Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for overwhelming passage of the conference report to accompany S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to Chairman Warner and ranking Member Levin for their efforts in crafting this important legislation. This bill authorizes for the military the funds they need to adequately defend our country and protect our vital interests worldwide, $288.8 billion, which is $8.3 billion more than the President's inadequate request. After years of declining budgets and increased deployments, this legislation provides the military with their first funding increase since the end of the Cold War. This bill carefully addresses a variety of important issues, from pay raises for our soldiers to restructuring the nation's nuclear laboratories in order to prevent any further espionage at our nation's nuclear laboratories. While the Clinton Administration has over-extended and under-funded our military and has provided inexplicably slow and ineffective responses to Chinese spying, this Committee and the Congress as a whole has stepped up to face these challenges, and protect our national interests. I would now like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the important provisions championed by the three subcommittees I serve on. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.--Before I had even joined the Armed Services Committee in January of this year, tangible evidence of a debilitating readiness crisis had emerged, a crisis that threatened the well being of America's armed forces. On September 28th of last year, General Shelton confessed: I must admit up front that our forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal and now measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is fraying and that the long term health of the Total Force is in jeopardy. I would note that General Shelton is not a soldier prone to hyperbole. For their excellent work to combat the ``fraying of readiness'' described by General Shelton, Senators Inhofe and Robb, respectively the Chairman and Ranking member of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, deserve congratulations for the excellent work they have done in this area. They have added more than $1.46 billion to the primary readiness accounts including funds for ammunition, training, base operations and essential infrastructure repairs including $380 million for base operations, $788 million for real property maintenance, and $172.9 million for training and war reserve ammunition. In the area of military construction, the Subcommittee adopted significant changes to the law on economic development conveyances of base closure properties. Rural communities that have suffered through the closure of a military installation will no longer have to pay the government for the privilege of redeveloping their economies. The Readiness Subcommittee also correctly rejected the President's irresponsible budgetary maneuvering which would have incrementally funded military construction projects. Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.--The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, capably led by Chairman Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, worked hard to ensure that American soldiers deployed overseas and American citizens asleep in their beds will be a little safer from the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Subcommittee authorized an increase of $212 million for the Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missile system to complete research and development and begin production soon. If I can take a minute, I would like to repeat the last portion of that sentence and proudly brag about a product built by hundreds hardworking employees in my home state of Arkansas. The Patriot PAC-3 was the first dedicated, hit-to-kill, Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system that has successfully destroyed a target in a test. But I digress. The Subcommittee authorized an additional $112 million for upgrades to the B-2 bomber system, which I would note for the benefit of the program's detractors, performed brilliantly during Operation Allied Force. The Subcommittee also included a provision regarding DOD's theater missile defense upper-tier strategy, which would require that the Navy Upper Tier and THAAD systems be managed and funded as separate programs. The Administration must be reminded that it has repeatedly testified before this Committee that these programs are not interchangeable. They are complementary, both urgently needed, and must be treated as such. But perhaps most importantly, it is within the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that the Armed Services Committee took the several important legislative actions to address the criminally lax security at our nation's nuclear laboratories. Lax security that allowed the People's Republic of China to steal the secrets produced by billions of dollars and four decades worth of taxpayer funded nuclear research. Among the provisions recommended by the Subcommittee: The establishment of a semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration within DOE under which all national security functions will be consolidated. Create a new Under Secretary of Energy to head the new Administration. Created a new counterintelligence office reporting directly to the Secretary. Established clear lines of management authority for national security missions of the department. Protected the authority of the Secretary to ensure full compliance with all applicable environmental laws. As millions of Americans woke up this year to be repeatedly confronted by the shocking truth of the Clinton Administration's casual, almost lackadaisical response to the systematic theft of highly classified nuclear secrets as reported in the Cox Committee's unanimous report, I hope they will find at least a little comfort in the knowledge that this Committee was ready to step forward, accept a challenge and shoulder the responsibility for our nation's nuclear security that this Administration repeatedly forfeited. Subcommittee on AirLand Forces: Subcommittee