Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a sense-of- the-Senate resolution I have introduced on behalf of myself and Senators Grassley, Gramm, Kyl, Domenici, Dodd, Feinstein, Hollings, and Sessions. We have submitted this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to deal with the issue of the certification of Mexico. Several of us introduced a bill earlier in the session after the election of the new President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, to try to address the issue of two new administrations in both of our countries that will be faced with the automatic certification of the issue of how we are dealing with illegal drug trafficking as a bilateral effort in our two countries, but with two administrations that have not had time to sit down and come up with a plan that would cooperate fully in this very important effort. Since time is so short, we have come up with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I think will at least say it is the will of the Senate. If we can pass this before we adjourn sine die, I think it will be a major step in the right direction to give some relief to the two new Presidents who will be sworn in for both of our countries and to say, first of all, we in the Senate take this very seriously. One of the most important issues for our countries is dealing with illegal drug trafficking between Mexico and the United States. Realizing that neither President could be held accountable yet for the programs that should be put in place, we are going to have a 1-year moratorium. This is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution: Whereas Mexico will inaugurate a new government on 1 December 2000 that will be the first change of authority from one party to another; Whereas the 2nd July election of Vincente Fox Quesada of the Alliance for Change marks an historic transition of power in open and fair elections; Whereas Mexico and the United States share a 2,000 mile border, Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner, and the two countries share historic and cultural ties; Whereas drug production and trafficking are a threat to the national interests and the well-being of the citizens of both countries; Whereas U.S.-Mexican cooperation on drugs is a cornerstone for policy for both countries in developing effective programs to stop drug use, drug production, and drug trafficking; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, (a) The Senate, on behalf of the people of the United States (1) welcomes the constitutional transition of power in Mexico; (2) congratulates the people of Mexico and their elected representatives for this historic change; (3) expresses its intent to continue to work cooperatively with Mexican authorities to promote broad and effective efforts for the health and welfare of U.S. and Mexican citizens endangered by international drug trafficking, use, and production. (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the United States must develop and implement a counterdrug program that more effectively addresses the official corruption, the increase in drug traffic, and the lawlessness that has resulted from illegal drug trafficking, and that a one-year waiver of the requirement that the President certify Mexico is warranted to permit both new governments time to do so. I appreciate very much Senator Grassley working with me on this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. All of my cosponsors represent a bipartisan effort across the borders and across both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I want to just say I went to Mexico leading a delegation of Members of Congress. It was the first congressional delegation to visit Mexico with the new President-elect, and we were able to sit down and visit with both President Zedillo, the President of Mexico, and the President-elect, Vicente Fox. I want to say how encouraged we were with the dynamism of President-elect Fox, with his absolute assurance that this drug issue is one of the most important of all the issues between our two countries, and they promised to work hand in hand with the new administration that will be elected in the United States in November, and with Members of Congress to do everything they can working with us to cooperate in stopping the cancer on both of our countries that this drug trafficking is causing. When we have a criminal element in Mexico and a criminal element in the United States, that is bad for both of our countries. It is preying on the ability of our country to have full economic freedom, to grow and prosper, and to have friendly relations across our borders. The drug trafficking issue is the big cloud over both of our countries. I believe that President-Elect Fox is going to pursue this vigorously. I also want to say that President Zedillo has taken major steps in that direction for his country. He, first of all, laid the groundwork for the democracy that clearly was shown in this last election. Instead of handpicking a successor and not allowing free primaries, he did the opposite. He allowed the free primaries and he said in every way they were going to have open and free elections. President Zedillo has made his mark on Mexico. He was a very important President for recognizing that the time had come for free and open elections in Mexico. He is to be commended, and I think he will go down in the history books as one of the great Presidents of Mexico. In addition, President Zedillo tried very hard to cooperate in the effort that we were making in drug trafficking. I would say that no one believes that we are nearly where we need to be in that regard. But I think he took some very important first steps. I see a ray of sunshine in Mexico. Our country to the South is a very important country to the United States. They are our friends. We share cultural ties. We share family ties. It is in all of our interests that we have the strongest bond between Mexico and the United States--just as we have with Canada and the United States. These are our borders. I have always said that I believe the strengthening of our hemisphere is going to be a win for all three of our countries. I want to go all the way through the tip of South America in our trading relations and in the building of all of our economies because I think that is our future. Our countries depend on each other. We are interdependent, and our friendship and our alliances will be important for the security and viability of all of our countries in the Western Hemisphere. I am very pleased that we have introduced this sense of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to help us pass this sense of the Senate so that we will be able, next session, to say that the Senate has spoken, and that we want to give some time to certification so that our countries can go forward with our two new Presidents and have a strong working relationship. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Hospital Preservation Act that Senator Abraham and I introduced last year. We achieved partial relief for hospitals last year, but we have reintroduced it this year in an attempt to get more relief for the beleaguered hospitals of our country. Today we have both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee working on this very important legislation. We will have legislation that will, at least for this year, restore the cuts that are being made to our hospitals in Medicare payments, but I am hoping we can get more. In fact, there are many areas of our health care system that have been undercut by a combination of the Balanced Budget Act and have actually been cut even more forcefully by the Health Care Financing Administration than was ever intended by Congress. When we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we said we would look at the effects, and if we needed to refine it in any way, we would do that. Congress has met its responsibility in that regard. We had the Balanced Budget Act Refinement Act passed. We have come back and restored cuts that were too much. That is what we are doing in the bill that is before us or will be before us very soon, that is now being considered by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, the legislation would increase payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, managed care organizations, and other health providers that are paid under Medicare. This legislation is needed especially for our hospitals because they are the front line of our health care delivery system. This legislation builds on legislation Congress passed last year that reversed some of the cuts in provider payments that did result from the Balanced Budget Act and from excessive administrative actions taken by the Health Care Financing Administration. Last year's bill contained important provisions that have helped preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the highest level of health care anywhere in the world. