Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from New York for their leadership on this issue, finally getting it to the floor in this form. I think it is very clear we are going to pass it and give the needed relief to our senior citizens. I could not go forward without mentioning my colleague, Senator McCain. Senator McCain received a huge welcome back to the Senate. No one has forgotten what has happened in the last 3 months. I think a great impact has been made on the politics of our country. I think the contribution made by Senator McCain will resonate for a long time to come. He has brought new people into the process. He has shown what courage is. He has given people an idea of what courage and serving one's country can do. I think he has added tremendously to the process. Our Republican caucus met at noon, and he got the longest standing ovation he probably ever will get. Certainly it was heartfelt. I think everyone is very glad we are going to have him back and working with Members to put together many of the reforms about which we have been speaking. It happens that the bill we are discussing today was originally introduced by Senator McCain. He was the first to introduce the bill to repeal the earnings test on Social Security benefits. In 1935, when Social Security was passed, we had a very different senior citizen population and a very different need in our country. People didn't live as long. They were not as healthy. They were not as vigorous. They didn't want to work, by and large, after the age of 65. Today, if people want to work after the age of 65, they have contributed to Social Security all their lives, and they decide they want to take their benefits, what happens? They get docked. For every dollar over $17,000 a Social Security recipient receives, they lose $3 in their Social Security benefits. Today is not 1935. Today people are vigorous. Many people want to work. Many people want to supplement their incomes. We also have a need for more workers in this country. We have very low unemployment. Our high-tech companies are asking people to come back to work. They need skilled workers. Our service industry is burgeoning. It needs skilled workers. This group of senior citizens is among the best in our country, and they now have a surtax because they receive Social Security benefits. Let me give an example. If someone earns $26,000 a year and they are on Social Security, they lose $3,000 of their benefits. The average Social Security recipient receives $9,600 in benefits. So one-third of their benefits is lost if they go to work. What Senator McCain said is very important. The people to whom this matters most are the people who need it. It is not the person who has been fortunate in life and has investments; they are not worried about the $9,600 or $12,000 in Social Security benefits. It is the person who is living on $26,000 or $30,000 a year who wants to be able to work to add a little extra cushion. That is what was intended under Social Security; that would be a baseline. Hopefully, one would have the ability to have savings to add to their retirement security. Some people have not gotten the savings so they want to work. There is no reason in today's good times to severely penalize a solid worker, someone we actually need for our economy. I thank Senator Roth from Delaware and Senator Moynihan from New York for bringing this bill to the floor. Senator Ashcroft has been a great leader, as well as Senator McCain. Many have worked together on this. The bottom line is, this is an idea where the time has passed. It hasn't come, it has gone. We should have done this years ago. We have chipped away at it. We are on a roll right now to take that earnings test up to $30,000 from $17,000. That is not good enough. We can eliminate it. This is the right thing to do. This is the time to do it. We have a burgeoning economy. We need the workers. We need the high- tech employees. We need these solid citizens in our economy. If they want to be here, they should have the choice. I urge our colleagues to pass this quickly. I hope we can pass it cleanly, get it to the President, and give these people the opportunity to make their choices in their senior years. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this year commemorates the 88th anniversary of the founding of this outstanding organization and designates the week of March 11, 2000 as National Girl Scout week. I am joined in supporting this resolution by Senator Mikulski and Senator Hatch. On March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America became the first national organization for girls to be granted a Federal charter by Congress. The Girl Scout Organization has long been dedicated to inspiring girls and young women with the highest ideals of character, conduct, and service to others to that they may become model citizens in their communities. It is not easy growing up, particularly in today's society. The Girl Scouts is one organization that has consistently guided young women in their formative years. For 88 years, the Girl Scout movement has provided valuable leadership skills for countless girls and young women across the nation. Today, overall membership in the Girl Scouts is the highest it has been in 26 years, with 2.7 million girls and over 850,000 adult volunteers. I am proud to say that I, too, was a Girl Scout. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Mikulski in support of this legislation which designates the week beginning March 11, 2000, as ``National Girl Scout Week.'' I ask our colleagues to join us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the high gasoline prices that every one of our constituents is finding at the gas pump today and about the rise in home heating oil prices my friends from Maine and Vermont were talking about that are hurting their States so much. In fact, I commend Senator Murkowski for holding a hearing today in the Energy Committee to talk about this issue and what we can do to address it. I was slated to be one of the people testifying at the hearing, but because I was visiting with education leaders from my State, I could not be there and missed the hearing. I want to speak on this issue because this is a crisis coming down the road. For the people in Maine and Vermont, it is here already. But for our constituents who are going to try to take vacations this summer, it is going to hit them right between the eyes because gasoline prices at the pump are going up, and I see no relief in sight. The common refrain today is, the United States has no energy policy. That is not really accurate. The United States does have an energy policy, and it is the wrong one. Our policy is to restrict domestic exploration, and in those areas where exploration is permitted, there are punitive taxes and regulations on producers. The result is that at periods of low prices, such as we had last year--prices on which a small producer cannot break even--those producers leave the business and they do not come back. The fact is, when it comes to our most precious commodity, we do not control our own destiny. We are seeing our Energy Secretary going hat in hand to foreign countries and saying: Please, produce more oil. Worse, we had plenty of opportunity to address this crisis. It did not just happen in a vacuum. In 1998 and 1999, crude oil prices hit their lowest point in decades: $9 a barrel, $8 a barrel. Hundreds of thousands of small wells shut down, and thousands of jobs were lost. Of course, it made us more vulnerable because we lost the production. We have ignored this cycle since the oil price shock of the 1970s. Our dependence on oil from foreign countries is now at 55 percent. Energy-producing and energy-consuming States share two interests: Maintaining a large and reliable source of energy in our own country, and reducing volatility in oil and gas prices. Unfortunately, the measures proposed by this administration to address the current crisis in home heating oil will not address either of these priorities. There is talk about increased funding for the Energy Department Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps homeowners make their homes more efficient. Others support an increase in the Federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to