Chairman Rick Santorum and Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman also rolled up their sleeves, tackling the difficult readiness and modernization challenges posed by years of Clinton Administration neglect. Most significantly, the Subcommittee fully authorized the budget request for the development and procurement of the F-22 Raptor aircraft. This aircraft is absolutely essential if Air Force is to continue its proud record of air-dominance over far away battlefields. America's military should never be forced by its Congress to fight a fair fight. When this nation must bear arms to protect its interests, it should always be aiming for a lopsided victory. Also focusing on unfunded requirements identified by each of the services, the AirLand Forces Subcommittee made a number of changes to the President's request, addressing, among others, Army aviation shortfalls and night vision equipment shortfalls. To conclude, I would like to again thank Chairman Warner, and his dedicated, tireless staff, for their leadership and dedicated service. Mr. President, I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation which contains many provisions which are vital to our nation's military. And I urge the President to sign this legislation into law as soon as he receives it. This bill will make needed improvements in the areas of military readiness, quality of life and modernization, and I hope the U.S. Senate will send a strong, bipartisan message in support of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the future quorum calls be charged to the minority side.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Monday, September 13, 1999, beginning at 9:15 a.m. in the Ceremonial Court Room of the Federal Court Building, Philadelphia, PA.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to address for a few minutes the tax relief package that the Senate passed before the August recess. I had the opportunity during the August recess to travel much of Arkansas. I was in 27 counties in Arkansas in about a month. So we were very busy. In each one of those counties there were opportunities for people to express their opinions and to talk about issues that were of concern to them. We heard much about the farm crisis. I know the Presiding Officer has been very involved in trying to fashion a farm policy that is going to allow family farmers to survive, be viable, and has been very involved in the ag policy of this country. We have heard a lot of concerns about agriculture. I also heard a lot about the tax package, and there were a lot of questions. I want to take a few minutes today to talk about what I heard and what I shared about the tax relief package that we passed in the Senate and the conference that was agreed upon with the House. I think it is responsible and provides much-needed relief for the American taxpayer. I think that is the first thing we have to realize--how much there is a need for tax relief. People say, well, the economy is booming; we are doing fine; people are fine; no one really wants a tax cut. I think the reality is far different. Under the Clinton administration, taxes have risen to the highest level in peacetime history--almost 21 percent of the gross domestic product. When you compare that to the 1950s and the Eisenhower years, the tax burden upon the American people measured--there are lots of ways of measuring ``tax burden,'' but one of the most helpful, I think, is in terms of the gross domestic product. At that time, it was about 15 percent of GDP; it is now 21 percent of GDP. And it took that last leap when Congress passed and the President signed the 1993 tax hike. When we are talking in terms of the tax relief package, the $792 billion--and for a farm boy from north Arkansas that is a lot of money, $792 billion--it is over 10 years, and when you realize that what we are doing is rolling back the tax burden on the American people by a grand total of 1 percentage point of GDP; we would take it from about 21 percent to about 20 percent, there is nothing draconian--an overused word these days--there is nothing irresponsible about the tax relief package that was passed by the House and Senate. According to the Office of Management and Budget, total Federal receipts amounted to 19.9 percent of GDP in 1998 and will be 20.1 percent of GDP in 1999. Now, in Arkansas, that amounts to about $7,352 in taxes per capita, in 1998. In a State such as Connecticut, it is about twice that; $15,525 was paid in taxes for every man, woman, and child in Connecticut. It was Ben Franklin who said a penny saved is a penny earned. I think maybe we could adjust that motto and say: A dollar earned is 38 cents spent by the Federal Government. The typical American family sees 38 percent of its income paid in taxes, as opposed to 28 percent of its income for food, clothing, and housing and only 3.6 percent that goes to savings. I believe at a time of surplus, it would be unthinkable, it would be unconscionable for us not to allow the American people to keep more of what they have worked so hard to make. As Ronald Reagan once remarked: The taxpayer is someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take a Civil Service exam. When we think about the increasing percentage of our income going to taxes, that is, unfortunately, more true today than it was when President Reagan said it. The American people are laboring under a heavy burden of taxation and an intrusive Tax Code and tax system. There are many provisions in the tax relief package. I want to address two that are particularly compelling. One is the marriage penalty tax. Approximately 42 million American couples, including 6 million senior citizens, must pay an average of $1,400 extra in taxes for simply being married. The marriage penalty punishes in two ways. It pushes married couples into a higher tax bracket, and it lowers couples' standard deduction. So two married income earners with combined income must pay their income tax at a higher rate with a lower deduction than they would if they were two single people. It is unfair. It is wrong. Most Americans are absolutely perplexed why