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act that Congress passed last year did make the situation a little brighter for some of these struggling hospitals. It eases the transition from cost- based reimbursement to prospective payment for hospital outpatient services. It restores some of the cuts to disproportionate share payments, and it provides targeted relief for teaching hospitals and cancer and rehabilitation hospitals. I was proud to have been the prime advocate in the Senate for one of the provisions in that bill that restored the full inflation update for inpatient hospital services for sole community provider hospitals, those located primarily in rural areas that provide the only institutional care in a 35-mile geographic area. However, last year's bill was really just a start. I think we have all heard from hospitals that they are really hurting. Hospitals are actually beginning to close, in Texas and all over the Nation. Independent estimates are that this trend will only get worse unless something is done. I and many of my colleagues in Congress continue to hear from hospital administrators, trustees, health professionals that they were struggling to maintain the quality and variety of health services in the face of mounting budget pressures. With the statutory and HCFA- imposed cuts that they were seeing, many efficiently run hospitals began for the first time to run deficits and threaten closure. For many of these hospitals to close, particularly those in rural areas, would mean not only the loss of life-saving medical services to the residents of the area but also the loss of a core component of local communities. Jobs would be lost. Businesses would wither, and the sense of community and stability a local hospital brings would suffer. My colleague, Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan, and I began the task of looking for the best way to provide significant assistance to these hospitals to make sure the payments they were receiving for taking Medicare patients were fair and adequate to enable them to continue serving our Nation's seniors, and also to have the support they need to run their hospitals. We decided to try to expand the sole community provider hospital provision to all hospitals. The bill we have introduced will make sure that Medicare payments for inpatient services actually keep up with the rate of hospital inflation. We will restore the full 1.1 percent in scheduled reductions from the annual inflation updates for inpatient services called for by the Balanced Budget Act. Moreover, rather than just applying to a small group of hospitals, this legislation would benefit every hospital in America, providing an estimated $7.7 billion in additional Medicare payments over the next 5 years. Now, you may ask, where is that $7.7 billion going to come from? Well, when we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we projected savings of $110 billion over the 5-year period that should have occurred from the cuts we put in the Balanced Budget Act. But, in fact, instead of $110 billion, we are now projecting $220 billion in savings. So the $7.7 billion just for this part of the bill has already been saved, and $100 billion more is estimated when you take into account the whole 5 years. So the bottom line is, we cut too much; we are going to restore part of those cuts; and we are still going to be approximately $100 billion ahead. So we will have saved $100 billion, as we intended to do, but we will restore the cuts that have caused such hardships to the hospitals throughout our country. The bill that is being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee contains a full 1-year restoration in the inflation update for hospitals. The pending Senate Finance Committee bill would restore the cuts in 2001, but it only delays the 2002 cuts until 2003. This is progress. I so appreciate Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan's efforts in the Senate Finance Committee. But I don't want to delay those cuts. I want to restore the cuts for the full 2 years. I hope that in the end we can go ahead and do that because these hospitals need to know that there is a stability in their budgeting, that they will be able to look at the restoration in the cuts for the next 2 years. They need to be able to plan. They need to know they will have the adequate funding for Medicare that they must have to give the services in the community and to support the hospital for all of the people and the health care needs of the community. So we are not doing anything that would bust the budget or go into deficits. The fact is, this is a refinement. We have cut $100 billion too much, and we are restoring $8 billion of that. In the bill that is being considered by the Senate Finance Committee, we also will strengthen the Medicare payments for the disproportionate share hospitals, for home health care agencies, for graduate medical education, and for Medicare+Choice plans. We are not out of the woods, but we are taking a major step in the right direction. I commend Senator Roth for his leadership of the committee, along with Senator Moynihan. I implore Congress to move swiftly on this very important legislation. We cannot go out of session without addressing the issue of keeping our hospitals from suffering disastrous cuts in Medicare--cuts that they cannot absorb and cuts that are not warranted. This is our responsibility, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, Senator Abraham, for helping me so much on this issue. He has been a leader. After listening to hospital personnel in his home State of Michigan, he came to me and said, ``We have to do something; let's do it together,'' and I said, ``Great,'' because we must act before we leave this year in Congress. We cannot go forward without addressing this very important issue for the hospitals and health care providers of our country. Certification of Mexico

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, having heard my distinguished colleague from Vermont talk about the judicial selection process, I rise to commend Senator Hatch and his leadership of the Judiciary Committee. It is very difficult to accommodate all of the requests and responsibilities that are entailed in a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I think Senator Hatch has done the very best job he possibly could in getting appointments through, appointments that are reflective of Clinton administration priorities. The vast majority of Clinton appointees have gone through. In my home State of Texas, we have had 20 nominations. Senator Gramm and I have supported 18 of those, and 17 have gone through. There is still one pending that we support. I think Senator Hatch has bent over backwards to do his due diligence but to respect the wishes of the Democratic side and the administration. I don't want to leave unchallenged some of the comments made that indicate that serious consideration has not been given to every single Clinton appointee and that in most cases those appointees have been put forward. It is important that a lifetime appointment be scrutinized because there is no accountability of that lifetime appointment. We need to look at all of the factors surrounding a particular nominee, knowing the power that a Federal judge has and that the accountability is limited. I applaud Senator Hatch. I think he has done a terrific job under very difficult circumstances. I hope he will continue the due diligence and also continue apace with the nominations process. Hospital Preservation Act

