Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, 56 years ago today, 176,000 allied soldiers landed on the beaches of Normandy in what was the largest invasion in history. The operation was officially known as Operation Overlord, but I have never heard anyone refer to it by that name. It is now known as D-Day. While there have been hundreds of other D-days in other historic locations such as Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Inchon, the forces that landed on Normandy Beach 56 years ago today truly changed the course of history. When we hear the term ``D-Day,'' we reflect on that awful and incredible day on Normandy Beach with reverence for what was accomplished and for all that was lost, and with respect the people who were there--those who did not survive and those who did. Thousands of young Americans died that day establishing that small beachhead on the continent of Europe. Within a year, the Allied forces went on to crush the Nazi war regime and brought forth on the European Continent an unprecedented period of peace. Today, we look back on that time and we remember and respect what was done. When the cold war ended, the Wall came down and the Warsaw Pact disbanded. The United States began to draw down forces from Europe for the first time since we had gone in on D-Day and established a presence, and set up the plan to help our vanquished enemy. Military strategists began to talk of new missions for NATO. They spoke of the need for NATO to go ``out of area or out of business,'' implying that unless NATO could find a new reason to exist after the end of the Cold War, there may be no reason for it to exist at all. That new mission began to come into focus in the Balkans five years ago when the United States committed peacekeeping forces to Bosnia to enforce the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords. What was conceived by the administration as a one-year mission to accomplish specific military objectives is now in its fifth year--with greatly expanded civilian nation-building objectives and no end in sight to the deployment. Today we are on the eve of another anniversary in the search for new NATO missions. One year ago, on June 10, NATO halted the bombing in Serbia and Kosovo. As in Bosnia, we again have deployed thousands of American forces to yet another Balkan quagmire with unclear objectives--and there is no end in sight to the Kosovo mission, either. This time the ethnic groups we seek to reconcile have not tired of the killing, apparently, and it continues as our soldiers stand by helpless to deter murder. The General Accounting Office estimates that the cost of our Balkan peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo now tops $23 billion. We have become mired in the problem, unable to stand back and assess where we are. Nor are we able to look at the situation and say we must have a strategy. We know what this has cost our country: For the past five years, recruiting and retention problems in the U.S. military services have been exacerbated by endless peacekeeping missions. Our armed services today are not up to their congressionally mandated troop strength; they are at least 6,000 short. As the world's only superpower, we have a responsibility to lead. America led when the parties first came together in Dayton, but the Dayton Peace Accords simply stopped the fighting. We did not create conditions that could actually solve the problem without the presence of thousands of outside forces. We ended the hostilities--and we should be respectful of that achievement--but we did not create effective economic and political structures. That must be our goal for a lasting peace. As one American military peacekeeper said to me on a recent visit, ``Everyone's job in Bosnia is to work on the problems we face, but no one seems to have the responsibility for actually solving those problems.'' We need to search for ways to solve these problems. Today I am introducing legislation to authorize funds to reconvene the parties to the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnia conflict, those who were involved in the Rambouillet talks that failed to avert the conflict in Kosovo and other regional entities. We must review our progress to date. If we cannot do that, how can we call ourselves leaders? We must look for a long-term settlement based on greater self- determination for the governed and less by outside powers. That may involve tailoring current borders to fit the facts on the ground. It will create conditions of genuine stability, reconstruction and prosperity. It will allow us, in a responsible way, to set some timetables, some measurements for success, and, hopefully, to begin turning over these peacekeeping responsibilities to our European allies within a reasonable time frame. We must have self-determination that works. The current policy wagers America's reputation, prestige and will on a mirage of multicultural democracy in the Balkans. We are trying to create governments that ignore history, nationality and ethnicity. Elections have been held in which refugees were bused into disputed regions to vote for elected officials who cannot serve because they are unable to return to their prewar homes. American officers spend their days deciding which vehicles can travel down which roads, and escorting Serb families in hostile Albanian territory to the dentist and back or to the library and back. This effort is diverting the United States from its global responsibilities. We occupy a unique place in the world today, standing astride history's path as the most powerful nation that ever may have existed. Our supercharged economic engine certainly reflects the best that mankind has to offer. However, a superpower's core responsibility is not to right every wrong, but to preserve its strength for those challenges that only a superpower can address. The United States must know when to encourage capable allies and proxies to address contingencies that fall short of that standard. Instead, time and again, our military readiness to address potential threats--such as North Korea, mainland China, Iraq--has been diverted to contingency provisions on the