such a quirk in the Tax Code would be allowed to continue. Keep in mind, it is not a one-time penalty. Under our tax system, marriage is not a freeway; it is a toll road. For 10 years of marriage, couples must pay an average of $14,000 extra; for 20 years, couples must pay $28,000 extra. The tax relief package that passed would finally achieve equity and fairness by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The other aspect of the tax relief package we passed that I think is especially helpful and important and about which people feel strongly in Arkansas is the death tax. Small business owners and farmers can lose their lives and all they have saved for their children because of death taxes. Since the value of a business is added to the estate and taxed after exemption, sometimes as high as 55 percent, many small businesses and farms must be sold in order to pay the death tax. It is wrong. Just as the marriage penalty, it is something we should not allow, it is something we should not tolerate, and it is something we have the ability and capacity to change this year. It is a form of double taxation. The most obvious inequity is the death tax. It also doesn't make a lot of sense. It taxes investment and savings. It taxes the American dream. Part of the American dream is, if you work hard and save and invest well and are able to accumulate something in life, you will be able to pass that on to your children and your grandchildren so they can start their lives with better prospects than what you did. It is not all of the American dream, but it is part of the American dream. The death tax is absolutely contrary to what we hold out as being something Americans should strive toward--investment, savings, building for the future. Right now, the survival rate for a family farm from the first to the second generation is only about 30 percent. The odds are against a family farmer being able to pass along that farm to their children or grandchildren. I know our farmers are working hard, and these are difficult times for them. We keep having emergency bills to help alleviate the problems, but they are kind of a Band-Aid solution. We have one the Senate passed before the August recess. Eliminating the death tax is something we can do that will permanently benefit agriculture and farmers in this country. Only a fraction of 1 percent of small businesses make it through to four generations. Just as the family farm, which is, in effect, a small business, other small businesses are also having a difficult time surviving and certainly being passed on to future generations. Consider the case of Clarence who owns a farming and lumber business in North Carolina. He provides jobs to 720 people in his community through three small farms, a fertilizer and tobacco warehouse, and a small lumber mill. His family has worked hard for four generations to build this business to what it is today. All of that may well be lost when Clarence dies and his family is faced with a huge Government death tax bill. Clarence has worked hard to try to reduce the burden of the death tax. He slowed the growth of his business. He has hired lawyers. He has purchased life insurance. He has established trusts--all with the hope that he could create a plan to enable his children to keep the family business when he dies. All of that work and planning still may not be enough. Clarence figures that his son will owe the Federal Government about $1.5 million upon his death, an impossible amount to pay for a man who makes only $31,000 a year. His son will almost certainly have to sell all or part of the business in order to pay the consequences of the death tax. Over four generations, Clarence's family businesses have been whittled down to a sliver of what they once were. Then consider the case of Mr. Kennard, whose spirit of free enterprise is being stifled by the death tax. He owns a small septic tank company in Virginia. He began his business in 1963. Today, he employs 15 people, including his son and daughter who have worked with him since they were teenagers. His son runs one of the businesses and takes home about $30,000 a year, hardly enough to pay the $2 million bill the Government will hand him when his father dies. Death should not be a taxable experience. In order to reduce the estate tax, Mr. Kennard has stopped expanding his businesses and is considering transferring shares of his business to his children now rather than wait until his death. He would like to invest in insurance and put some of his money back into the business, but it doesn't make sense when his family will have to pay exorbitant taxes on any new appreciation. In fact, Mr. Kennard may have to liquidate one or two of his businesses in order to pay the death tax on the remaining businesses. The tax refund bill would provide relief by lowering the 5-percent surtax on estates and replace the unified credit with the unified exemption of $1.5 million. We would ultimately be rid of the death tax altogether. It is something we should do. It is something we have within our power to do. We have passed it. We will send it to the President. It is our hope, still, that the President will change his mind and not veto this very important legislation. There are many other important provisions in the bill as well. People say: Why spend your time on tax relief when the President said he is going to veto it? Because it is important, because it is the right thing to do, because our responsibility to our constituents is not what the President may or may not do. I recall well my early years in the House when we passed welfare reform and had to send it to the President not once, not twice, but three times, before the President finally decided the American people wanted welfare reform. He signed an important piece of reform legislation that has transformed welfare in this country and cut the rolls in half in State after State, including my home State of Arkansas. I hope the President will reconsider, and I hope the American people will let us and the administration know how important tax relief is. When they understand what is in it, they do support it. In 27 