provide heating assistance to low-income families. We are discussing a temporary adjustment of EPA sulfur content limits in home heating oil. I have seen requests for additional appropriations for the Coast Guard icebreaking efforts in waterways. We are even considering getting the Federal Government into the price-fixing business by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These are stopgap measures. But the most important thing is, if we enacted all of them, it would not solve the problem. We need a policy that encourages domestic production that is sustainable when prices go below break even. While the problem is fairly localized now, we are going to see long gas lines this summer or we are going to see people not taking their summer vacations. Instead, we need the quick fixes--we need to address some of those areas that need fixing right now for low-income families--and we need an energy policy that goes along with it that will sustain domestic production through the busts we have seen in the last 2 years. We need price stability. The first step toward breaking that cycle is a simple one: Understanding that cold Vermont households and out-of-work Texas wildcatters are two sides of the same coin--our overdependence on foreign energy sources. At the heart of our growing dependence on overseas sources has been the steady decline in the number of small producers. Wildcatters--small producers--once drilled more than 9,000 wells a year. Last year, there were 778. You wonder why we have an oil shortage? Many of these wells are so small that once they close, they cannot be reopened; it is not financially sound to do so. What are we talking about? What is a wildcatter? A wildcatter is a person who has a well that produces 15 barrels or fewer a day. There were close to 500,000 such wells across the United States. Together, those wells, at just 15 barrels a day, have the capacity to produce 20 percent of America's energy needs. This is roughly the same amount of oil that is imported from Saudi Arabia. During last year's oil price plummet, more than one-fourth of these small wells closed, most of them for good. We have it within our capacity, in our country, to produce that 20 percent of the oil that is consumed here, which is the same amount we are importing from Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming majority of producing wells in Texas are these marginal wells. In fact, marginal wells account for 75 percent of all crude production for small independent operators, up to 50 percent for midsized independents and 20 percent for large companies. So even the major companies can make a go of it with the small wells if we do not saddle them with so many costs that it is not financially feasible. A more sensible energy policy would be to offer tax relief to producers of these smaller wells; that would help them stay in business even when prices fall below break even. For 2 years I have been working with my great cosponsors--Senators Domenici, Nickles, Breaux, and Landrieu--on legislation that would provide incentives to these small producers. When they can stay in business during these low prices, supply will go up and we will not see that supply shortage causing high price spikes. I think our legislation provides a quite reasonable tax credit: A $3- a-barrel tax credit for only the first three barrels of daily production in one of these small wells. We offer similar credits for small gas wells. The marginal oil well credit would be phased out when prices of oil and natural gas actually go up. For oil, it would phase out at $14 to $17 a barrel. We are not talking about having tax credits today when we are paying $30 a barrel for oil; we are talking about tax credits when the price falls below break even. At 14 to 17 barrels a day, a small producer can make it. So when the price goes up, the tax credit goes out. The tax credit is only for the first three barrels in a well. A countercyclical system such as this would keep these producers alive during these record-low prices. They are not grabbing when the price is $20 a barrel; they are trying to stay in business and keep those jobs when the price goes below break even. There is another benefit to encouraging marginal well production. It has a multiplier effect. In 1997, these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid to State governments. These revenues were used for State and local schools, highways, and other State-funded projects. Another part of our plan is to offer incentives to restart inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the cost of doing so. So going in and trying to reopen a well that has been capped, which is very expensive, could be done with a tax exemption for the expenses of doing it, and that would ensure greater oil availability and increase Federal and State tax revenues. Everyone would win--more jobs, more tax revenue for our States, and, most importantly, more domestic oil. Actual results have shown that this can work. In my home State of Texas, a program similar to this has met with huge success. Over 6,000 wells have been returned to production, with State tax abatements injecting $1.6 billion into the Texas economy in a year. Think what we could do nationwide. A recent study by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission examined State incentive programs and found that the average program attracts $1.1 billion in investment over its lifetime, with over $50 million in net tax collections typically associated with each incentive. That incentive will create 6,000 jobs and $16 billion in impact for the States. There is more to do. We should look for ways to reduce the cost of excessive regulation on our domestic producers. This was what the fight we had last year over MMS royalty valuation was about. Some said it was a giveaway to big oil. It wasn't. It was about keeping costs low so we don't push more producers out of business. Maybe those paying record prices for home heating oil and gas today have a different perspective on that issue now. The MMS is going to release its new oil royalty valuations tomorrow, and I challenge everyone to see if they raise the price of drilling for oil on public lands. If they do, the President is just saying, yes, we are going to continue that policy to try to keep domestic production down so we can be held by the throat by OPEC countries. The overlapping regulations that govern exploration and production and refinement add $4 to $5 a barrel to the cost of oil. Compare that with the overall cost of production in Saudi Arabia, including capital and labor, of $2 to $3 a barrel. Is it any wonder that oil companies are drilling in Saudi Arabia instead of in our country, providing jobs for our citizens? Our fight last year on MMS was over the opposition to adding yet another complicated scheme of rules and further raising the cost of production. When gas prices were low, few Senators were listening. In fact, the major television networks weren't listening either. They were pretty brutal during that debate. Today we are seeing the results of that brutality. We don't have to be at the whim of market forces. We don't have to be out of control of our own domestic oil production. What we need is to be part of the price setting, not the price taking. We must increase our domestic oil supply. This is something we can all rally around. I will work with the Northeastern Senators to get quick fixes to their problems. I will work with all of the Senators whose constituents are going to be affected by high gasoline prices. But let us not do a quick fix without also having a longer term fix that would keep our jobs in America, that would keep our oil prices stable, that would keep the revenue coming into our States for schools and highways at a time when prices go below break even. We can have a win for everyone, if we can pass legislation that will provide help for everybody and provide a stable oil supply for our country. We have the opportunity to create a domestic policy for oil and gas in this country that makes sense and will benefit all of our constituents. Let us take that chance. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business, after which Senator Gramm be recognized to go back to the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an important point in our history and that is to commemorate this day 164 years ago, Texas Independence Day. Each year, I look forward to March 2d. This is a special day for Texans, a day that fills our hearts with pride. On this day 164 years ago, a solemn convention of 54 men, including my great, great grandfather Charles S. Taylor, met in the small settlement of Washington-on-the-Brazos. There they signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. The declaration stated: We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare . . . that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic. At the time, Texas was a remote territory of Mexico. It was hospitable only to the bravest and most determined of settlers. After declaring our independence, the founding delegates quickly wrote a constitution and organized an interim government for the newborn republic. As was the case when the American Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, our declaration only pointed the way toward a goal. It would exact a price of enormous effort and great sacrifice. My great, great grandfather was there, signing the declaration of independence. As most of the delegates did, he went on eventually to fight the Battle of San Jacinto. He didn't know it at the time, but all four of his children who had been left back at home in Nacogdoches died trying to escape from the Indians and the Mexicans who they feared were coming after them. Fortunately, he and his wife, my great, great grandmother, had nine more children. But it is just an example of the sacrifices that were made by people who were willing to fight for something they believed in. That, of course, was freedom. While the convention sat in Washington-on-the-Brazos, 6,000 Mexican troops held the Alamo under siege, challenging this newly created republic. Several days earlier, from the Alamo, Col. William Barrett Travis sent his immortal letter to the people of Texas and to all Americans. He knew the Mexican Army was approaching and he knew that he had only a very few men to help defend the San Antonio fortress. Colonel Travis wrote: Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.--William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander. What American, Texan or otherwise, can fail to be stirred by Col. Travis' resolve? In fact, Colonel Travis' dire prediction came true-- 4,000 to 5,000 Mexican troops laid siege to the Alamo. In the battle that followed, 184 brave men died in a heroic but vain attempt to fend off Santa Anna's overwhelming army. But the Alamo, as we all in Texas know, was crucial to Texas' independence. Because those heroes at the Alamo held out for so long, Santa Anna's forces were battered and diminished. Gen. Sam Houston gained the time he needed to devise a strategy to defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, just a month or so later, on April 21, 1836. The Lone Star was visible on the horizon at last. Each year, on March 2, there is a ceremony at Washington-on-the- Brazos State Park where there is a replica of the modest cabin where the 54 patriots pledged their lives, honor, and treasure for freedom. On this day, I read Colonel Travis' letter to my colleagues in the Senate, a tradition started by my friend, the late Senator John Tower. This is a reminder to them and to all of us of the pride Texans share in our history and in being the only State that came into the Union as a republic. Mr. President, I am pleased to continue the tradition that was started by Senator Tower, because we do have a unique heritage in Texas where we fought for our freedom. Having grown up in the family and hearing the stories of my great great grandfather, it was something that was ingrained in us--fighting for your freedom was something you did. I think it is very important that we remember the people who sacrificed, the 184 men who died at the Alamo, the men who died at Goliad later that same month. Their deaths gave birth to Texas Independence and we became a nation, a status we enjoyed for 10 years before we entered the Union as a State. I might add, we entered the Union by a margin of one vote, both in the House and in the Senate. In fact, we originally were going to come into the Union through a treaty, but the two-thirds vote could not be received and, therefore, President Tyler said, ``No, then we will pass a law to invite Texas to become a part of our Union,'' and the law passed by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate. I am very pleased to, once again, commemorate our great heritage and history.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, does the Senator want me to set it aside?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to accommodate whatever works. Is my amendment the pending amendment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment adds flexibility to our school systems. I am working with Senator Jeffords and his committee, and Senator Leahy as well, on the ESEA reauthorization. I wish to lay down the marker with this amendment because I think it is the key to what we are talking about. We are trying to give parents more options for their children to make the choices that are best for each child. One of the problems we have in high-needs schools across our country is that we do not have qualified teachers to teach subjects that will benefit young people all over our country. It may be computer courses. It may be language courses. Yet we have people who have had careers-- people in the military, people in corporations and businesses--who may be proficient in French and they may live in an area where the school is not able to teach French because they do not have a qualified teacher. This would be a big benefit to the young people in that school system if they had that as an option. It may be the Russian language or the Chinese language. It may be computer skills. It may be chemistry or biology classes. There are so many areas, but they just are not teacher qualified. My bill, which is called Careers to Classrooms, is being offered as an amendment to give more flexibility to the States by allowing them to go to a high-needs school and give priority in that high-needs school to recruiting teachers. My amendment also encourages a certification process that will bring the teacher up to speed quickly. It is an expedited certification process so the teacher will not have to wait a whole year to go into the classroom but can go through an expedited certification process by that State. It is important we replicate the programs that have succeeded. My Careers to Classrooms amendment replicates the Troops to Teachers Program that has been in place and has been very successful. It uses retired military people who have experience in the military which they can transfer to the classroom and enrich educational opportunities for our young people. This allows people in the private sector to do the same. This is similar, but not the same, as the Graham amendment. The Graham amendment goes toward the universities being able to have programs. Mine is for the States to put these programs in place. I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it adds an enriching experience for the classrooms, particularly in high-needs schools, whether it be in an urban community that does not have access to teachers or in our rural areas. I happen to know of a case involving a woman who was a French major in college. She had taught French in private schools. She moved to a small town in Texas where they wanted to offer French in the high school. She wanted to teach it, but she could not because she did not have the teacher certification. This is made to order for this situation. This is a French language major who taught French in private schools and who wants to give this opportunity to a small Texas high school. I want her to be able to do that because we know those students will be enriched by having that option. I urge the adoption of my amendment. I hope we can offer this kind of enrichment to schools all over our country by giving the States this option. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if I can ask approval of my amendment. Does he want a voice vote?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2860.