periphery of our nation's security concerns. America's peacekeeping burden in the 1990s has resulted in two of our Army divisions reporting themselves unfit for combat. We can achieve more in the Balkans than a peace enforced at bayonet tip. We ought to tie our continued financial support to a comprehensive regional settlement, to substantial military withdrawal from the region and to a firm policy of encouraging the Europeans to do more--with our support, which will always be there. Any NATO member can patrol the Balkans, but only the United States can defend NATO. That is the role of a superpower, and that is the role of a strong and reliable ally. As we take up the armed services budget this week, I hope we can take on the role that is the responsibility of the Senate and try to put some long-term potential peace into play. I am not saying I know what the outcome of any kind of conference should be. But I do know it is our responsibility to call such a conference and begin to assess where we are; to look with vision to the future and set the standard that must be set for the lasting peace that we want and hope for and will work for and support in the Balkans.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there any procedural motion I need to make to move forward?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, came to the Senate floor to discuss Social Security reform. In her discussion, she took on the issue of some of the Texas municipalities that had chosen to opt out of Social Security and attempted to show they were doing less well than anyone in the Social Security system today. I want to refute some of those remarks, especially the ones that referred to these counties in Texas, and give the other side of the story. She attempted to show that municipal employees in Texas, particularly Galveston County, are not doing as well under their own retirement plan than if they were part of the Social Security system. Just in the last few minutes, I talked to the county judge of Galveston County, Judge Yarborough, who is a very good Democrat, a very good person, and is doing a good job in Galveston County. He says in the 5\1/2\ years he has been county judge, he has never had one complaint from an employee in Galveston County and, in fact, has had many retirees come up to him and say how glad they are that they have their own retirement system rather than having been forced into the Social Security system back in the eighties when they were allowed to opt out. First and foremost, because this is important, this was somehow linked to Governor Bush's Social Security plan. There is no linkage whatsoever. In fact, the opt-out was done in 1981 by Galveston and a few other municipalities around my State, and there were others around the country. There was a window during that time in which county and municipal employees were able to opt out of Social Security, and Galveston County did decide to opt out. I hope as we go into the future and as we talk about Governor Bush's Social Security plan, we will not attempt to link that window when some municipalities opted out of Social Security to Governor Bush's plan. That is important because Governor Bush has said all along, from the very beginning when he put his plan forward, that, in fact, we would have a choice under his plan. Anyone wanting to stay in the present Social Security system would have that option. That is a very important distinction to make because people might want to keep that option after they have looked at the alternative that will be available, but, in fact, millions of Americans will decide that they want to have a part in making some decisions on their own for the Social Security tax they pay. Nearly 5 million municipal employees across the country are not part of the Social Security system. One such area is the city of San Diego. The rates of return on these pension programs are very good--so good, in fact, that the California Senators sent a letter to President Clinton in which they said: Millions of our constituents, who will receive higher retirement benefits from their current public pensions than they would under Social Security, are appealing to their elected representatives in Washington. We respectfully urge you to honor the original legislative intent underpinning the Social Security system, and exclude this provision from any reform plan you consider during the remainder of your term. It is clear that if municipal employees are earning higher rates of return and want to stay in their own retirement plans, they should not be forced into a system of lower returns, and it should be a choice they have. I agree with the Senators from California in their goal. I will now talk about the specifics of the Galveston plan. Many of these same Galveston employees have urged me to oppose their inclusion in Social Security. Some of the information that was used on the floor yesterday was based on a GAO report, but if my colleagues read the report carefully, they can see the clear differences between Social Security and the plan in Galveston County. First, it is important to remember that, in Galveston, they have a basic retirement plan that every employee puts money into and on which they have returns. That plan is separate. In 1981, they were allowed to opt out of Social Security so that their 7 percent they would have paid into Social Security would, in fact, go into a supplemental plan. In Galveston County, we are talking about a supplemental plan to their basic retirement plan, so everything they get with the 7 percent which they put into their own supplemental plan is over and above their basic retirement system. The GAO said that ``outcomes generally depend on individual circumstances and conditions.'' So each case is taken on an individual basis--it is hard to make broad statements about the plan. The annuity each retiree receives is based on the contributions and the time served in government; it is not a defined benefit formula, such as Social Security. Nevertheless, the plan is designed to provide a return similar to Social Security, which it does, and it has some features that are even better. The GAO noted that ``The Galveston plan also has a very conservative investment strategy that has precluded investing in common stocks.'' The Galveston supplemental plan only relies on Government bonds and very safe Treasury-type investments, and the average return has been approximately 8 percent per year. When one compares that to Social Security, however, it is very high. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that some workers are getting a 1- to 2-percent return on their money from Social Security. Also, comparing the Social Security plan to the Galveston plan, it is not accurate because the Galveston plan is a supplement, not the basic retirement system. Lastly, the GAO noted one critical point that was left out of the Washington debate: The Galveston plan benefits are fully funded, GAO says, ``while Social Security's promised benefits cannot be met without increasing revenues.'' Thus, the Galveston plan is financially sound. It is not dependent on significantly increased contributions or massive tax increases to meet its promises. Here, in Washington, we have promised benefits without developing a plan to pay for them. In Galveston, no retiree is subject to the mercy of the Congress that the benefits might change. Here are some of the facts about the differences between the Galveston plan and Social Security. For individual earners without a survivor benefit, the monthly annuity figures for retirees are nearly identical or better than Social Security. For low-wage workers, there is a $1 difference. For workers with wages over $25,000, they would earn nearly $200 a month more under the Galveston plan than they would under Social Security. A worker earning $50,000 will earn nearly $1,000 more every month. If you have a 45-year work history, the numbers are higher across the board at every income level in the Galveston plan. The Cato Institute also reviewed the Galveston retirement plan. For a worker who earns $30,000 for 30 years, he or she will have a $320,000 investment in retirement. This is based on a 4.5-percent return when, in fact, Galveston is getting 8 percent. I should also note that the numbers in GAO are based on a 4-percent return each year. So the numbers in GAO are very low in their estimates, and most workers are going to receive a much higher benefit. According to Cato, the employee with the $320,000 in savings could earn a monthly annuity of $2,494, compared to Social Security, which is $1,077. So according to Cato, the monthly annuity would be $2,494 for a Galveston employee, compared to $1,077 under Social Security. The county of Galveston believes the average annuity is approximately 7.8 percent for every $1,000 in retirement funds. The Social Security Administration thinks that is too high and made the GAO use a lower annuity figure. So the monthly annuity figures used by GAO are lower than for the Galveston workers. I think it is very important that we take this debate out of the Bush plan or the Gore plan when we are dealing with the employees in cities such as San Diego, CA, or Galveston County, TX, because it is very clear that the Galveston County employees have a major benefit. As the county judge said this morning: Retirees come up to me every day and say thank goodness. Another good feature of the Galveston plan is that if the retiree does not use up all of the retirement when that person dies, it is passed on to the spouse or the children. That does not happen in Social Security. I think it is very important, if we are going to build up a stability in our working people and their families, that we would have this kind of alternative with which the Galveston County employees are very pleased. I think it is very important that we not put this in the political realm. If we are talking about the actual numbers, I think the municipal employees that were allowed to opt out in the early 1980s are mostly happy with their plans. They like the choices they have. Galveston was very conservative and did not go into the stock market. But I think the bottom line is that we need to give people a choice, a choice to stay in the Social Security system as it is today and have the exact same returns that they would be entitled to under Social Security, or if they choose not to do that, and they do want to have some control over their own taxes they pay in--maybe 3 percent of the 12-plus percent they pay in Social Security--I think we ought to let them do that. Because even with the stock market fluctuating, the returns show that they will do better and they will be able to give their children something they have not been able to under the present Social Security plan. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes of the time allocated to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to wait beyond the Senator from Oregon for 10 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska for 12 minutes. Then if we could get a unanimous consent, I would go next?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. After 22 minutes? If we could put that in stone?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I make an inquiry of the distinguished Senator from Michigan how long the next two would be, so I can determine if I could stay that long.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for a long time this morning. I will address two major points I keep hearing because it is important that we refute those points. First, we are not setting a deadline. We are not withdrawing troops. The Byrd-Warner amendment says we are voting to make the decision, after plenty of time for the President and our allies, consulting with Congress, to make a plan. We are setting a timetable in which we would have the opportunity to set a plan, and that timetable will probably be October or December of next year. Then after we have a plan from the President, we will have a vote on that plan and on the long-term strategy. Every time Congress exercises its responsibility to do what it is required to do under the Constitution, which is declare war and support the Army and the Navy, the administration and many on the other side say: What kind of signal does that send? What kind of signal does that send to our