counties in Arkansas, I did hear some concerns, primarily because of the myths that have been perpetrated about this tax relief bill. One of the concerns was the myth that this tax relief bill somehow trades debt reduction for tax cuts. The fact is, the budget and the tax relief bill we passed will reduce public debt by 60 percent and achieve over $200 billion more in public debt reduction than the President's plan over the next 10 years. It is not a matter of either/or. It is not a matter of whether you are going to have debt reduction or we are going to have tax relief. We can and should have both. Another one of the myths people are concerned about, and understandably concerned, is that somehow, if you pass a meaningful tax relief bill, as we did, it is going to erode and eat into the Social Security surplus. In fact, that is nothing but a myth. We would lockbox Social Security. We would not touch any of the Social Security surpluses, and we shouldn't. We should not perpetrate the wrong that has been done by previous Congresses by dipping in and using those revenues which are designated and should be designated for Social Security only. Then there is, perhaps, one of the greatest myths of all; that is, the tax relief bill will primarily benefit the wealthy. This tax relief package would provide broad-based tax relief. It cuts every bracket 1 percent. That is not much. But it cuts across the board of tax brackets by 1 percent. It doesn't take somebody trained in math to figure out that if you are in the 15-percent tax bracket and you lower it from 15 to 14 percent, it is a much bigger personal tax cut than for somebody who is in a lower tax bracket who also sees only a 1-percent reduction in taxes. The fact is that this tax relief package benefits low-income earners in the lowest tax bracket more than any other taxable group. We not only lower the rate, we expand the bracket to include yet more hard- working Americans. In a State such as Arkansas, where we have one of the lowest per capita incomes, lowering the tax by even 1 percent for the lowest tax bracket has a significant benefit for hard-working Arkansans and hard- working Americans. One of the other myths I heard while I was traveling across Arkansas was that there was concern that somehow these surpluses might not become reality. Conservative Arkansans who look at the Congressional Budget Office projections a decade out, I think, are right to say: What happens if, in fact, the surpluses don't become reality? Are you going to give all of this back in tax cuts? And are we going to go back up in deficit spending? I was glad to be able to report that there was an important provision including a trigger--maybe it is better to call it a safety valve--that ensures that if the surpluses do not become reality, the tax cuts don't kick in. They don't become reality either. That, I think, is the ultimate fallback to ensure that we don't return to the big spending, red-ink, deficit spending ways of the past. The bottom line is that in Arkansas 683,741 people would have tax reductions under this bill. That is, 750 million Americans would see their tax bills reduced. It is not something targeted for the wealthy, but it is something that would benefit every taxpaying American. Opponents of tax relief insist that money must be left on the table in the name of debt reduction. The reality is that if you leave it on the table in Washington, it will be spent. Therein is the great divide philosophically between those who believe the American people can better decide and determine how they ought to spend what they have earned and what they have worked for than people in Washington, DC--Government officials and bureaucrats in Washington. For those who believe we have to keep that money up here because we have to reserve it on the table for more spending programs because, truly, wisdom is found here inside the beltway, we reject that. I reject that. I ask my colleagues to request of the President his reconsideration of what is desperately needed for the American people--lowering that tax burden from 21 percent to 20 percent. There is nothing too dramatic nor too drastic about it, but it is a small step in providing the American people the tax relief they deserve and they desire. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Thomas for providing this time and this opportunity to discuss what we have done in the area of tax relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for clearly laying out the issues in this debate, and I associate my remarks with his. I rise to strongly speak against the Bryan-Wyden amendment for a variety of reasons but, most importantly, because it simply does not support healthy and sustainable national forests. Many Senators, I suspect, will speak today claiming this reduction to the Timber Management Program makes sound fiscal and environmental sense. From my perspective as an Arkansan, as a Senator from Arkansas, I can tell you that is far from the truth and that there are 35,440 workers in my home State who make up the forest products industry who strongly oppose this amendment. If our forests are not healthy and if we continue to ignore the problems facing these public lands, we run the risk of jeopardizing these jobs and the future health and sustainability of our Nation's forests. During the August recess, I met with the Forest Service on the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas. Sometimes our distinguished Senators from the West forget that there are national forests all across the South, and in the State of Arkansas, I say to my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, we have two large national forests, the Ouachita National Forest and the Ozark National Forest. In a meeting with the National Forest Service on the Ouachita National Forest last month, I discovered, because of decreasing budgets in the timber sales account, they are doing only one-third of the vegetation management required by the forest plan. So forgive me if I find it ironic that this second-degree amendment, the substitute amendment, would shift $10 million from the Timber Management Program