owe our greatest debt of gratitude. Today, our armed forces are struggling to meet even modest recruiting goals and are having even more difficulty retaining qualified men and women. Serving in the military is less likely to be seen as an attractive career. The Federal Government should do its part to help, not to hinder, the viability of the idea of a career in uniform. Unfortunately, an outdated law passed in 1891 punishes those who have served this Nation in uniform for more than twenty years, in the process earning a longevity retirement. How? By forcing them to waive the amount of their retired pay equal to the amount of any VA disability compensation they may be eligible to receive. That is patently unfair. Military retirement pay based on longevity and VA disability compensation are awarded for two distinct, different reasons--one should not count against the other. One is awarded for making a career of public service, the other is to redress debilitating, enduring injuries caused by the rigors of life in the military. Military retirees are the only group of federal retirees who must waive a portion of their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. If a veteran refuses to give up his retired pay, he will lose his VA benefits. Let's take the fictional example of two G.I.'s named Joe and Sam. Joe and Sam joined the Army together and were wounded in the same battle. Joe left the Army after a four-year tour and joined the federal government as a civilian employee. Sam continued on and made the military his career. Thirty years later, both men are receiving federal retirement pay and both are eligible for VA disability compensation as a result of the injuries they sustained while in the service. The difference between Joe and Sam is that in order to get disability compensation, Sam must forfeit an equal amount of his retired pay, while Joe collects the full amount of both benefits without any deduction in either. Fairness is the issue here. We should be rewarding, not penalizing people for choosing a career in the military. Military retirees with service-connected disabilities should be allowed to receive compensation for their injuries above their retired military pay. The 107th Congress must act to bring equity to those who were disabled during a career of dedicated service to our nation, and the Reid- Hutchinson bill is the proper vehicle. By eliminating the offset, we can end this unfair practice that hurts those who need our help. The Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001 has the strong support of many military and nonmilitary veterans service organizations. In addition, Congressman Michael Bilirakis has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in this fight by signing on as cosponsors. While I know it will be an uphill battle to get this legislation passed, it is one of my highest priorities. It's only right that the Congress make this much-needed change and reward--rather than penalize--those who have selflessly served to protect our Nation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from across the aisle, Senator Reid, in introducing the Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001. With the swift passage of this act, we hope to put an end to a grossly unfair practice, to reform a system that, as it stands today, ends up hurting those veterans we owe our greatest debt of gratitude. Today, our armed forces are struggling to meet even modest recruiting goals and are having even more difficulty retaining qualified men and women. Serving in the military is less likely to be seen as an attractive career. The Federal Government should do its part to help, not to hinder, the viability of the idea of a career in uniform. Unfortunately, an outdated law passed in 1891 punishes those who have served this Nation in uniform for more than twenty years, in the process earning a longevity retirement. How? By forcing them to waive the amount of their retired pay equal to the amount of any VA disability compensation they may be eligible to receive. That is patently unfair. Military retirement pay based on longevity and VA disability compensation are awarded for two distinct, different reasons--one should not count against the other. One is awarded for making a career of public service, the other is to redress debilitating, enduring injuries caused by the rigors of life in the military. Military retirees are the only group of federal retirees who must waive a portion of their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. If a veteran refuses to give up his retired pay, he will lose his VA benefits. Let's take the fictional example of two G.I.'s named Joe and Sam. Joe and Sam joined the Army together and were wounded in the same battle. Joe left the Army after a four-year tour and joined the federal government as a civilian employee. Sam continued on and made the military his career. Thirty years later, both men are receiving federal retirement pay and both are eligible for VA disability compensation as a result of the injuries they sustained while in the service. The difference between Joe and Sam is that in order to get disability compensation, Sam must forfeit an equal amount of his retired pay, while Joe collects the full amount of both benefits without any deduction in either. Fairness is the issue here. We should be rewarding, not penalizing people for choosing a career in the military. Military retirees with service-connected disabilities should be allowed to receive compensation for their injuries above their retired military pay. The 107th Congress must act to bring equity to those who were disabled during a career of dedicated service to our nation, and the Reid- Hutchinson bill is the proper vehicle. By eliminating the offset, we can end this unfair practice that hurts those who need our help. The Military Retirement Equity Act of 2001 has the strong support of many military and nonmilitary veterans service organizations. In addition, Congressman Michael Bilirakis has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in this fight by signing on as cosponsors. While I know it will be an uphill battle to get this legislation passed, it is one of my highest priorities. It's only right that the Congress make this much-needed change and reward--rather than penalize--those who have selflessly served to protect our Nation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair, and thank the Senator from Texas for her leadership on education, and for having a good name, and for me having a name similar to it. I applaud President Bush for his commitment to education in unveiling a very serious and comprehensive education reform program today. It is an education package that, if enacted in its entirety, I believe, will ensure that no child in America will be left behind . . . That should be our goal. One of the wonderful aspects of what President Bush is now doing is to help us redefine what success is in education. For too long, success has been defined by: How much do we spend? President Bush wants to redefine that as to how much children are learning. That should be the criteria for whether or not we are succeeding in education. His proposals represent an excellent framework for moving forward, and moving forward quickly, on a bipartisan basis, with legislation in Congress. I call on my colleagues to have an open mind on this education package and allow us to work together to achieve these