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. In light of this agreement, Mr. President, the next vote will be at approximately 3 o'clock. Let me revise, once again, the unanimous consent request to begin at 1 o'clock, leaving the 1-hour timeframe for Mr. Fitzgerald; therefore, in light of the agreement, the vote would occur at approximately 2 o'clock, with another vote on adoption of the conference report at 3:30 today. If I could wrap all of that in together as a unanimous consent request, that would be my hope. I make that unanimous consent request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the leader, at 1 o'clock today, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald, be recognized to make closing remarks on the Interior appropriations conference report for up to 45 minutes, and following the use or yielding back of time, the cloture vote occur, notwithstanding rule XXII, and following that vote, if invoked, the conference report be considered under the following time restraints: 10 minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of Appropriations; 30 minutes under the control of Senator Landrieu, 15 minutes under the control of Senator McCain. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report, without any intervening action or debate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a great Texan and great American, Mr. Edwin L. Cox and to call out his outstanding service to the nation through his support of the Library of Congress. On Thursday, October 5th, The Library of Congress will be celebrating its bicentennial and the 10th Anniversary of the James Madison Council. The Madison Council is the Library's private philanthropic organization and, along with Council Chairman John W. Kluge, Ed Cox helped found and build the Council from a handful of members in 1990 to more than one hundred committed supporters today. Madison Council members have supported more than 200 Library projects since 1990. These gifts account for almost half of all private gifts to the Library. Ed served as the first Vice-Chairman of the Madison Council when it was founded in 1990, and became the first Chairman of the Council's Steering Committee in 1992. To support the Library in acquiring new and rare items, Ed and fellow Madison Council member Caroline Ahmanson formed the Acquisitions Committee, which has been instrumental in acquiring rare and historically significant items for the Library. Ed also established the Edwin L. Cox American Legacy Endowment, which makes possible the purchase of rare and important materials highlighting our history. Ed Cox's long record of service to his country includes his duty in the United States Navy, where he earned the rank of lieutenant. He left to begin building one of America's great independent energy companies, Cox Oil and Gas. He has translated his success into a strong record of public activism, joining the boards of the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, the Texas Cancer Society, and the Dallas Society for Crippled Children. In 1978, recognizing his business acumen and boundless contributions to a better society, Southern Methodist University renamed its business school in his honor, and The Edwin L. Cox School of Business is recognized as one of America's best. In this Bicentennial year of the Library, Ed continues to give of himself and to lead others in support of the Library. He chaired the Council's Bicentennial Committee and mobilized Council members to participate in the Library's Bicentennial programs. He has also been a key member of the Library's Trust Fund Board for the past 10 years. James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, has called Ed ``one of the Library's most valued friends.'' His dedication and service have made the Library's collections richer and its services to the Congress and the Nation more comprehensive than ever. All Americans are the beneficiaries of Edwin L. Cox's generosity in enriching one of our nation's greatest institutions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very important vote. It is a very important issue. I have been a strong supporter of opening relations with China, of opening trade with China, not because China has been the kind of ally we would all hope it would be but because I have believed that having open trade relations with them would improve the relationship; that if we had some leverage in a trade relationship, we would be able to ask them and have some leverage for them to have fair trade, to recognize intellectual property rights, and to become a part of the community of nations. But it seems to me we are saying we want free and open trade and nothing else should matter; that if we have free and open trade, we should not stand up for our national security interests. That is what I have been hearing on the floor now for 2 days. If we are going to engage China on issues such as North Korea and weapons proliferation to Iran and Iraq, as was proposed by the Senator from Delaware, how can we engage them if we say, by the vote today, it is not really a big issue to us, that weapons proliferation takes second place to trade? For me, national security doesn't take second place to anything. I think it should be the position of the Senate that we are responsible for the national security of our country and that that is our most important responsibility. If we know China is sending its nuclear formulas to places such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and that that is going to put American citizens in direct harm's way and stop the balance of power between North and South Korea and make it heavily favoring North Korea, are we really going to stand by and say we will try to engage them when we have not spoken to them in any way when we had the chance to do it, as we do right now? I hope not. It has been said that it will kill this bill if we add an amendment. I wasn't elected to the Senate to rubber stamp the House of Representatives. I wasn't elected by the people of Texas to rubber stamp the President. I was elected to the Senate to do what I think is right and to fulfill my responsibilities to the people I represent. National security is my No. 1 responsibility. If it kills a bill because the Senate adds an amendment and allows us to talk to the President about it and talk to the House of Representatives, then I think that is our role and our responsibility. I reject totally those who would say don't vote for this amendment; it is a killer amendment; it will kill the bill. It will not kill the bill. We have brains. We know we might have to compromise in some way, but we want to be forceful that we are not going to allow China to spread nuclear weapons of mass destruction around the world, especially to rogue nations that would do our country wrong. We are not going to stand up and say today, I hope, that we are afraid to amend a bill because it might kill it. No, that is not why I was elected to the Senate. I was elected to the Senate to do what I think is right. I hope the Senate will speak very forcefully today that we can work with the House and with the President and we will pass free trade with China, with national security addressed. That is the issue. I urge my colleagues to stand up for their people, as they were elected to do. Let's work this out and have a free and fair trade agreement that is good for both countries. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Connecticut need the full 10 minutes? I wanted to speak for a few minutes as in morning business if he didn't need it all.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of the marriage penalty. Today, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 270-158, in favor of eliminating the marriage penalty tax. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it is going to become law because the President has vetoed the bill, and even the overwhelming margin of 270-158 is not enough to override the President's veto. So 21 million American couples are going to have to suffer an inequity in the Tax Code again this year. They are going to have to suffer and pay $1,400, average, in taxes just because they decided to get married. If two people, a policeman and a schoolteacher, get married, they get hit the hardest because they suffer from the marriage penalty tax. I am very proud of the House of Representatives for trying to override the President's veto. I am proud that they spoke overwhelmingly, even though it was 20 votes shy of the two-thirds majority that was necessary. But we need to fix the marriage penalty tax. We need a President who will sign marriage penalty relief, and we need a President who will work with us to have real tax relief for the citizens of our country who are working so hard to make this economy great. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Thompson amendment. I have been listening to the debate on the Thompson amendment for the last day or so. I am very concerned that his amendment has been portrayed as a bill killer. I support PNTR. I want to open trade with China. This is very important for the future of both of our countries. But I am also very concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I cannot see any situation in which the security of the United States of America would take second place to a trade issue, even a most important trade issue. Nevertheless, I would never, ever I put the security of our country in a secondary position. To say that we cannot go back to the House and resolve our differences because we would vote on a responsible amendment that would require a reporting of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is just beyond my comprehension. This is the United States Senate. To say we cannot amend a bill that has been passed by the House would be the height of irresponsibility. I am also speaking today in favor of normal trade relations with China because I want our countries to have a mutually good relationship. The idea that we would have a good relationship on trade but one that gives a wink and a nod to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to people intent on hurting the United States of America is not a fair trade. I couldn't possibly exercise my responsibility as a Senator and vote against the Thompson amendment. In early 1969, newly elected President Richard Nixon asserted: One-fourth of the world's people live in Communist China. Today they are not a significant power, but 25 years from now they could be decisive. For the United States not to do what it can at this time, when it can, would lead to a situation of great danger. We could have total detente with the Soviet Union, but that would mean nothing if the Chinese are outside the international community. Today, President Nixon's words sound remarkably prescient. China is undeniably a major world power, thanks in large part to leaders such as Presidents Nixon and Bush and Reagan, Secretary Jim Baker, Secretary Henry Kissinger, China is not outside the international community but neither is China fully a member in good standing of the family of responsible nations. The major issues our two nations must confront are difficult and complex: China's military buildup, arms sales and proliferation, the future of Taiwan, bilateral trade, and human rights. All of the previous Presidents in my lifetime have recognized the unfolding importance of China, and they have all pursued policies aimed at constructive engagement with the Chinese Government. The question at issue with our vote on PNTR and our vote on the amendments that condition the Senate's approval of PNTR must be, what are the underlying goals of our relationship with China and what are the primary issues that should guide American policymaking and actions. My answer is, our policies should be focused on cultivating a stable and peaceful Asia. We should look to economic competition and mutual prosperity to bring this about, and we must at all times consider the security interests of the United States. As the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, pointed out yesterday, the Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a direct threat to the national security of the United States. I share his view that it would be irresponsible for us not to address that threat. The Federal Government has no greater responsibility nor higher duty to the people of our country and to our allies than to provide for the common defense of the United States of America. The bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Thompson and Torricelli is a responsible vote. It does not scuttle PNTR, as some have warned. This is the responsible action of the Senate. It would be my fervent wish that we could vote our conscience on this very important issue, and not in any way respond to the scare tactics that have been put forth that this will kill the bill, but instead do what is right for both of our countries; that is, open, normal trade relations, and secure the United States from weapons proliferation by China or any other country or rogue nation that would seek to harm our people or our allies anywhere in the world.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if Senator Domenici would yield for 1 more minute, I would like to, first of all, thank him for allowing us the time to introduce this bill. If we are going to be able to pass this by the end of the session, it is imperative that we get the bill into the process. I also thank the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from California for being prime cosponsors because this will show the Mexican people and the new President-elect of Mexico that we do want cooperation. I believe it is in our long-term best interests that we develop trade relationships with our neighbor to the south, that we work with them on investments because as we increase the standard of living in Mexico, I think many of the immigration problems and the problems dealing with illegal drugs will also be wiped away. So this is a new era. I think this bill will signal that we do want cooperation and friendship. I have high hopes for President-elect Vincente Fox. I have high hopes that our new President will focus on this issue as well, to try to come up with a whole new process beyond certification and decertification, which certainly has not worked very well in the past. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. I submit this bill on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Dodd, and Senator Feinstein. The purpose of the bill is to put a 1-year moratorium on the decertification process for Mexico as it relates to the illegal drug trafficking issue that we have been dealing with for so long. The reason we are introducing this bill and hope for expedited procedures is that we have just seen a huge election in Mexico in which, for the first time in 71 years, there is a president from the opposition party, from the PRI, which has been the ruling party in Mexico all this time. Democracy is beginning to be real in Mexico, and we want to do everything we can to encourage this democracy. We want to do everything we can to have good relations, better relations, with our sister country to the south, Mexico. Vicente Fox has visited the United States. He has opened the door for better relations. I know our next President, whoever he may be, will also want to do the same thing. It is a very simple bill. It is a bill that says for 1 year we are not going to go through the certification-decertification process, and hopefully our two new Presidents will begin a new era of cooperation in this very tough issue that plagues both of our countries. Having a criminal element in Mexico and a criminal element in the United States certainly is a cancer on both of our countries, and we want to do everything we can to improve the cooperation in combating this issue. The inauguration of Vicente Fox as President of Mexico on December 1st should usher in a sea change in Mexican politics as well as the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Not only will 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) come to an end, but hopefully so too will come an end