to the surveys in the Northwest when, in the State of Arkansas, in our national forests, they are only doing one-third of the vegetation management required by the forest plan. Because of the severe erosion of funding that the Senator from Idaho has alluded to, the forest is unable to achieve the desired future conditions required for a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. Extremists, litigation, appeals, or lack of public support did not bring about this crisis. It is the result of a misguided effort by the administration to reduce timber harvests without taking into consideration the real impacts on the conditions of the forests and the communities associated with these national forests. The Timber Management Program is funded at a level equal to the fiscal year 1999 funding level. There was level funding before this amendment. Before these additional cuts, there was level funding, no increase, and yet the demands on the program have increased dramatically. The program objective for the timber sales program is ``a sustainable yield of forest products that contributes to meeting the Nation's demands and restoring, improving, or maintaining the forest ecosystem health.'' Yet the amendment before us reduces the funding level when more than 40 million acres of our national forests are at high risk of catastrophic fire due to an accumulation of dead and dying trees and an additional 26 million acres are at risk of insect and disease infestation. We have a crisis now; we risk a catastrophe. We have level funding in the appropriations bill before us, and the amendment suggests we should cut even further in a program that has not the resources to do the job it has been charged with doing as it stands. The addition of Senator Wyden as a cosponsor of the amendment, the second-degree amendment, only exacerbates the problem that the underlying amendment creates in shifting an additional $10 million out of timber management and moving it to the Northwest. This impacts every national forest, every timber management program in the Nation. It dilutes what can be done in those areas where they are already suffering, where they are already short to move additional resources because of the situation faced in the Northwest. I think that is wrong. It is not economically or environmentally advisable. The debate today will speak about doing right by the environment. How can you justify reducing a level-funded program that is dealing with millions of acres of land that are too crowded for new and healthy trees to grow? We will also hear talk today about how the Timber Management Program is antienvironmental or environmentally destructive. That is not what I have seen in the management that is being done in the Ouachita, the Ozark, St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas. Our national forests are adding 23 billion board feet each year. While 3 billion board feet are being harvested each year, 6 billion board feet die each year from insects, disease, fire, and other causes, and the amendment before us will only make that situation worse. The majority of the timber sales in the program are done for other ecosystem objectives--improving habitat for wildlife, reducing fuels that may increase fire risk, especially in the urban interface areas, combating insect and disease infestations, and improving true growth for future timber. We cannot ignore the contributions that the Timber Management Program makes each year, even if it might sound politically advantageous. The byproduct of a healthy, sustainable timber program is equally as important as healthy rural communities. The timber sales program generates regional income of $2 billion--over $2 billion; in fact, $2.3 billion--in Federal income tax receipts. Seventy percent of the timber from national forests is sold to small businesses that could be forced to close their doors if we support further reductions to the program. A $1 million reduction in the timber sales program on the Ouachita, Ozark, or St. Francis National Forests simply means 10,000 acres of forest designated for treatment by the forest plan will go untreated. That is what it will mean: a $1 million reduction, 10,000 acres that will go unmanaged, untreated. Perhaps that is the goal. Perhaps that is the backdoor objective of such an amendment. The byproducts--round wood and saw logs --will be unavailable. Communities will lose 500 years of work and over $15 million from the local economy. By any reasonable standard, the U.S. forest practices are the best in the world, ensuring forests are regenerated and that water quality and wildlife habitat are protected or enhanced. Decreasing this program is wrongheaded. It will only set us back environmentally. It will surely negatively impact us economically. I suggest we do the right thing and support no less than level funding for this important program and oppose the Bryan-Wyden amendment. I thank the chairman. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Robb's amendment to strike section 329 from the Interior appropriations bill. This effort is misguided and I urge my colleagues to understand the need for this Section if our National Forests are going to continue to function. The ability of my home State's national forests to provide timber and other important resources is critical to the survival of many communities. I know the supervisors of both the Ozark-St. Francis and Ouachita National Forests in Arkansas. They are dedicated to preserving the forests' survival and natural beauty, while providing a healthy source of timber. The timber purchase program in Arkansas is one of the few in the country that consistently makes a profit. Not only does Arkansas' timber industry benefit, but so do school children who receive a portion of the earnings from the timber sales. Section 329 simply clarifies that despite a recent circuit court decision, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior should maintain the discretion to implement current regulations as they have been doing for nearly 20 years. Specifically, on February 18, 1999, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Forest