allies? What kind of signal does that send to that terrible tyrant Milosevic? No. 2, they say setting a deadline is irresponsible. I will answer both of those questions. We are sending a message. We are sending a message to our allies and to President Milosevic. It is a clear message, and it says, America is going to lead. America is going to come in and bring all the parties to the table, and we are going to formulate a policy. We are going to lead. It says, our goal is a lasting peace in the Balkans, not an unending morass of indecision that wears out our troops, debilitates our own national security, and does not help our allies or the Serb people at all. It says to Milosevic, we are serious and we are going to formulate a plan. The President of the United States should take the lead and consult with our allies and consult with Congress, as is required in the Constitution. Our policy in the Balkans has been drifting. Ever since I came to Congress 7 years ago, it has been drifting because the administration has never come to Congress and said: This is my plan; will you approve it? Instead, he spends money from the Defense budget with no authorization and then comes in and asks for emergency funds to replenish the Department of Defense. Of course, we are going to vote yes. Of course, we are going to replenish the funds that have already been spent so our troops will be paid and our equipment will be updated. Is this Senate going to allow our troops to be deployed on a mission that has never been laid out? Is that a responsible action of the Senate? The answer is no. The Byrd-Warner amendment is taking the responsible action for the Senate. I will answer question No. 2: Setting a deadline is irresponsible. This is the bait and switch. This is what they say every time. If you set a deadline, you are irresponsible. How could you do that and cut and run from our allies? But if you say, OK, we are not setting a deadline, we are going to say, 1 year from now, we have a timetable that begins the process for a plan and then, once you have the plan on the table, you have an orderly process to implement that plan. This is not a vote to withdraw troops. It is not a vote to cut and run. It is not a vote to even have a deadline. It is a vote to take the responsibility to approve a plan for a lasting peace in the Balkans. This is a vote to be a responsible and strong ally and a formidable enemy. It is a vote that asks the same of our allies in return, that they be strong and reliable allies. It is a vote to take the responsibility in the Senate for our own national defense. I ask the question of my colleagues: If we do not take the responsibility for our national security, if we do not take the responsibility when we see that we cannot recruit and retain members of our armed services today, if we don't take the responsibility for addressing that problem, who will? Which of our allies will step up to the line and say, we are worried about your national security deteriorating? Which of our allies is going to step up to the line and say, I am concerned that you are not providing the nuclear umbrella that we must have and that only you can provide? The buck stops here. The Byrd-Warner amendment says we are up to the task. We will defend our own troops in the field, to give them a mission and a timetable and a responsible plan under which they can operate. We will be a strong, reliable, and stable ally for all of our friends. We will formulate a plan that is responsible as a superpower should. We will no longer have emergency funds that refill coffers of money that have already been spent on a mission that is not spelled out. We will no longer be irresponsible. We will take the responsibility that has been put on our shoulders by the people of our States. A vote for the Byrd-Warner amendment will do exactly what we were elected to do; that is, take the responsibility for our country and our allies.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have to ask a question of Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. If they are not able to perfect their amendment, am I barred from offering the amendment that would lengthen the time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Regular order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for heading the task force that put together a balanced approach, with a clear goal--a simple goal--of reducing foreign oil dependence in the United States of America to under 50 percent by the year 2010, so that 10 years from today we could have what I think is a very modest goal of 50-percent capability in the United States of America to produce the oil and gas needs of our country. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has been happening to oil prices over the last 3 years. First, we went down so low that the little guys could not make it. We lost thousands of small well producers because they could not make it on $10-a-barrel oil. They could not meet their expenses. So they went under and they capped the wells. When a well is capped, it is almost impossible to reopen it because it is so expensive. These are wells that produced 15 barrels a day or less. We are not talking about gushers. We are not talking about thousands of barrels a day, which some do produce in other parts of the country. We are talking about 15 barrels a day, a barely break-even proposition at any price, but certainly not at $10. What we are trying to do is take the artificially low prices and the ridiculously high prices that we see today because we are dependent on foreign imported oil, and say: What will allow us to stabilize these prices? What will allow us to stabilize these prices is exactly what is in the bill we are introducing today and which we hope Congress will act on before we leave; and that is, we encourage the little guys by giving them a floor--just as we do farmers--when prices go below $17 a barrel. We would just give them a tax credit so they could stay in business. The Senator from Alaska talked about many of the other parts of this bill. I hope we can have bipartisan support so we can stabilize the prices for consumers in America and jobs in our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending Lieberman amendment. Senator Lieberman is a friend of mine, and I know he has spent a lot of time with many colleagues trying to put together a substitute that could have bipartisan agreement. I think the Senator's amendment does make some good attempts, but there are concerns that will also force me to vote against his amendment. I think the amendment is overly prescriptive. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that the amendment we just passed--Senator Lott's amendment--which included my and Senator Frist's careers-to- classroom provision--the whole purpose of that is to give more flexibility. I think what we are doing is drawing the bright red line between the philosophy of what the Democrats are hoping to do and what the Republicans are hoping to do. The Republicans are trying to withdraw a lot of the redtape that we hear complained about by teachers everywhere we go in our States. When I go to a town hall meeting, in an urban or rural area, they complain about the redtape and the regulations that keep them from being able to do the job they want to do, which is to teach children in the classroom. I think Senator Lieberman's amendment fails to provide the flexibility and the accountability for our States and public schools, which really is the hallmark of the bill that is before us today. I am concerned about the revised formula for title I. I am concerned because title I will take millions of dollars from many of the rural and other schools in Texas and across America. While I certainly understand the goal of providing money for low- income schools, I don't think it should come at the expense of our Nation's rural schools. They also have a great need, and oftentimes they lack the resources to give the quality education they need and want for their children. I am also concerned about the provision in the Lieberman substitute that effectively requires certification for teachers' aides and other paraprofessionals. I think this is something best left to the States and the local districts. In fact, to go back to the amendment we just passed, Senator Frist and I have been working, along with Senator Graham from Florida, on a different concept that goes away from the overcertification issue and says we want professionals in the classroom, and we want to encourage school districts to put professionals in the classroom, even if they didn't major in education in college. Now, I have to take a step back and say that I am very proud that my alma mater, the University of Texas, is actually beginning to do some testing on education degrees to see if we can focus more on the area of expertise that is going to be taught in the classroom and less on the ``how to make lesson plans'' part of the education degree. So far the tests have been very positive of the students who have gone more in the area of expertise for which they are going to be the teachers and less into the ``how to be a teacher''--not that you do away with that because it is important; but you lessen the focus on that and go more for the actual expertise that is going to be transferred to the children in the classroom. That is the exact concept of the careers-to- classroom amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Frist and myself. It is very similar to what Senator Bob Graham and I had worked on as well. Basically, it says to the midlevel professional who may be looking for a career change or who may be retiring because they have done well in their field, we want you to come into the classroom and give the benefit of our knowledge and expertise to children who are in schools that have teacher shortages or are in rural areas. Here is an example. A friend of mine majored in French in college and taught French in private schools. She moved to a small school district in Greenville, TX. They wanted to offer French in Greenville High School. She wanted to teach it, but she didn't have a teacher certification. So she was not able to be put into the classroom in Greenville High School, and the students in that high school were deprived of that option because she was not certified. Now, what she did--because she wanted to do this so much--she commuted 30 miles to the nearest teacher college and she eventually got her certification; but it took her several years because she was also raising children. During that period, those children who wanted to take French could not have that option at Greenville High School. I think that is wrong. I don't want her to have to jump through that many hoops in order to give a great opportunity to that school district that they otherwise would not have. So our careers-to-classroom provision takes rural schools and schools that have teacher shortages and matches them with people who have professional expertise-- especially in the fields of math, science, and languages. We can enhance education to a greater degree if we have qualified teachers. We give encouragement. We give authorization for funding for school districts that will give alternative certification, which is expedited certification to these teachers who want to go into the classroom and help enrich the experience that our children will have all over our country. We hear a lot on the Senate floor about the need to hire more teachers and reduce class size. There is a growing problem in America. It has been estimated by the National Council on Education Statistics that the United States will need an additional 2 million teachers in public schools over the next decade. During the 1970s and 1980s, the American school age population grew at a relatively slow rate. But increased immigration and the new baby boomers have turned these numbers around. In 1997, a record 52.2 million students entered our Nation's public schools. Between 1998 and 2008, the population of secondary schools is going to increase an additional 11 percent. This is most pressing in our inner cities and rural communities. We are trying to address these concerns by giving more flexibility and taking away some of these disincentives to get good professionals into the classrooms. I think our amendment, which has been agreed to by the