to the flood of illegal drugs from Mexico into the U.S. Despite the promise of a new day in our relationship with Mexico, a dark cloud looms on the horizon--the annual drug certification ritual in which Congress requires the President to ``grade'' drug-producing and drug-transit countries each March 1 on their progress in the war on drugs. The facts have remained essentially unchanged over the past several years. Mexico is the source of about 20-30% of the heroin, up to 70% of the foreign grown marijuana, and the transit point for 50-60% of the cocaine shipped into the United States. Mexico has never been decertified, but the thought of being in the company of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan on this list, has done little except to antagonize their political leadership and thwart expanded cooperation. There is no reason to go through this exercise next March and grade President Fox after fewer than 120 days in office. Further, with a new U.S. President taking office on January 20, there is no reason to set up a major confrontation between the two before they have even had an opportunity to work together cooperatively. I am proud to introduce legislation with Senators Pete Domenici, Christopher Dodd, and Dianne Feinstein which will grant Mexico a 1-year waiver from the annual certification process. I hope the Congress will pass this waiver legislation before we adjourn. This 1-year waiver will give President Fox the time he needs to develop and implement a new drug-fighting strategy in Mexico. And it will give the United States the time we need to work with President Fox in the creation of this new strategy, and to finally put in place the law enforcement needed to stop the flow of drugs across our 2000-mile shared border. The United States has enjoyed a long-term partnership with Mexico that has grown closer and more cooperative over time. The North American Free Trade Agreement cemented and strengthened our relationship--and our interdependence. Just last year, Mexico surged past Japan as our nation's second largest trade partner. But partnership is a two-way exchange, and in recent years we have drifted into tolerance of unacceptable conditions in the arena of drug trafficking and the endemic corruption it causes in communities on both sides of the border. The border has been a sieve for drugs, and it has resulted in a degree of lawlessness in Texas and along the U.S.-Mexico border that we have not seen since the days of the frontier. Even worse, the war on drugs plays out daily on nearly every schoolyard across our nation. I am more optimistic than ever, though, by the election of Vicente Fox, that Mexico is prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to contain the drug threat. And as he seeks to make progress on this almost overwhelming issue, we do not need to poison the spirit of early cooperation by injecting drug certification. Specifically, this bill waives for one-year only the requirement that the President certify Mexico's cooperation with the United States in the war on drugs. This waiver does not exempt Mexico from any of the reports or other activities associated with the certification process. It simply says the President does not need to ``grade'' Mexico by choosing between certification, decertification, or decertification with a national interest waiver. This 1-year drug certification waiver will give both the United States and Mexico time to develop a process that will make us partners rather than adversaries in addressing the one issue that can make moot all of the promising opportunities between our two nations. Still, President-elect Fox and the Government of Mexico should make no mistake about the priority the United States places on winning the war on drugs. We will expect this to be a top priority of our new President, and we hope that this will be a priority of President Fox. The Mexican government must take effective, good-faith steps to stop the narco-corruption that infects and demoralizes both of our countries. We ask them to take effective action to destroy the major drug cartels and imprison their kingpins, implement laws to curtail money laundering, comply with U.S. extradition requests, increase interdiction efforts and cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies. President-elect Fox has shown every willingness to work with the United States in developing these objectives. He knows the challenges ahead, and especially the ones that will come as Mexico's democracy continues to evolve and be tested. The United States should not add the pressures of the certification process next year to a situation so full of risks and opportunities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if Senator Domenici would yield for 1 more minute, I would like to, first of all, thank him for allowing us the time to introduce this bill. If we are going to be able to pass this by the end of the session, it is imperative that we get the bill into the process. I also thank the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from California for being prime cosponsors because this will show the Mexican people and the new President-elect of Mexico that we do want cooperation. I believe it is in our long-term best interests that we develop trade relationships with our neighbor to the south, that we work with them on investments because as we increase the standard of living in Mexico, I think many of the immigration problems and the problems dealing with illegal drugs will also be wiped away. So this is a new era. I think this bill will signal that we do want cooperation and friendship. I have high hopes for President-elect Vincente Fox. I have high hopes that our new President will focus on this issue as well, to try to come up with a whole new process beyond certification and decertification, which certainly has not worked very well in the past. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. I submit this bill on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Dodd, and Senator Feinstein. The purpose of the bill is to put a 1-year moratorium on the decertification process for Mexico as it relates to the illegal drug trafficking issue that we have been dealing with for so long. The reason we are introducing this bill and hope for expedited procedures is that we have just seen a huge election in Mexico in which, for the first time in 71 years, there is a president from the opposition party, from the PRI, which has been the ruling party in Mexico all this time. Democracy is beginning to be real in Mexico, and we want to do everything we can to encourage this democracy. We want to do everything we can to have good relations, better relations, with our sister country to the south, Mexico. Vicente Fox has visited the United States. He has opened the door for better relations. I know our next President, whoever he may be, will also want to do the same thing. It is a very simple bill. It is a bill that says for 1 year we are not going to go through the certification-decertification process, and hopefully our two new Presidents will begin a new era of cooperation in this very tough issue that plagues both of our countries. Having a criminal element in Mexico and a criminal element in the United States certainly is a cancer on both of our countries, and we want to do everything we can to improve the cooperation in combating this issue. The inauguration of Vicente Fox as President of Mexico on December 1st should usher in a sea change in Mexican politics as well as the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Not only will 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) come to an end, but hopefully so too will come an end to the flood of illegal drugs from Mexico into the U.S. Despite the promise of a new day in our relationship with Mexico, a dark cloud looms on the horizon--the annual drug certification ritual in which Congress requires the President to ``grade'' drug-producing and drug-transit countries each March 1 on their progress in the war on drugs. The facts have remained essentially unchanged over the past several years. Mexico is the source of about 20-30% of the heroin, up to 70% of