Service must conduct forest-wide wildlife population surveys on all proposed, endangered, threatened, sensitive, and management indicator species in order to prepare or revise national forest plans on all ``ground disturbing activity.'' Never before has such an extensive and impossible standard been set by the courts. In the end, this ruling results in paralysis by analysis. It would require the Forest Service to examine every square inch of a project area and count the animals and plant life before it approved any ``ground disturbing activity.'' The cost to carry out such extensive studies--studies which have never been required before--could be as much as $9 billion nationwide. How do we know this? Because the Forest Service does contract for population inventorying on occasion. If one were to extrapolate from the $8,000 cost of one plant inventory, they will reach $38.1 million for the 864,000 acres within the Chattahoochee National Forest where the 11th Circuit Court decision originated. When applied to Arkansas, one could deduce that this action could cost my state's industry roughly $78 million. If applied to the 188-million acre national forest system, the cost reaches $8.3 billion. During the past two decades, nine separate court decisions have backed the way the Forest Service has been conducting their surveying populations by inventorying habitat and analyzing existing population data. We appropriate roughly $70 million for forest inventory and monitoring. Are we prepared to shift the $9 billion necessary for this new standard? If not, this recent interpretation forces the Forest Service to shut down until they can apply the new standard. The purpose of section 329 is not to change the court decision or set a new lower standard. It is simply to clarify that the existing regulation gives the discretion to the Forest Service and the BLM when determining what kind of surveys are needed when management activities are being considered. Some of my colleagues would argue that this is an issue for the authorizing committees to deal with. I agree. This is an issue that absolutely should be dealt with by those committees. They need to determine whether the agencies have been correctly interpreting their regulation for the past 17 years. They need to determine whether it is sufficient to inventory habitat, rely on existing populations, consult with state and Federal agencies and conduct population inventories only for specific reasons. But I argue that the appropriations process should not be made to bear the burden while the authorizing committees study the question. All section 329 seeks to do is preserve the status quo, as the already limited resources of our home States' National Forests would be further stretched if they are required to fund this new standard. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support sensible management.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con. Res. 107 be discharged from the HELP Committee and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1467 introduced earlier today by Senator McCain.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1468 introduced earlier today by Senators Lott, Daschle, and others.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1344, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, as amended and passed by the Senate on July 15, 1999, be printed as a document of the Senate.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for the introduction of this resolution. I associate myself with his remarks. I note for the Record, among the biographical comments that Senator Cochran made concerning General Clark, special emphasis on the fact that he hails from Little Rock, AK. So with my fellow Arkansans, we express our pride at General Clark and his exemplary career, the service he has rendered our country with great distinction. I commend the Senator from Mississippi for introducing, I think, a very important resolution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. on Monday, August 2, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 335, and that it be considered under the following limitations: 2 hours of total debate on the legislation equally divided between Senator Collins and Senator Levin or their designees; the only amendment in order be a managers' amendment offered by Senators Collins and Levin. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of debate time and the disposition of the managers' amendment, the bill be read a third time and then temporarily set aside. I finally ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 96, 168, 170, 171, 174, 177 through 188, 190 and 194, all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I also associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming commending Senator Roth and the Finance Committee for their work on this very important landmark tax relief legislation the Senate passed today. I believe, in taking the step we did today, in lowering the tax burden upon the American people from 21 percent of GDP to 20 percent of the gross domestic product, we have taken a modest but a very important step in providing relief to all Americans. I commend the Senate today, and the staff, and ask the President to reconsider his proposed veto.