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I am very pleased to support the bill. Of course, I acknowledge the leadership of Senator Coverdell and Senator Roth. They have been the leaders in trying to give more choices to more parents in our country to do what is best for their children. In Washington, sometimes we get a one-size-fits-all mentality, but everyone knows that every child in this country is different and every child has different needs. What we should be doing in Washington is giving parents the ability to choose what is best for their particular child. That is what S. 1134 does. The Affordable Education Act of 1999 is exactly what this country needs to empower parents to do the best for their children. Our goal is to give every child the opportunity to succeed in this country. No child can succeed without a good education. This bill is simple and it is compelling. We have in the law now an education IRA. It allows post-tax contributions to be invested and then used tax free for college tuition and other costs. This is a great idea. Once again, Senator Coverdell and Senator Roth led us to pass this bill. It creates an added incentive for Americans to save, particularly at a time when Americans have a negative savings rate. It encourages more Americans to think about and plan for and pay for college for their children. More college-educated Americans mean more higher-income Americans; it means more tax revenues to offset the lost revenues. If ever there was a win-win tax policy, this is it. So why would anyone oppose expanding this tremendously successful program for K through 12 education expenses? We have a high school dropout rate that is unacceptably high for the greatest country on Earth. We have children who are unable to afford basic supplies, much less computers. We have children literally trapped in failed schools. I support this bill because I support the ability of parents to choose what is best for their children. This bill ensures the maximum possible flexibility for parents. If they wish to save for college and use the proceeds to pay for college tuition on a tax-free basis, they can do that. If they want to use the proceeds to purchase band uniforms for their child, they can do that--or books or computers or anything that would relate to the education or development of their children. And yes, parents can use the accounts for private or parochial school tuition--which forms the core of the opposition to this bill by the President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am not going to apologize for supporting a bill that allows working families to save their own hard-earned money to send their children to the school that will give them the best choice and the best start in life. It takes not one penny from the public schools in this country. I do not apologize for supporting that because I know working-class Texans who have told me they want the choice to send their child to a school that they think is the best. Choice is what this bill is all about. Choice is at the heart of a provision that I offered to this bill last year, which was passed on the Senate floor before being vetoed by President Clinton. That amendment would, for the first time, make Federal funds available for public single-sex schools and classrooms as long as comparable educational opportunities were made available for students of both sexes. The Senate overwhelmingly approved this amendment on two previous occasions. I am confident it will again because I am going to bring it up on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act scheduled to be taken up later this year in the Senate. I might say, Senator Collins, who is sitting in the Chair today, is a very strong supporter of this amendment. I appreciate her leadership on this issue. She has talked to parents in Maine who have wanted to be able to send their children to a single-sex classroom because they know that child would be able to do better in that environment, but they have been discouraged by the Department of Education. So because of that experience, because Senator Collins listened to her constituents in Maine, we are now going to team up and let every child in America have the choice that the parent in Maine wants for her child. I offered that provision to help remove the cloud of doubt that was hanging over the education community about what the Federal Government would do if parents decided this is what they wanted, and they went to the school board and asked for the authorization of a same-gender school or classroom. The amendment is simple. It adds the establishment and operation of same-gender schools and classrooms to the list of allowable uses for funds under title VI, the Federal innovation education block grant program. This amendment is necessary because for too long the Department of Education has discouraged States and public schools from pursuing voluntary single-sex programs, despite the clear benefits that such programs have for some students and despite the fact that they would only be offered where parents asked for it and support it. Ask almost any student or graduate of a same-gender school, most of whom are from private or parochial schools, and they will almost all tell you--enthusiastically--that they were enriched and strengthened by their experience. Surveys and studies of students show that at certain levels of education, for some students, both boys and girls enrolled in same- gender programs tend to be more confident, more focused on their studies, and ultimately more successful in school, as well as later in their careers. Both sexes report feeling a camaraderie and a sense of peer and teacher support that they do not encounter to the same degree in coeducational classrooms. Teachers, too, report fewer control and discipline problems--something almost any teacher will tell you can consume a good part of classtime. Inevitably, these positive student attitudes translate into academic results. Study after study has demonstrated that girls and boys in same-gender schools, on average, are academically more successful and ambitious than their coeducational counterparts. These results and benefits of same-gender education for hundreds of thousands of American students and their families can be an option in public schools as well as parochial and private. Susan Estrich, a professor of law at the University of California, stated in a recently syndicated article regarding the amendment: Without boys in the classroom, researchers have found, girls speak up more, take more science and math, and end up getting more Ph.D.s, and serve on more corporate boards. While the benefits of single-sex education for boys have been less well-documented, there is at least anecdotal evidence that boys' schools in the inner cities, where discipline is stressed and positive male role models emphasized, may result in lower dropout rates and higher test scores. I believe this is an idea that should be an option for every parent. It is not a mandate. It is not even a recommendation. It is just an option. Why not let the parents have the full range of choices in public school? That is what the innovation provision of title VI is supposed to do. We also hear a lot on the Senate floor about the need to hire more teachers and to reduce class size. Many on the other side of the aisle think the answer to the growing teacher shortage is to simply have the Federal Government hire more teachers, pay for a fraction of their salaries, and force local school districts to pick up the rest. I think there is a better approach and one that will not only ensure that more teachers are hired but that better teachers are also hired, teachers with real-world experience and knowledge that can be translated into the classroom. Called Careers to Classrooms, my proposal would build on a tremendously successful Department of Defense program that takes experienced, qualified military service men and women and helps them transition into the classroom as teachers. The program seeks out and helps place members of the military, with at least 10 years of service and skills, in high-need areas such as math, science, computers, and language skills. It also helps many of them with stipends while they get their certification, which usually comes through a streamlined certification