the foreign grown marijuana, and the transit point for 50-60% of the cocaine shipped into the United States. Mexico has never been decertified, but the thought of being in the company of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan on this list, has done little except to antagonize their political leadership and thwart expanded cooperation. There is no reason to go through this exercise next March and grade President Fox after fewer than 120 days in office. Further, with a new U.S. President taking office on January 20, there is no reason to set up a major confrontation between the two before they have even had an opportunity to work together cooperatively. I am proud to introduce legislation with Senators Pete Domenici, Christopher Dodd, and Dianne Feinstein which will grant Mexico a 1-year waiver from the annual certification process. I hope the Congress will pass this waiver legislation before we adjourn. This 1-year waiver will give President Fox the time he needs to develop and implement a new drug-fighting strategy in Mexico. And it will give the United States the time we need to work with President Fox in the creation of this new strategy, and to finally put in place the law enforcement needed to stop the flow of drugs across our 2000-mile shared border. The United States has enjoyed a long-term partnership with Mexico that has grown closer and more cooperative over time. The North American Free Trade Agreement cemented and strengthened our relationship--and our interdependence. Just last year, Mexico surged past Japan as our nation's second largest trade partner. But partnership is a two-way exchange, and in recent years we have drifted into tolerance of unacceptable conditions in the arena of drug trafficking and the endemic corruption it causes in communities on both sides of the border. The border has been a sieve for drugs, and it has resulted in a degree of lawlessness in Texas and along the U.S.-Mexico border that we have not seen since the days of the frontier. Even worse, the war on drugs plays out daily on nearly every schoolyard across our nation. I am more optimistic than ever, though, by the election of Vicente Fox, that Mexico is prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to contain the drug threat. And as he seeks to make progress on this almost overwhelming issue, we do not need to poison the spirit of early cooperation by injecting drug certification. Specifically, this bill waives for one-year only the requirement that the President certify Mexico's cooperation with the United States in the war on drugs. This waiver does not exempt Mexico from any of the reports or other activities associated with the certification process. It simply says the President does not need to ``grade'' Mexico by choosing between certification, decertification, or decertification with a national interest waiver. This 1-year drug certification waiver will give both the United States and Mexico time to develop a process that will make us partners rather than adversaries in addressing the one issue that can make moot all of the promising opportunities between our two nations. Still, President-elect Fox and the Government of Mexico should make no mistake about the priority the United States places on winning the war on drugs. We will expect this to be a top priority of our new President, and we hope that this will be a priority of President Fox. The Mexican government must take effective, good-faith steps to stop the narco-corruption that infects and demoralizes both of our countries. We ask them to take effective action to destroy the major drug cartels and imprison their kingpins, implement laws to curtail money laundering, comply with U.S. extradition requests, increase interdiction efforts and cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies. President-elect Fox has shown every willingness to work with the United States in developing these objectives. He knows the challenges ahead, and especially the ones that will come as Mexico's democracy continues to evolve and be tested. The United States should not add the pressures of the certification process next year to a situation so full of risks and opportunities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 3021 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for setting aside time this morning so many of us could pay tribute to Paul Coverdell. Certainly last week, many of us who were friends with Paul really were not up to giving him a proper tribute because the shock of losing one of our friends was so enormous that we really did not feel that we could get through the kind of tribute that Paul deserves. So I thank the majority leader for giving us this time. We have now had a chance to collect our thoughts about the sudden death of our colleague and friend, Paul Coverdell of Georgia. One need only look at the breadth of representation at the memorial service in Atlanta to understand the many ways in which Paul's life affected ours. At the service, it was hard to miss the sweet but sad irony that, for one last time, Paul Coverdell was the great unifier. The Democratic Governor of Georgia, Governor Barnes, called Paul Coverdell--one of just a handful of Republicans in the State legislature when Governor Barnes, himself, was elected to the legislature in 1974--he called Paul his best teacher in politics. Senator Kennedy, our colleague from across the aisle, with whom Senator Coverdell had tangled on many important education issues, sat right next to me in the church to honor Paul Coverdell. Senator Coverdell is sorely missed in the Senate and in Georgia. He is not missed because he was a great legislator--but he was. His innovative approach to helping families have more flexibility in education spending became the Coverdell education savings account bill. We do not feel his loss as badly as we do simply because he was a great Senate leader--but he was. His leadership could bring disparate policy and political strands together to form a single, strong bond that allowed us to move forward with our priorities. Others have said it, but I will repeat for emphasis: Paul Coverdell was as close as any Senator comes to being indispensable to his party. He will not be missed most because he was a giant in Georgia politics--but he was. Over the past third of a century, he built, from virtually nothing, the Republican Party of Georgia, starting at a time when, much as in my own home State of Texas, Republicans numbered only a few in the state Legislature. Georgia is a better state today--and so is Texas--because there is a strong two-party system. Paul Coverdell is the reason why. And the people of Georgia registered their appreciation by making him the first Georgia Republican in over a century to be reelected to the Senate. And he won't be missed the most because he was an outstanding administrator and a man of vision as the Director of the Peace Corps-- but that is certainly the case. Paul was the right man for the job in 1989 when President Bush appointed him to head the Peace Corps, just as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. In 1989, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia were emerging from behind the Iron Curtain. Paul Coverdell thought about his agency. It was a creature of the Cold War, created to keep the Third World from falling prey to communism by exposing those countries to the energy, promise and ideals of American youth. The Peace Corps helped win the cold war, and Paul Coverdell had the vision to know that it could also help win the peace. Although it had been dedicated to helping underdeveloped countries with subsistence agriculture and infrastructure projects, Director Paul Coverdell saw the promise of helping win the Cold War peace when he asked: ``Why not in Europe, too?'' Under his leadership, the Peace Corps began sending volunteers into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, blazing a new trail for this old cold war agency. On June 15, 1990, President George Bush wished farewell to the first such volunteers as they departed for Hungary and Poland. Today, those countries are firmly in the sphere of freedom and democracy, and