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced the Hutchinson-Lincoln Wetlands Reserve Program Enhancement Act to help strengthen the popular Wetlands Reserve Program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Simply put, this legislation will act to strengthen the current WRP which provides financial incentives to farmers and private landowners who voluntarily set aside marginal lands and restore them to optimal wetland wildlife habitat. These restored wildlife areas are some of the best wildlife conservation habitat in America and are critical to the future of waterfowl throughout our Nation. Established by the 1990 farm bill as a long-term conservation option for farmers, the WRP protects farm wetlands using 10-year, 30-year, and permanent easements. Land which is eligible for WRP is characterized by wetlands that are farmed, lands adjacent to protected wetlands, and croplands and pastures which are naturally prone to flooding. If eligible, the landowner voluntarily limits the use of the lands while retaining private ownership and access to the land. In addition, they may also lease the land for hunting, fishing, and other undeveloped recreational activities. The NRCS, in conjunction with the landowner, then develops a plan for the restoration and the maintenance of the wetland. Once restored, wetlands act to: No. 1, improve water quality by filtering sediments; No. 2, reduce flooding; No. 3, recharge ground water; No. 4, promote biological diversity; and No. 5, furnish educational, recreational, and aesthetic benefits. These benefits, as a result of the WRP, have helped landowners throughout the 46 States where farmers have currently enrolled in what has become a very successful program. At the local level, I want to mention three farmers in Arkansas who are benefiting from the WRP. Hattie Neely of Moro, AR, in Lee County, grows soybeans and has enrolled 31 acres in this very important program. Then there is Donald Wallace of Gillett, AR, in Arkansas County, who grows soybeans, and he has enrolled 30 acres in the WRP. And Dick Carmichael of Monticello, AR, in Drew County, grows soybeans and rice and has enrolled 115 acres in the WRP. In each case, these farmers are using the WRP to restore bottom land hardwood forests and a natural wildlife habitat. Other farmers in Arkansas are using WRP to retire agricultural lands unsuited for crop production because of elevated levels of salt from irrigation water. In this case, WRP lands filter runoffs, keeping salts and sediments in the wetlands and out of the natural waterways. Despite the benefits to farmers across America, the WRP will soon become a victim of its own success. The current WRP is authorized to enroll up to 975,000 acres nationally through the year 2002. WRP is in such high demand from America's farmers that it will reach its acreage cap next year. The top 10 States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, California, Missouri, Iowa, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, and Illinois-- have a combined enrollment of almost 427,000 acres in these States alone. In response to the success of WRP, my bill seeks to expand the acreage cap from the proposed 180,000 acres in fiscal year 2000 to a newly authorized maximum of 250,000 acres per year through the year 2005. This will help to ensure that farmers who want to enroll in the program will have the option to do so. There is no doubt that the American farmer faces an industry that is in crisis. In the race to find solutions for the many challenges facing farmers, I want to ensure that my colleagues in the Senate do not overlook the importance of conservation to family farmers, both as a way to protect valuable wildlife resources and as a source of additional income. In the Mississippi Delta, family farmers are using the WRP to move frequently flooded farmland away from high-risk, high-cost farming back to original hardwood timberlands. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of family farmers who care about protecting the natural resources with which they are entrusted. I ask my colleagues to consider the importance of wildlife conservation in the life of family farmers. Join me in the support of what I think is very good, very important, bipartisan conservation legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Bingaman amendment. As I read the amendment, it suggests we shift $132 billion from tax breaks that disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers to sustain our investment in public education and prepare children for the 21st century, including our investment programs such as IDEA, special education, Pell grant, Head Start, and to fully fund the class size initiative. I will comment on every aspect of that particular statement. This amendment presents a false choice. It suggests to my colleagues and to the American people Members either have to be for tax relief for the American people or to be for public education, but Members can't be for both. If Members really support public education, then they will want to shift $132 billion out of the suggested tax relief and put it into various aspects of public education. That is a false choice. It proves one thing conclusively, the concern many Members have had as we hear the arguments on the other side as they repeatedly say: We shouldn't give tax relief to the American people because we need to pay down the national debt. We have suggested it won't ever go to pay down the national debt but any left will immediately be used for more spending. Before the ink is even dry from the passage of this tax relief bill, the proposals are coming forth in a torrent as to how we should spend the $792 billion proposed tax relief package for the American people. If we do not pass the $792 billion tax relief, that money will not go to paying down the national debt. It will, as already suggested in the speeches on the other side in the last few minutes, immediately go into more spending. IDEA funding is an important issue for school districts across the Nation. It is important in Arkansas but not an issue to be addressed by reducing the amount of hard-earned dollars that are returned to American taxpayers. In addition, the Class Size Reduction Program is only in its first year. It has not even been authorized. It was first included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill and is being considered during this year's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is where it should be considered. We should not be setting aside funds for a program that has never been authorized and has, quite frankly, done very little right now in reducing class size across the country. The Class Size Reduction Program already forces too many regulations on to school districts. Many States have already implemented class size reduction programs at a level of 19 or 20 students per year. The Federal class size program mandates a ratio of 18 students for every teacher. This forces States to slightly alter their State