Senate, is a better concept than the Lieberman approach, or Senator Kennedy's approach, which I think have the effect of putting more restrictions and more redtape in the system. I think we have tried the other way. While I believe Senator Kennedy and Senator Lieberman are very sincere in wanting better public education, I think we diverge on how we get there. I think we have tried the ``everything emanates from Washington'' approach to get Federal funding. I think now we ought to try something new. Let's try giving States flexibility by putting the money into the classroom where it does the most good rather than building up the Federal bureaucracy that has the effect of retarding the ability to be creative. Let's have the capability to put more teachers in to fill the teacher shortage with qualified teachers as well. I want to end by saying that I believe in public education. I am a total product of public education. I know that is what makes America different from other countries in the world because we don't say to certain people: you will get a good education but other people in society will not have the same opportunity. We have said in America that we want every child to reach his or her full potential with a public education. We want every child to have a choice. Many children choose private education. I support that, too. But it is our responsibility to have public education for children who cannot afford a private education or who do not want that kind of experience to be able to succeed and be the best with that public education. The underlying bill and the Lott-Gregg-Hutchison-Frist amendment gives the tools to our country to create the public education system of excellence that is required to keep America a meritocracy and not an aristocracy. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will still get an earned-income tax credit when they make $33,000. There is no excuse. It is time to let us take up amendments on this bill and vote marriage tax penalty relief for the hard-working people of our country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth and Senator Grassley for helping us write a very good bill that will give relief to 21 million married couples in this country; 42 million people will receive a benefit. When I go through my State and a policeman comes up to me and says, ``I cannot believe how much more I am paying since I got married,'' or a schoolteacher or a county clerk or a sheriff's deputy, I wonder what could we be thinking. This is not a tax cut; this is a tax correction. Twenty-one million American couples are paying a penalty only because they are married. That is not right. The President of the United States, in his March 11 radio address, addressed six tax cuts he thinks would be a good idea. Two of those are in the bill we are voting on today. He said: . . . a tax relief to reduce the marriage penalty, tax relief to reward work and family with an expanded earned income tax credit. Of the six tax cuts he says he favors, two are in the bill on which we will be voting. One has to ask the fair question: Why would so many of the Democrats refuse to let us bring up the bill that addresses exactly what the President has asked us to send to him? We sent him marriage tax penalty relief last year. He vetoed the bill. He said there was too much in it; there were too many other tax cuts. I happen to believe there is not a tax cut that I do not like because I think hard-working Americans deserve more relief. We are only using part of the income tax withholding surplus here, not Social Security surplus, not even all of the income tax withholding surplus. We are only using part to give the money back to the people who earned it. Nevertheless, the President said it was too much. So we said: All right, we are going to send him smaller tax cut bills just as he requested. We sent him one which removed that terrible added tax on Social Security recipients between the age of 65 and 70 who want to work and make more than $17,000. That is gone. We passed the bill, we sent it to the President, and he signed it. There must be a real problem on the Democratic side, and I quote the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate in Reuters on April 13 of this year when he said: I think the Republican bill is a marriage penalty relief bill in name only. It's a Trojan horse for the other risky tax schemes they have that have been proposed so far this year. To what risky tax schemes could he be referring? Was it the Social Security earnings tests we eliminated for people who are over 65 and want to work? Was it the education tax credits we have passed and is now in conference to help parents by giving a credit for their children's education starting in kindergarten and going all the way through college? Or is it the small business tax credits he thinks are risky tax schemes to help our small business people create new jobs to keep our economy going? I do not think one can make the case that this is a risky tax scheme. This is marriage penalty relief for 21 million American couples who are paying the tax only because they got married. In addition, we add more people who will get the earned-income tax credit because they are coming off welfare and are working and feeling good about themselves. We want to encourage them to do that. A family of four making $31,000-- --