last year joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Paul Coverdell's vision had become a reality. When he was director of the Peace Corps, Senator Coverdell emphasized a particular program that had gone fallow given the many other priorities the agency was facing. This program, part of the Peace Corps' legislative mandate to foster greater global understanding by U.S. citizens, offered fellowship to returning volunteers in exchange for their agreement to work in an underserved American community as they pursued their degree. Senator Coverdell placed renewed emphasis on this program as Director of the Peace Corps and has been credited by Peace Corps alumni for his leadership in this area. These fellowships, funded through private- sector financed scholarships or reduced tuition agreements with universities and colleges, have been a great success. Paul obviously continued his pursuit of excellence in education with many innovative proposals right here in this body. I will be offering legislation that renames the program the Paul D. Coverdell Peace Corps Fellowship in memory of his commitment to both the Peace Corps and education. A greater legislator, a leader of his party and of his State, a man of peace and vision: These surely describe, Paul Coverdell, but they do not explain the depth and breadth of warm outpouring that we have seen since his sudden death last week. More than any other reason, Senator Coverdell will be missed because he was a sweet, warm man, utterly without pretension. Paul Coverdell: statesman; husband; Senator; leader; but above all, gentleman. For all the wonderful tributes our colleagues have offered here in the Senate, and those that were made at Paul's service on Saturday, none surpass in sincerity and simplicity those posted on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's tribute web-site by ordinary Georgians. A real reflection of Paul's impact is that there are postings from all around the country. But one, in particular, bears quoting. A man from Duluth, Georgia quotes from a well-known essay: ``The True Gentleman'' to describe Paul, and it certainly fits: The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will . . . whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity . . . ; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe. How true these words ring of my friend, Paul Coverdell. I close with the words of a young boy from Georgia, written early in the last century in his school notebook. When assigned to write a short thought about how he wanted to live his life, the young boy, just 10 years or so at the time, wrote: I cannot do much, said the little star, To make the dark world bright. My silver beams cannot pierce far Into the gloom of night. Yet--I am part of God's plan, And I will do the best I can. That sounds like Paul, another Georgian whose star burned so bright and who fulfilled God's plan by doing the best he could. Those words were written by young Richard Russell, as a fourth-grade student. Richard Russell went on to become a great Senator from Georgia, who, like Paul, died in office in 1971. Russell's name graces the building that houses my office, and Paul Coverdell's, too. Today, we consider those great men and the reward they've gone on to enjoy. WE miss them; we miss Paul Coverdell today, and the Senate is a lonelier, less happy place without him. Godspeed to our friend. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the Houston Minority Business Council and the other groups and individuals who are now preparing for ``EXPO 2000, a Business Opportunity Marketplace,'' to be held on August 31, 2000, in the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. This annual event is Texas' largest minority business trade fair and offers a meeting ground for corporations seeking to identify experienced minority entrepreneurs. Over the last decade, the number of minority owned businesses grew in the U.S. by an impressive 168 percent. These businesses generate half a trillion dollars in revenue and employ nearly four million workers. This success has been in large measure due to the efforts of groups like the Houston Minority Business Council and the dedicated individuals throughout Texas and this nation who seek to expand economic opportunities for all Americans. The EXPO has been an outstanding example of such efforts, and has opened the doors of the marketplace by successfully pairing minority business owners with representatives from more than 220 local and national companies. The event provides these minority entrepreneurs with direct marketing opportunities with corporations, government agencies and educational and financial institutions that need capable contractors to support their missions. The EXPO has produced real results, with two thirds of participants reporting having obtained contracts for as much as two million dollars within a year of the event. I have worked hard in the U.S. Senate to build upon efforts like this to expand Federal contracting opportunities to small and disadvantaged business entrepreneurs. I have helped lead the efforts to defend programs such as the 8 (a) Federal business development program, worked to curb the ``bundling'' of Federal contracts that hurt small businesses, and I have served as a champion of Small Business Development Centers, which assist small businesses in getting the capital and assistance needed to get started and expand. I again commend the organizers, supporters, and participants of EXPO 2000. These fine men and women represent the best of Texas' entrepreneurial, hard-working and neighborly spirit. I wish them all much future success, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that all Americans share in the fruits of our economic prosperity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for not giving up on marriage tax penalty relief for hard-working American families. He deserves praise because there is no doubt this has been a rugged road. We passed marriage tax penalty relief last year and sent it to the President in a bill that had other tax relief measures. The President said: No, that is too much tax relief for the American people; send me smaller bills. Under the leadership of Senator Roth, and with the help of our distinguished assistant majority leader, Don Nickles, Sam Brownback, John Ashcroft, Spencer Abraham, Rod Grams, together as a team we said we were going to send the President a clean marriage tax penalty relief bill; we were going to make sure that hard-working American families who are paying a penalty for being married got relief this year. That is the result of what we have done today. Sixty percent of the Senate today is sending this bill to the President. Over 60 percent of the House passed the same bill this week. We say to the President: You asked us to send you a smaller bill, and we are doing it. Most of us wanted to give tax relief in a bigger way. We wanted to go all the way through the 28-percent bracket, but the President said no. We came back with 15 percent, doubling of the standard deduction through the 15-percent bracket. What that means is a couple earning between $43,000 and $52,000 combined will stay in the 15-percent bracket. If one person in a couple makes $25,000 a year and the other makes $35,000 a year, they will stay in the 15-percent bracket longer. It means tax relief for every American couple. Every American couple who uses the standard deduction is going to get relief because that standard deduction is doubled. Fifty million people in our country will get tax relief if the President signs the bill. We are increasing the amount of the earned-income tax credit because we believe married couples who have just come off welfare or who are the working poor deserve that earned-income tax credit so they know that working is better than being on welfare. We want them to have the incentive to do that. We want them to have the pride of going to work and contributing to their families every day because we know they think better of themselves when they do that. I do not see how President Clinton can use an excuse to veto the bill we are sending him today. I do not see what excuse