process. Careers to Classrooms takes this successful model and applies it to civilian professionals interested in sharing their knowledge with public school students. Under this program, individuals with demonstrable skills in high-need areas, such as computers or foreign languages, would be helped to find a school that has a need for teachers in their field. It would provide assistance to the school to hire the individual while they obtain their certification--again, under a streamlined process. This is another example of a win-win for a career person who would like to go into a different career, would like to go into teaching, happens to be able to speak French or Russian or Italian or Chinese, and would like to offer that to a school that can't offer it to students because they don't have a qualified teacher. This approach is far less costly than simply paying the salaries of new teachers regardless of their expertise or background. While there is no question our teachers need to be paid, and paid well, this is an area that has been left to the discretion of our States and local school districts throughout the history of this Nation. Our Nation's parents and their children do not need more Federal control, more bureaucracy, and more redtape. I had a teacher come to one of my townhall meetings in a small town in north Texas. The teacher was about to go out of her mind. She brought me the number of forms she has to fill out. It was this tall-- this tall--with pages she has to fill out just to be a teacher in this very small school district in north Texas. That is not what our teachers need. What we need is to empower our parents with greater choices to find the education path that is best for each individual child in this country. We need to give teachers the ability to teach rather than have more Federal mandates. We need to make options available, and we need to do it in an innovative and flexible manner. Heaping more money on a failed system has been exhaustive to our teachers, to our principals, to our superintendents, to our parents, and to our children. The policies of the past have failed. The Affordable Education Act and the two additional proposals I have outlined are policies of the future, policies that will enable every child in this country to fulfill his or her potential. That is our goal. How we get there is the debate we are having today. I want to do it with flexibility, with options and empowerment of parents. That is what Senator Coverdell and Senator Roth are giving us the opportunity to pass. I urge my colleagues to support this very good piece of legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Kansas for joining me today to talk about this very important issue. The House is getting ready to take action. We have spoken once on this issue. We have taken the lead to give relief to the hard-working taxpayers of our country. We do not think people should have to choose between having the money they earn to spend for their families or sending it to Washington, when it is already in excess because we have income tax withholding surpluses. I appreciate the leadership of Senators Ashcroft and Brownback on this issue. We will not give up. We will not walk away from this issue. Before we leave the Senate, the married people of this country will be treated equally by the IRS Code across the board. It is our responsibility, and we will not walk away from it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, for the next 30 minutes, we are going to talk about a subject that I think perhaps is the highest priority we have in Congress, and that is to correct a terrible inequity in the tax laws of our country--a penalty that we exact on married couples. You may ask, penalty on married couples? Are you serious? Well, the fact is, yes, I am serious. The Tax Code, over the years, has not kept up with what has happened in our country demographically, which is that over 64 percent of the married couples in this country today have two incomes; both spouses work outside the home, in addition to working inside the home. The Tax Code has not caught up to treating them fairly when they get married. In fact, what has happened is that we have not increased the standard deduction to be double for a two-income-earning couple; nor have we expanded the tax brackets for a two-income-earning couple. So if you take the example of a schoolteacher and a sheriff's deputy or a policeman, one of whom makes $27,000 a year, the other of whom makes $31,000 a year, they will pay an extra $717 in taxes just because they got married. Now, generally, this is a young couple who is getting married, who need the extra money now more than ever. It is a couple who want to buy their first home, want to have their first child, want to buy the extra car they will need to fulfill their responsibilities. But, in fact, we take money away from their ability to fulfill their hopes and dreams. Americans should not have to choose between love and money and, most certainly, the Government should not encourage this. We need to have policies that encourage marriage, encourage families. I read an interesting article recently pointing out that marriage is one of the key factors in determining poverty. One in three poor families is headed by an unmarried parent. In contrast, 1 in 20 married couples are considered to be in poverty. So being married is one of the factors in people being able to lift themselves out of poverty. So, of course, knowing this, we should be even more attuned to this inequity. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 21 million married couples are paying this penalty; that is, 42 million Americans are paying a higher tax because they are married. This tax hits hardest those couples with two incomes. Two-thirds of those married couples, that have two incomes, will pay a tax penalty simply for being married. These couples are paying an average of $1,400 more; that is $29 billion in taxes being sent to Washington--money which our Treasury should not be receiving--$29 billion in money just because people are married and not single. Why are many people working? In many instances, it is because of the incredibly high tax burden. We have the highest tax burden since World War II on families in this country. Nearly 40 percent of the income families earn goes straight to the tax collector. How can we solve this problem? We can start by increasing the standard deduction for married couples from $7,200 to $8,600. This would make it exactly double what is available to single taxpayers. Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, and myself have introduced legislation to do exactly this. That should be our very first step. In fact, that is exactly what the Congress passed last year and sent to the President, but he vetoed it. It was part of a balanced tax package that would have put $790 billion back in the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. But the President chose to veto that legislation. This same legislation was introduced this week by Congressman Archer, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on the House side. His legislation would increase the standard deduction in 2001 for married couples to twice the rate applicable to singles. The second thing we can do is to widen the tax bracket for married couples so that it is twice the size of the corresponding bracket for singles. Let me give you an example. A married couple is taxed at the 15-percent rate up to $43,350 in income. But if two single people make the same salary, they could be taxed at 15 percent on income up to $50,700. That means $7,350 is taxed just because people are married. We need to change this policy. Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, and myself have introduced a bill that would adjust every bracket so that married couples would not pay a penalty. They would not go into higher tax brackets just because they are married. If one person makes $20,000 a year, and another makes $55,000 a year, they should pay taxes on what they earned, not putting it together and penalizing them by making the entire $20,000 that is earned by one spouse to be taxed at the higher 28-percent bracket of the other spouse. This week, Congressman Archer introduced legislation that would widen the 15-percent bracket. This is clearly the right direction. But I also want to make sure we don't forget those people in the 28-percent bracket. They get hit hard by the marriage penalty as well. The people who move up to the 28-percent bracket when they are earning the 15- percent bracket salaries should not pay that penalty. That is what we are trying to correct. Senator Ashcroft, Senator Brownback, and I have introduced this legislation for 3 straight years. We have tried to get the President to sign tax relief for our married taxpayers. Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee reported legislation out, and it will be considered on the House floor next week. This is a great step forward. It is a step in the right direction. I commend Chairman Archer for acting so quickly. I hope we can pass a balanced tax bill this year. I hope we can make the linchpin of that bill the marriage tax penalty relief. But that is not the only tax relief that our people in this country deserve, and the working families deserve. They also deserve tax credits for education expenses, and tax credits for caring for elderly parents, which is becoming a bigger problem--a bigger issue--as our population is aging. We want to make sure small businesses and farmers and ranches don't have to be broken up because of the inheritance tax. We want to try to make sure we have capital gains tax reductions so that people will be encouraged to invest in our country to help spur our economy forward. We have a lot of wage earners who will be coming into our economic system. We want to make sure we can absorb them. The way we can do this is by creating new jobs. The way you create new jobs is to invest in capital. I want a balanced, good tax cut bill. I want to say very clearly that we are not talking about taking the entire surplus and giving it back to the taxpayers of our country. We have bifurcated our surplus. We have said that trillion dollar plus in surplus funds that belongs to Social Security is going to stay in Social Security, so that will always be there. It will be part of a trust fund, and Social Security will be safe forever. What we are talking about is an income tax withholding surplus. This is the surplus that people have sent to Washington in income taxes--not Social Security taxes. We are talking about taking approximately one- third of the income tax withholding surplus and giving it back to the people who sent it to Washington because it is very clear that if we don't give it back to the people who sent too much, it will sit here and it will eventually go away. There is nothing like the creativity of the Federal Government when it comes to spending more money. Mr. President, we want to give people the bonus they have sent to the Federal Government back. We want them to make the decisions for their children about how they are going to spend the money they earned that belongs to them. That is the bonus they deserve. We are going to make marriage tax penalty relief the linchpin of our balanced tax cut plan, and we are going to put in capital gains tax relief and inheritance tax relief and relief for people who are sending their children to college, or perhaps to a private school that has a huge tuition fee. That is very difficult for the family to absorb. Sometimes when I talk to my friends and people who I meet in airports and in cities I visit, the second spouse is working for education expenses for their children, or for the expense of caring for an elderly parent. We want to help them. I think we can get a balanced tax cut for the working people of this country that will give them the relief they deserve because they sent more money to Washington than we need for the services we must cover. I am very proud that I have two cosponsors who have worked so diligently with me to try to keep this issue in the forefront of issues the Senate will address. Senator Ashcroft from Missouri and Senator Brownback from Kansas have been cosponsors of my legislation every time we have tried to push it through. Last year, we won. But the President said no. We are coming back until we win this for the married couples of this country so they get the money they earned in their pocketbooks to decide what is best for their families--not somebody in Washington, DC, they have never met making that decision for them. I am proud Senator Brownback is here to talk about how this affects families in Kansas, his home State. And later I am hoping Senator Ashcroft will be able to also come and talk about the legislation we have tried so hard to push through, and which I hope this year will be the one that we see the victory for the hard-working people of our country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I extend my congratulations to Alan Greenspan. I think the Senate has done exactly what it should have done, which is overwhelmingly approve the nomination of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He has been in that position for 13 years and has guided our country on a very even keel while going through an economy that could have been volatile but because of his leadership has not been. I look forward to continuing this long string of prosperity in the economy we have been able to have under the leadership of Chairman Greenspan.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the exception of myself, and that I be permitted to control up to 30 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Alan Greenspan's nomination as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Many years from now, historians may look at the Clinton Presidency and say that the best decision he made in office was to keep Alan Greenspan at the helm of the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan, the individual, is a man of unquestioned integrity and intellect. I have known him for over two decades. He is truly one of our finest public servants. He has served at the Federal Reserve since 1987, and a steady hand at the wheel he has been. When the economy could have been volatile with a less experienced person, having him there caused the seas to be more tranquil. As my colleague Senator Gramm has said, he may be the finest central banker we have ever had in the United States or, for that matter, the world has ever known. In fact, it is the example he has shown that has caused many other countries to realize the importance of having a central bank of transparency, of having someone who is not political at the helm of Federal Reserve policy. This example is going to strengthen many new democracies we are seeing in the world today, and his example will be the one they follow. I find it curious that there are some in opposition to this nomination, and it is really ironic in light of yesterday's headlines that the economic expansion that began in 1991 is now the longest in American history. That did not happen by accident. It did not happen by luck. It happened because there was a steady hand at the wheel. That may not be the only reason we have had economic expansion. Our creativity, the spirit of entrepreneurship in our country, also has a part in that. But if we had someone who was trigger happy at the Fed, someone who would jump too quickly and too far, it could have caused a very different result. I am very pleased that the President has renominated Alan Greenspan. There is an old saying: If it ``ain't'' broke, don't fix it. It seems to me some of the Senators I have heard on the floor today speaking in opposition to Alan Greenspan's renomination are fixing a Maytag. In fact, this ``ain't'' broke, and the last thing we need to do is tinker with something that is working very well. America is enjoying an unprecedented economic expansion. Of course, Alan Greenspan's steady hand at the Federal Reserve Board has allowed our economy to flourish and not be crippled by high inflation or interest rates. It has not been an easy task. Every time the Federal Open Market Committee meets, the airwaves are full of people saying the Fed either made the right decision or the wrong decision, they should have done more, they should have done less. It is a careful balancing act, but I can think of no one I would be happier to have in charge than Dr. Greenspan. He knows the power of his words. Many times I have been in the audience