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 2000. I would like to recognize the efforts of Commerce Committee Chairman McCain and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Gorton who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I am also joined by Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, and Bryan in this effort to improve the security of the flying public. Approximately 500 million passengers will pass through U.S. airports this year. Protecting their safety in an incredible challenge to the men and women of the aviation industry. The Federal Government, through the Federal Aviation Administration and Industry together, must do everything within our power to protect the public from the menace of terrorism and other security threats. In 1996, soon after the tragedy of TWA flight 800, I proposed new requirements to improve security at the nation's airports. Congress adopted these requirements as part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. This legislation tried to improve the hiring process and enhance the professionalism of airport security screeners. The act also directed the FAA to upgrade security technology with regard to baggage screening and explosive detection. In my view, the FAA has been slow to implement these vital security improvements. The FAA does not plan to finalize the regulation to improve training requirements for screeners and certification for screening companies until May 2001. Five years is too long to wait. Technology upgrades have also been slow in coming, even though the upgraded technology is readily available. The traveling public should not have to wait yet another year before these improvements are implemented. The FAA must modernize its procedure for background checks of prospective security-related employees. An FAA background check currently takes 90 days. That is too long. Under current procedures, the FAA is required to perform these checks only when an applicant has a gap in employment history of 12 months or longer, or if preliminary investigation reveals discrepancies in an applicant's resume. But 43% of violent felons serve an average of only seven months. This gap should be closed. My legislation, the Airport Security Improvement Act, would direct FAA to require criminal background checks for all applicants for positions with security responsibilities, including security screeners. The bill will also require that these checks be performed expeditiously. My legislation also directs FAA to improve training requirements for security screeners by September 30 of this year. FAA should require a minimum of 40 hours of classroom instruction and 40 hours of practical on-the-job training before an individual is deemed qualified to provide security screening services. This standard would be a substantial increase over the 8 hours of classroom training currently required for most screening positions in the U.S. The 40 hour requirement is the prevailing standard in most of the industrialized world. Finally, my bill would require FAA to work with air carriers and airport operators to strengthen procedures to eliminate unauthorized access to aircraft. Employees who fail to follow access procedures should be suspended or terminated. I understand that FAA is currently working on improving access standards. I hope this bill will encourage them to do so in a timely fashion. We are privileged to have with us today a distinguished panel of witnesses who are well-versed in the area of airport security. I want to welcome them to the hearing and I am looking forward to their testimony.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 2000. I would like to recognize the efforts of Commerce Committee Chairman McCain and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Gorton who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I am also joined by Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, and Bryan in this effort to improve the security of the flying public. Approximately 500 million passengers will pass through U.S. airports this year. Protecting their safety in an incredible challenge to the men and women of the aviation industry. The Federal Government, through the Federal Aviation Administration and Industry together, must do everything within our power to protect the public from the menace of terrorism and other security threats. In 1996, soon after the tragedy of TWA flight 800, I proposed new requirements to improve security at the nation's airports. Congress adopted these requirements as part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. This legislation tried to improve the hiring process and enhance the professionalism of airport security screeners. The act also directed the FAA to upgrade security technology with regard to baggage screening and explosive detection. In my view, the FAA has been slow to implement these vital security improvements. The FAA does not plan to finalize the regulation to improve training requirements for screeners and certification for screening companies until May 2001. Five years is too long to wait. Technology upgrades have also been slow in coming, even though the upgraded technology is readily available. The traveling public should not have to wait yet another year before these improvements are implemented. The FAA must modernize its procedure for background checks of prospective security-related employees. An FAA background check currently takes 90 days. That is too long. Under current procedures, the FAA is required to perform these checks only when an applicant has a gap in employment history of 12 months or longer, or if preliminary investigation reveals discrepancies in an applicant's resume. But 43% of violent felons serve an average of only seven months. This gap should be closed. My legislation, the Airport Security Improvement Act, would direct FAA to require criminal background checks for all applicants for positions with security responsibilities, including security screeners. The bill will also require that these checks be performed expeditiously. My legislation also directs FAA to improve training requirements for security screeners by September 30 of this year. FAA should require a minimum of 40 hours of classroom instruction and 40 hours of practical on-the-job training before an individual is deemed qualified to provide security screening services. This standard would be a substantial increase over the 8 hours of classroom training currently required for most screening positions in the U.S. The 40 hour requirement is the prevailing standard in most of the industrialized world. Finally, my bill would require FAA to work with air carriers and airport operators to strengthen procedures to eliminate unauthorized access to aircraft. Employees who fail to follow access procedures should be suspended or terminated. I understand that FAA is currently working on improving access standards. I hope this bill will encourage them to do so in a timely fashion. We are privileged to have with us today a distinguished panel of witnesses who are well-versed in the area of airport security. I want to welcome them to the hearing and I am looking forward to their testimony.