remains. We have taken all of the excuses off the table. He said in his State of the Union Message to Congress and to the American people he favored marriage tax penalty relief. We sent him a bill last year; he vetoed it. He said there were too many other tax cuts in the bill. Today, we are sending him a plain, simple marriage tax penalty relief bill for hard-working Americans who earn in the $25,000 to $35,000 range of income. That is who will benefit. I have heard people on the other side say that this is a tax cut for the rich. There is no way anyone who has visited in the home of a couple, each of whom make $25,000 a year, can say that those people are rich. We say they have earned this money and we want them to keep more of the money they earn. The fundamental difference is we believe the money that people earn belongs to them. We do not believe it belongs to the Federal Government. We have a non-Social Security surplus. This is only letting them keep more of the money they earn rather than sending it to Washington because we are being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars today. We are setting aside the Social Security surplus for Social Security only, we are paying down the debt, and we are giving back to the people part of the money they earned if the President will sign the bill. This week has been a good week for hard-working Americans, for small business people, and for people who own farms and ranches because we have given relief from the death tax to small businesses and family- owned farms so their heirs will not have to sell that business and put people out of jobs, and we have given marriage tax penalty relief. This is the right thing to do, and I urge the President of the United States to hear 60 percent of the Senate and 63 percent of the House of Representatives who said they believe in marriage tax penalty relief, and we urge the President of the United States to sign this bill and give relief to Americans today because this will take effect immediately. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I keep hearing the Democrats talk about tax breaks for the wealthy. I have talked to couples who make $30,000 apiece. I have asked them directly: Do you think that you are wealthy? Do you think that you do not send enough money to the Government? Do you think you are paying more than your fair share? The answer is, they do not think they are wealthy. They do think they are doing their fair share. And they are trying to do something for their children that they will not be able to do if they send $1,400 more to Washington, DC, instead of being able to save it for their children's education or taking a family vacation or giving them extra computers or books or clothes that they would want to have for their own families. A couple that earns $30,000 each is not wealthy. We must understand they are hard-working Americans. Many times the spouse who wants to stay home to help their children does not do so because they think they need to work to bring in the extra income. We are talking about tax relief for the hardest hit among us--people who make $25,000 a year, $30,000 a year, $40,000 a year. They are paying 28 percent in Federal income taxes. And they do not think they are wealthy. They earn this money, and they deserve to keep more of it. We are talking about 50 million Americans who would benefit from the tax relief we are giving today. Twenty-five million couples will get relief from the marriage tax penalty. Over 60 percent of the House of Representatives voted to pass this bill. Over 60 percent of the Senate will vote to pass this bill. Is the President going to fly in the face of the elected Representatives--in those numbers--who want to give relief to hard-working Americans? If we were saying that this was going to take up all of the surplus, that we were not going to be able to pay down debt this year, that would be one thing. That is not the case. Instead, we are being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. We are putting a fence around the Social Security surplus so that it stays in Social Security. We are going to pay down the debt by billions this year. But we think it is time to return to the people who earn the money more of the money they earn to keep for the decisions in their families. Mr. President, tear down this unfair tax. It is time to have a tax correction for the hard-working married couples in this country. We are sending the bill to the President today to do just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, cheerful, fun, accessible, down to earth, loyal, friend--those are the words you think of immediately when describing Paul Coverdell. I am not going to make a long statement today because I know there will be a time set aside for our memorials to Paul Coverdell. I have seen some of our friends today--Paul's friends, my friends--and many of them do not feel capable of talking about him right now. It is not that he wasn't one of our greatest friends. They are not here because they can't talk about him yet. This is a man who served our country in so many ways, all the things a good citizen should do: He served in the Army; he was the head of the Peace Corps; he was a wonderful Senator, one of our leaders in the majority--the fourth highest ranking among us. I do want to say more about him later, but for now I think our majority leader said it very well last night. All of our hearts are broken for the loss of this wonderful man who will have every tribute that we can give him in the future weeks. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are not talking about a tax cut today. We are talking about a tax correction. We are talking about 21 million married couples in this country having tax equity. We have heard the arguments: This is a tax for the rich. Is a schoolteacher who makes $30,000 a year and a policeman who makes $32,000 a year a couple who are rich? That is what the other side would have you believe. They think this is a tax cut for the rich. I ask the question: Does a schoolteacher and a policeman believe the Federal Government can decide better how they should spend their own money than they can decide for themselves? That is what it gets down to. When I hear the other side saying this is going to cost the Government too much, I think: Who do they think this money belongs to? Do they think it belongs to the people who earn it or do they think it belongs to people in Washington, DC, who have never met the families who are paying these taxes? I think the money belongs to the people who earn it. We are looking at a $2 trillion non-Social Security surplus. We are talking about tax cuts. With the death tax and the marriage tax penalty relief that we have given in the last week in this Senate, it would be 10 percent of the projected non-Social Security surplus--10 cents on the dollar. What are we going to do with this money if we don't let people keep more of the money they earn? Are we going to dream up new programs that will not affect these people? I don't think that is the right approach. We are talking about tax relief for hard-working American families-- people who make $30,000 a year or $32,000 a year or $35,000 a year-- because we believe marriage should not be a taxable event. We believe people should be treated the same if they get married. If they are two working people who are trying to save their money to buy their first home, they should have the right to do it with their own money, especially since we are talking about 10 percent of the non-Social Security surplus. We are talking about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars today. We are talking about letting hard-working families keep the money they earn to do a little bit better for their children or to be able to start a family or buy their American dream home. That is what we are talking about. We believe the family can make the decisions for themselves better than someone in Washington. Marriage penalty relief is what we are talking about. Tax equity is what we are talking about. We are talking about fairness today for hard-working Americans.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.