when he has spoken, and he is very careful not to overstep. He knows that what he says is going to affect the stock market, and he does not want to have such an impact. He himself jokes sometimes to audiences: If you think you understand what I am about to say, you have misunderstood. He does not want to do something that is going to have a drastic impact, that will have a 1-day impact or a 2-day impact or a 1-week impact. What he wants is to have a steady, noninflationary atmosphere so we will not have interest rates that are too high, interest rates that are too low, an economy that is too hot, an economy that is not hot enough. He understands these issues because of his experience. We do not know what our economic future holds, but this much we do know: Whatever economic ups or downs may confront us in the future, and particularly economic ups and downs of other countries which we cannot control, the person most capable of dealing with them is Alan Greenspan. With him in charge, we are much more likely to avoid economic pitfalls for our country. I urge the Senate to approve his nomination. I am certain it will. From the speeches I have heard on the floor today, the overwhelming sentiment is going to be to confirm Alan Greenspan. He has been at the Federal Reserve for 13 years. He has presided over the greatest economic expansion in the world, and most surely we will be in our strongest position to withstand whatever might hit us in the future if we have someone with his experience, his integrity, and his intellect at the head of the Federal Reserve Board. I hope my colleagues will confirm him tomorrow and that it will be an overwhelming vote. The time has come for us to move on this important nomination. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use as much time under Senator Gramm's time allotment as I may consume.

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 today to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, the American Hospital Preservation Act. This legislation builds upon legislation we introduced last year to preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the highest level of health care to be found anywhere in the world. The bill will fully restore scheduled cuts in annual inflation adjustments for in-patient services given to hospitals under the Medicare program. Mr. President, last year Congress passed legislation restoring almost $17 billion over five years in scheduled cuts and reductions in increases in provider reimbursement payments for various Medicare services. While some of these cuts were mandated by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, or ``BBA,'' which laid the historic foundation for the balanced federal budget we enjoy today, many more of the cuts and the dramatic impact of some of the cuts came as a direct result of policies and practices of the Health Care Financing Administration. All told, Medicare providers faced an estimated $200 billion in reduced payments over the next five years, far in excess of the 1997 estimate of $116 billion in savings. On top of this, in 1999 the Clinton Administration proposed an additional $9 billion in cuts from the Medicare program, on top of the BBA savings. All of this began to spell disaster for American hospitals, the backbone of our nation's health care delivery system and those health care providers most heavily dependent on, and sensitive to, the Medicare system. Last year, I and many of my colleagues in Congress began to hear from hospital administrators, trustees, and health professionals that they were struggling to maintain their quality and variety of health services in the face of mounting budgetary pressures. With the HCFA-imposed cuts they were seeing, many well-reputed and efficiently run hospitals even began for the first time to run deficits and to project closure in the next few years. For many of these hospitals, particularly those in the rural areas of our nation, to close would mean not only the loss of life-saving medical services to the residents of the area, but also the loss of one of the core components of the local community. Jobs would be lost, businesses would wither, and the sense of community and stability that a local hospital brings would suffer. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act Congress passed last year made the situation a little brighter for a number 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 (``DiSh'') payments, and it provides targeted relief for teaching hospitals and cancer and rehabilitation hospitals. I was particularly pleased that the bill contained a portion of the legislation I introduced last year, an expanded version of which I am introducing today. While my bill proposed restoring in-patient inflation adjustments for all hospitals, the final legislative package included such relief only for fiscal year 2000 and only for designated ``sole community provider'' hospitals. While this was a step in the right direction, more must be done not only to ensure survival among our nation's hospitals, but also to ensure that they continue to be able to provide the highest level and quality of care that they can to their patients. Hospitals continue to struggle to meet the continued rise in personnel costs, prescription drugs, and blood supplies, just to name a few areas. And this is coming at a time when hospitals are being doubly squeezed by the pressures of flat or reduced government health care reimbursement rates and the rapid growth of cost-conscious managed care private insurance. The bill we are introducing today will make sure that hospitals are able to adjust to these changes by ensuring that their Medicare payments for their in-patient services actually keep up with the rate of hospital inflation. It will restore the full 1.1 percent in scheduled reductions from the annual inflation updates for in-patient services called for by the BBA. Moreover, rather than just applying to a small group of hospitals, this legislation would benefit every hospital in America, providing an estimated $6.9 billion in additional Medicare payments over the next five years. Mr. President, I realize that this bill will require some budgetary offset, and that the overall goal of maintaining a solvent and strong Medicare system for our nation's seniors is and will remain the overriding goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this bill meets that objective and fits within our overall budget constraints. But I believe that, as we enter a new millennium and a new era of medical breakthroughs the likes of which we can only now dream about, we simply must continue to invest in the core infrastructure of our nation's health delivery system--our hospitals. Doing so will ensure the future health and longevity of all Americans. This bill will take a significant step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, the American Hospital Preservation Act. This legislation builds upon legislation we introduced last year to preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the highest level of health care to be found anywhere in the world. The bill will fully restore scheduled cuts in annual inflation adjustments for in-patient services given to hospitals under the Medicare program. Mr. President, last year Congress passed legislation restoring almost $17 billion over five years in scheduled cuts and reductions in increases in provider reimbursement payments for various Medicare services. While some of these cuts were mandated by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, or ``BBA,'' which laid the historic foundation for the balanced federal budget we enjoy today, many more of the cuts and the dramatic impact of some of the cuts came as a direct result of policies and practices of the Health Care Financing Administration. All told, Medicare providers faced an estimated $200 billion in reduced payments over the next five years, far in excess of the 1997 estimate of $116 billion in savings. On top of this, in 1999 the Clinton Administration proposed an additional $9 billion in cuts from the Medicare program, on top of the BBA savings. All of this began to spell disaster for American hospitals, the backbone of our nation's health care delivery system and those health care providers most heavily dependent on, and sensitive to, the Medicare system. Last year, I and many of my colleagues in Congress began to hear from hospital administrators, trustees, and health professionals that they were struggling to maintain their quality and variety of health services in the face of mounting budgetary pressures. With the HCFA-imposed cuts they were seeing, many well-reputed and efficiently run hospitals even began for the first time to run deficits and to project closure in the next few years. For many of these hospitals, particularly those in the rural areas of our nation, to close would mean not only the loss of life-saving medical services to the residents of the area, but also the loss of one of the core components of the local community. Jobs would be lost, businesses would wither, and the sense of community and stability that a local hospital brings would suffer. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act Congress passed last year made the situation a little brighter for a number 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 (``DiSh'') payments, and it provides targeted relief for teaching hospitals and cancer and rehabilitation hospitals. I was particularly pleased that the bill contained a portion of the legislation I introduced last year, an expanded version of which I am introducing today. While my bill proposed restoring in-patient inflation adjustments for all hospitals, the final legislative package included such relief only for fiscal year 2000 and only for designated ``sole community provider'' hospitals. While this was a step in the right direction, more must be done not only to ensure survival among our nation's hospitals, but also to ensure that they continue to be able to provide the highest level and quality of care that they can to their patients. Hospitals continue to struggle to meet the continued rise in personnel costs, prescription drugs, and blood supplies, just to name a few areas. And this is coming at a time when hospitals are being doubly squeezed by the pressures of flat or reduced government health care reimbursement rates and the rapid growth of cost-conscious managed care private insurance. The bill we are introducing today will make sure that hospitals are able to adjust to these changes by ensuring that their Medicare payments for their in-patient services actually keep up with the rate of hospital inflation. It will restore the full 1.1 percent in scheduled reductions from the annual inflation updates for in-patient services called for by the BBA. Moreover, rather than just applying to a small group of hospitals, this legislation would benefit every hospital in America, providing an estimated $6.9 billion in additional Medicare payments over the next five years. Mr. President, I realize that this bill will require some budgetary offset, and that the overall goal of maintaining a solvent and strong Medicare system for our nation's seniors is and will remain the overriding goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this bill meets that objective and fits within our overall budget constraints. But I believe that, as we enter a new millennium and a new era of medical breakthroughs the likes of which we can only now dream about, we simply must continue to invest in the core infrastructure of our nation's health delivery system--our hospitals. Doing so will ensure the future health and longevity of all Americans. This bill will take a significant step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Abraham, Kyl, and Gramm, I am proud to introduce Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 74, honoring the 75th anniversary of the United States Border Patrol. Mr. President, the men and women of the Border Patrol are our Nation's first line of defense in the war on drugs and illegal immigration. Since 1924, the Border Patrol has guarded some 8,000 miles of international boundaries, and has maintained a reputation for getting the job done. The Border Patrol story is one of long hours and hard work in defense of our country. The Department of Labor Appropriations Act of 1924 created a Border Patrol within the Bureau of Immigration, with an initial force of 450 Patrol Inspectors, a yearly budget of $1 million, and a yearly salary of $1,300 for each Patrol Inspector, with each patrolman furnishing their own house. The Border Patrol has grown from that initial force of 450 to more than 8,000 today, located in 146 stations under 21 sectors. The Border Patrol's officers have assisted in controlling civil disturbances, performing National security details, aided in foreign training and assessments, and responded with security and humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of numerous natural disasters. 86 agents and pilots have lost their lives in the line of duty--six in 1998 alone. By far, the Border Patrol's greatest challenge has come along our nation's Southwest Border, which is a sieve for illegal drugs and aliens. Last year, there were 6,359 drug seizures along the Southwest Border by the Border Patrol. These drugs had an estimated street value of $2 billion. There were also nearly 5 million illegal crossings. The Border Patrol and the Congress are responding to this challenge, providing funding to hire 1,000 new agents in fiscal year 2000, just as we have for the past two years. I hope that the Immigration and Naturalization Service will put these funds to good use, hiring these critical agents, and using other resources Congress has provided to improve the equipment and technology available to the Border Patrol. The United States Border Patrol has the difficult dual mission of protecting our borders and enforcing our immigration laws in a fair and humane manner. They do both very well under difficult conditions. I want to congratulate all who serve with the U.S. Border Patrol on this 75th anniversary and express to them to thanks of a grateful nation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me make a statement and then I am going to yield the remainder of my time to the cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Graham of Florida. The GAO report said that 1 percent may be trying to use the bankruptcy laws. Are we going to throw seniors out on the streets? Eighty-one percent of Americans 65 years or older are homeowners. Are we going to throw them out on the streets to try to get one person who is not using the system fairly? I do not think that is good policy. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Florida.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me say, the Governors of our country have written a very powerful letter saying: Do not do this. Do not set a Federal standard for homestead exemptions. The Governors wrote very clearly: We urge you to resist efforts to impose a uniform nationwide cap on homestead exemptions. The ability to determine their homestead exemptions has been a longstanding authority of States. Furthermore, the median price of a single family home varies from State to State. This is not something that should be a Federal approach. It has not been a Federal approach. Every Governor in our country is saying: Let us handle it. If the people of Wisconsin do not like the way they handle it in Texas, that does not hurt the people of Wisconsin. That should be a decision made at the local level based on local value, local traditions, and local law. Secondly, the National Conference of State Legislatures has written a letter along the same lines saying they are concerned that setting a law that would preempt State laws on homestead exemptions would not be in the best interest of the American people. I hope our Members will not break 130 years of precedent in this country to set yet another one-size-fits-all Federal solution. This is something very important to States, so important that some States have put it in their constitutions, and today voting against the Hutchison amendment for the Kohl-Sessions amendment will most certainly damage our ability to let the States make these determinations. Senator Brownback, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Rod Grams from Minnesota are cosponsors of this amendment. Many people are very concerned about this 130 years of precedent being overturned. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Grams.