plan to receive any Federal funding. Many school districts in my home State have chosen not to participate in the Class Size Reduction Program because of the excessive regulations that govern the use of funds. Any school district that does not receive enough funds to hire a new teacher must form a consortium in order to do so. Given the fact in my home State of Arkansas there are 311 school districts, 167 school districts, 54 percent will be forced to form a consortium even to hire a single teacher because their allocations are less than $20,000. Some school districts, such as Randolph County, report they cannot form a consortium and they share a teacher within the consortium because of geographic reasons. Class size reduction has not proven to be effective unless class size is significantly reduced to 12 or 13 students, which is not even envisioned in the President's Class Size Reduction Program. Class size has been reduced significantly over the past 30 years, from 27.4 students per classroom in 1955 to 17 students per classroom in 1997, but the interesting thing is, as we have seen this dramatic decrease in average class size across the country, we have not seen a corresponding increase in academic achievement and standardized tests across the country. The State of Arkansas will receive about 1.15 new teachers per school district, or half a teacher per elementary school. This program has not been authorized, and to suggest we will take well-deserved tax relief from the American people and put it into a program not yet authorized I think fails to make a lot of sense. Once again this year we are authorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have spent months conducting hearings to learn about Federal elementary and secondary education policy. We will continue to work on ESEA throughout the year. I believe that is the appropriate place for class size reduction and many of these other education issues to be addressed properly. Before we set aside Federal funds that should be rightly returned to the taxpayers, we should consider whether we even want this program authorized and appropriated in this year's legislation. This is the wrong way to do it. As I think about the need for IDEA, I support increased funding for IDEA. We have done a terrible job in appropriately funding IDEA. But if we think about what is being suggested, taking it from tax relief for the American people, it is the wrong way to go. In the $3 trillion surplus, $13 to $14 billion can be found to fully fund IDEA without taking it away from tax relief for the American people. IDEA is currently funded at $4.3 billion, which is about 10 percent of the cost of educating special education students. Therefore, about $17 billion would be needed to meet the federally-authorized commitment of 40 percent. This works out to an appropriation of an additional $13 billion to fully fund IDEA. I suggest to my colleagues, that $13 billion can certainly be found in the projected $3 trillion surplus for this obligation over the next 10 years. This is a wrongheaded amendment, and it is the wrong place to do this. But it certainly proves that this $792 billion will not go to debt reduction. It will go to extensive additional spending programs. I could not vote for this proposed amendment of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, apart from the $132 billion that it suggests we take away from tax relief, because it improperly characterizes the Republican tax relief package by saying it disproportionately benefits upper-income taxpayers. I suggest this is one of the great myths being perpetrated about Senator Roth's tax relief package that has been produced by the Finance Committee. This proposal will reduce the lowest personal income tax rate, the lowest rate, from 15 percent to 14 percent, beginning in 2001 and then would gradually expand the bracket so more people would pay that lowest rate. It would benefit 70 million Americans; 55 percent of Americans would benefit from that provision alone. That is not a tax break for the wealthy, and I wish my honest and true colleagues on the other side would quit characterizing it as such. This amendment should not be voted for because it says it ``disproportionately benefits the wealthy,'' and it does not. In the State of Arkansas there will be 683,000 people, 61 percent of the taxpayers in Arkansas, who will receive tax relief from this single provision, apart from the marriage penalty, apart from the estate tax relief. The single provision of lowering that rate from 15 percent to 14 percent and expanding the bracket will benefit 61 percent of the poorest people in Arkansas. So, in all honesty, let's tell the American people the truth. This is not a tax break for the wealthy. It is a tax break for hard-working Americans who are paying far more than they should be in taxes. Under the Clinton administration, taxes have risen to the highest level in peacetime, a level of 21 percent of GDP--21 percent. In my home State of Arkansas, that amount translates into $7,352 in taxes per capita in 1998. I plead with my colleagues, let us not agree to this amendment. Let us not begin to dilute that which is already far too little relief for hard-working Americans who have a difficult enough time making ends meet each month. Oh, we can talk about wonderful Federal programs to benefit people, and they do. But if we start down that road, there is no stopping point. Let's take more of the $800 billion tax cut and let's spend it on this program and this program and this program because, after all, don't we know best here in Washington? And we do not. At the root and at the core of the debate going on in the Senate is more than just a debate over a tax package. It is more than a debate over how much relief we can provide the American people. It is a debate over philosophy. It is a debate whether your faith is in Government and your faith is in Washington and your faith is in more taxes and central control, or whether your faith is in the people of this country. We will do well to put our faith in the people and return that which belongs to them in passing the Roth tax cut bill.