goals. Among other things, he seeks to address the problem of failing schools. Federal support, under his plan, will be provided, augmenting State funds, to help schools that need improvement. States and districts will be expected to implement serious reforms in schools that continue to fail. All children in America deserve to have the chance for a quality education. In order to achieve that, there must be real consequences for schools that are persistently dangerous or are not improving after serious reform efforts for 3 years. Under the Bush plan, if a school cannot achieve success in 3 years, with additional help from the Federal Government, then we ought to give those parents the chance to get those children out of the failing school. No child should be left behind because of where he or she lives or because of the financial standing of his or her parents. So I think this is a wonderful hallmark of the Bush plan. Under the Bush plan, success is rewarded; failure is sanctioned. States, districts, and schools that narrow the achievement gap and improve overall student achievement will be rewarded, and States that fail to make progress may lose a portion of their administrative funds. If we are to change education in this country, there must be consequences to failure. We must close that gap between the high achieving and the low achieving. That was the goal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Bush plan provides a whole new area of flexibility, much less of the prescriptive, top-down categorical grant programs--over 60 of them--that tie the hands of local educators. The Bush plan would reduce that to a few streams of funds and provide new flexibility for local educators. As you can tell, Mr. President, I am quite enthused about what we have the opportunity to do for the education of American children. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I look forward to working with President Bush and with my colleagues in the Senate to pass meaningful education legislation. This issue is a priority. It is President Bush who deserves the credit for making it a priority. It is time to put partisan politics aside and to work to ensure that every child in America receives a quality education, and that no child is left behind. Thank you, Mr. President. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Feingold, to introduce the Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) Reform Amendments of 2001. I do so because it is my sincere hope that the 107th Congress will work in a bi-partisan manner to provide small business owners and individuals who prevail in court against the federal government with automatic reimbursement for their legal expenses--thereby fulfilling the true intent of EAJA when passed in 1980. EAJA's initial premise was to reduce the vast disparity in resources and expertise which exists between small business owners or individuals and federal agencies and to encourage the government to ensure that the claims it pursues are worthy of its efforts. Twenty years ago, former Senator Gaylord Nelson, the author of the original, bipartisan EAJA bill, clearly explained EAJA's intent when he stated, ``All I can say is the taxpayer is injured, and if the taxpayer was correct, and that is the finding, then we ought to make the taxpayer whole.'' I commend former Senator Nelson. His steadfast commitment to our nation's businesses as Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee is worthy of admiration. As a result of a political compromise, however, the final version of EAJA does not provide for an automatic award of attorneys' fees. Rather, it provides for an award of attorneys' fees only when an agency or a court determines that the government's position was not ``substantially justified'' or that ``special circumstances'' exist which would make an award unjust. Agencies and courts have strayed far from the original intent of EAJA by repeatedly using these provisions to avoid awarding attorneys' fees to small businesses and individuals who have successfully defended themselves. The bill that Senator Feingold and I are introducing today, the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2001, would amend EAJA to provide that a small business owner or individual prevailing against the government will be automatically entitled to recover their attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in their defense. Unfortunately, EAJA is not making the taxpayers of this nation whole after they defend themselves against government action. Thus, I ask that my colleagues join Senator Feingold and myself in our effort to make these American taxpayers whole by cosponsoring and supporting the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2001.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Feingold, to introduce the Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) Reform Amendments of 2001. I do so because it is my sincere hope that the 107th Congress will work in a bi-partisan manner to provide small business owners and individuals who prevail in court against the federal government with automatic reimbursement for their legal expenses--thereby fulfilling the true intent of EAJA when passed in 1980. EAJA's initial premise was to reduce the vast disparity in resources and expertise which exists between small business owners or individuals and federal agencies and to encourage the government to ensure that the claims it pursues are worthy of its efforts. Twenty years ago, former Senator Gaylord Nelson, the author of the original, bipartisan EAJA bill, clearly explained EAJA's intent when he stated, ``All I can say is the taxpayer is injured, and if the taxpayer was correct, and that is the finding, then we ought to make the taxpayer whole.'' I commend former Senator Nelson. His steadfast commitment to our nation's businesses as Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee is worthy of admiration. As a result of a political compromise, however, the final version of EAJA does not provide for an automatic award of attorneys' fees. Rather, it provides for an award of attorneys' fees only when an agency or a court determines that the government's position was not ``substantially justified'' or that ``special circumstances'' exist which would make an award unjust. Agencies and courts have strayed far from the original intent of EAJA by repeatedly using these provisions to avoid awarding attorneys' fees to small businesses and individuals who have successfully defended themselves. The bill that Senator Feingold and I are introducing today, the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2001, would amend EAJA to provide that a small business owner or individual prevailing against the government will be automatically entitled to recover their attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in their defense. Unfortunately, EAJA is not making the taxpayers of this nation whole after they defend themselves against government action. Thus, I ask that my colleagues join Senator Feingold and myself in our effort to make these American taxpayers whole by cosponsoring and supporting the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2001.

Mrs. HUTCHINSON

Mrs. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchinson relating to the introduction of S. 11 and S. 140 are found in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 387 submitted by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.