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who has done a wonderful job in managing this bill, and more importantly for his role in the Finance Committee to make sure that we have a great marriage tax penalty relief bill. I thank the Senator from Montana for talking in straight terms, as he always does, about what our priorities are: Does this money belong to the people who earned it or does it belong to the Federal Government in Washington, DC? I think it is very interesting; when people talk about tax cuts, you can tell immediately how Members are going to vote by how they refer to the tax cuts. As the Senator from Missouri said earlier, if you are going to be against tax cuts, you are going to say: How much will it cost the Federal Government to give this tax relief? But if you believe that people who earn the money deserve to keep it, then you are going to say: How much is it going to cost the American family if we do not give them back part of the excess that they have sent to Washington in income tax withholding? I want to make the point again, we are not talking about the Social Security surplus providing money for tax cuts. We are talking about the income tax surplus. That means that people have sent too much to Washington and we are trying to return some of it. I think it was an interesting argument earlier, on the Democratic side, where it was shown that Federal taxes have gone down in our country. We are trying to lower Federal taxes, but, in fact, what has happened is local taxes have gone up. So all of the neutral sources in our country today tell us that there is, in fact, a higher tax burden on the average American family today than ever before in peacetime. That is a big burden on an average family. About 40 percent of the average family's income is taken in taxes. That is a fact. And we are in peacetime. We do have a balanced budget. We do not need that much. We should send it right back to the people who earned it, to put in their pockets for them to make the decisions as to how to spend it. That is what we are trying to do today. I think it is interesting when you listen to the debate. The distinguished Democratic leader yesterday said, in the debate: ``I think the Republican bill is a marriage penalty relief bill in name only. It is a Trojan horse for the other risky tax schemes that have been proposed so far this year.'' I want to go over what we have taken up this year, what we have proposed this year, and just say to the American people: I wonder what the risky tax schemes are. Is it a risky tax scheme to let people on Social Security between the ages of 65 and 70 work without paying a penalty? Is that a risky tax scheme? Is the education tax credit that Senator Coverdell passed earlier this year to give parents a tax credit to buy education enhancements for their children--the computers, the extra books, the tutors--a risky tax scheme? Or is it the small business tax relief that we passed to try to give our small businesses an opportunity to grow and create new jobs in our country? I am not sure to which ``risky tax scheme'' the Democratic leader refers. But if that is a ``risky tax scheme,'' I am guilty because I do believe the hard-working people of this country deserve to keep more of the money they earn. This marriage tax penalty relief was provided for in the budget we passed last week. We would take only 50 percent of the allocation over a 5-year period. We think that is quite responsible as stewards of our tax dollars.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. MR. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 2422 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are the 10 minutes Senator Conrad has remaining from the Democratic side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Montana for saying, first of all, he thinks we will have a marriage tax penalty relief bill passed. I certainly think a couple of amendments--five or six or so--on either side, which are relevant, to try to perfect legislation is quite reasonable. I hope that is what the Democrats intend to offer. That isn't what we have seen so far. So perhaps we are coming to a conclusion. I hope so. Let me say that if the only bill on the floor were the Democratic alternative, I would vote for it because I have voted for it before. It is not a bad plan. But I think the Republican plan is better. Here is why. First of all, our plan helps more people who are in the lower levels, the middle-income levels, who really need this kind of help. We say that if a single person making $35,000 married, or a single person making $30,000, you double the bracket so their combined bracket is going to be the same. They will not be penalized in the 15-percent bracket or the 28-percent bracket. Now, I would be for going all the way through those brackets because I am for tax relief for hard-working Americans. Ours is a bigger bill. It covers more people. I think it is the better approach. I would be for bracket relief across the board, too, because I think the tax burden is too heavy and we are talking about the income tax surplus, not the Social Security surplus. So this is the money people have sent to Washington that is beyond what the Government needs for the Government to operate. So I think ours is better, but I don't think yours is bad. I just hope we can give the most tax relief to the most people.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If we took our plan and yours and put them together, I would think that would be better than the Republican plan. Your plan alone is not as good as the Republican plan because it doesn't give that much relief. Our plan gives $2,500 more in the earned-income tax credit. This is helping people come off of the welfare rolls and have the opportunity to be paid to make them whole. These are people who make $12,000 to $30,000 a year, when they have two children, a family of four. It also helps people in the 15-percent bracket and in the 30- percent bracket.