Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Durbin, the IRA Rollover to Charity Act of 1999. This legislation has the support of numerous charitable organizations across the United States. The effect of this bill would be to unlock billions of dollars in savings Americans hold and make them available to charity. Mr. President, the legislation will allow individuals to roll assets from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) into a charity or a deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income tax consequences. Thus, the donation would be made to charity without ever withdrawing it as income and paying tax on it. Americans hold well over $1 trillion in assets in IRAs. Nearly half of America's families have IRAs. Recent studies show that assets of qualified retirement plans comprise a substantial part of the net worth of many persons. Many individuals would like to give a portion of these assets to charity. Under current law, if an IRA is transferred into a charitable remainder trust, donors are required to recognize all such income. Therefore, absent the changes called for in the legislation, the donor will have taxable income in the year the gift is funded. The IRA Rollover to Charity Act lifts the disincentives contained in our complicated and burdensome tax code and will unleash a critical source of funding for our nation's charities. This is a common sense way to remove obstacles to private charitable giving. Under the legislation, upon reaching age 59\1/2\, an individual could move assets penalty-free from an IRA directly to charity or into a qualifying deferred charitable gift plan--e.g. charitable reminder trusts, pooled income funds and gift annuities. In the latter case the donor would be able to receive an income stream from the retirement plan assets, which would be taxed according to normal rules. Upon the death of the individual, the remainder would be transferred to charity. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will join in this effort to provide a valuable new source of philanthropy for our nation's charities. This legislation has the support of numerous universities and charitable groups, including the Charitable Accord, an umbrella organization representing more than 1,000 organizations and associations. Mr. President, I have just returned from the Balkans. I have seen first hand the wonderful work that is being done by charitable groups in dealing with the massive refugee crisis that has occurred there. As terrible as this crisis has been, it would be worse if not for the great work that is being done by charitable groups. Our bill will help direct additional resources to those charities and thousands of others. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. This bill represents a necessary and workable proposal to ensure that the United States does not lose even more of its energy independence. Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state of unprecedented crisis. Over the last year-and-a-half, oil and gas prices have been a historic lows. This has led to the closing of over 200,000 domestic oil and gas wells, has brought new exploration to a virtual standstill, and has cost an estimated quarter of a million American jobs. Not only is this an economic issue, it is also a national security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. If our domestic industry is to survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax incentives to encourage energy production in America. To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to develop the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. The bill provides tax incentives in our significant areas to ensure that our domestic energy infrastructure is not decimated during prolonged periods of low energy prices. First, the legislation would provide a $3 dollar a barrel tax credit, on the first three barrels that can offset the cost of keeping marginal wells operating during periods of critically low oil and gas prices. Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. There are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of America's oil, more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia. Second, the bill would provide some relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), again during prolonged periods of low energy prices. In a time of financial crisis for the oil and gas industry, this tax has had the effect of exacerbating the impact of low commodity prices and driving even more producers out of business. The AMT was enacted to ensure that companies reporting large financial income paid at least some level of taxes. Unfortunately, for the oil and gas industry, the AMT has only served to make a bad situation worse. Third, Mr. President, this legislation would change the net income limitation on percentage depletion by eliminating the 65 percent taxable income limitation. Carried-over percentage depletion could also be carried back ten years. This would enable companies to fully utilize their percentage depletion allowance, which many have not been able to do since the onset of the oil and gas crisis. Finally, Mr. President, this bill brings the U.S. Tax Code in line with the present-day realities of the oil and gas industry by allowing oil and gas exploration (geological and geophysical) costs to be expensed rather than capitalized, and by allowing delay rental lease payments to be deducted in the year in which they are paid, rather than when the oil is actually pumped. Even the Treasury Department has tacitly endorsed these proposed changes as making for sound economic and tax policy. Taken together, these four major tax provisions will help the job- creating oil and gas sector of the economy to withstand the volatility of the international oil and gas markets. We simply must not allow our nation to become even more dependent on foreign oil. Nor can we afford to shut-down our domestic gas production capability, particularly since natural gas consumption is expected to grow rapidly in the near future, and, unlike oil, natural gas is not imported. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I appreciate the support of Senator Breaux and my other colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill. Most importantly, I urge my other colleagues, particularly those from non-energy producing states, to join with us in supporting this effort. America simply has too much at stake to stand by and let our domestic oil and gas industry jobs and infrastructure be lost to the whims of the world markets.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. This bill represents a necessary and workable proposal to ensure that the United States does not lose even more of its energy independence. Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state of unprecedented crisis. Over the last year-and-a-half, oil and gas prices have been a historic lows. This has led to the closing of over 200,000 domestic oil and gas wells, has brought new exploration to a virtual standstill, and has cost an estimated quarter of a million American jobs. Not only is this an economic issue, it is also a national security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. If our domestic industry is to survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax incentives to encourage energy production in America. To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to develop the Domestic Energy Production Security and Stabilization Act. The bill provides tax incentives in our significant areas to ensure that our domestic energy infrastructure is not decimated during prolonged periods of low energy prices. First, the legislation would provide a $3 dollar a barrel tax credit, on the first three barrels that can offset the cost of keeping marginal wells operating during periods of critically low oil and gas prices. Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. There are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of America's oil, more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia. Second, the bill would provide some relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), again during prolonged periods of low energy prices. In a time of financial crisis for the oil and gas industry, this tax has had the effect of exacerbating the impact of low commodity prices and driving even more producers out of business. The AMT was enacted to ensure that companies reporting large financial income paid at least some level of taxes. Unfortunately, for the oil and gas industry, the AMT has only served to make a bad situation worse. Third, Mr. President, this legislation would change the net income limitation on percentage depletion by eliminating the 65 percent taxable income limitation. Carried-over percentage depletion could also be carried back ten years. This would enable companies to fully utilize their percentage depletion allowance, which many have not been able to do since the onset of the oil and gas crisis. Finally, Mr. President, this bill brings the U.S. Tax Code in line with the present-day realities of the oil and gas industry by allowing oil and gas exploration (geological and geophysical) costs to be expensed rather than capitalized, and by allowing delay rental lease payments to be deducted in the year in which they are paid, rather than when the oil is actually pumped. Even the Treasury Department has tacitly endorsed these proposed changes as making for sound economic and tax policy. Taken together, these four major tax provisions will help the job- creating oil and gas sector of the economy to withstand the volatility of the international oil and gas markets. We simply must not allow our nation to become even more dependent on foreign oil. Nor can we afford to shut-down our domestic gas production capability, particularly since natural gas consumption is expected to grow rapidly in the near future, and, unlike oil, natural gas is not imported. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue, and I appreciate the support of Senator Breaux and my other colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill. Most importantly, I urge my other colleagues, particularly those from non-energy producing states, to join with us in supporting this effort. America simply has too much at stake to stand by and let our domestic oil and gas industry jobs and infrastructure be lost to the whims of the world markets.

Mr. HUTCHISON

Mr. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Monday, May 3, 1999, at 3:30 p.m. for a hearing on Management Reform in the District of Columbia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and Senator Inouye, Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee ranking member. This legislation authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the Maritime Administration. The introduction of this bill demonstrates our firm commitment to our nation's maritime industry and our willingness to work with the Maritime Administration to provide effective leadership on a wide range of maritime issues. The bill was developed along with Administration officials and provides a base to build upon in coming weeks. There are several aspects of this measure that will require interested members of the Senate to work together to come to a consensus. Therefore, this bill can be viewed as a starting point for reauthorizing the agency and making changes to U.S. maritime policy. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the administration to find common ground for a final legislation. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2000 and covers two appropriated accounts: (1) operations and training and (2) the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. MarAd oversees the operations of U.S. Government-supported maritime promotion programs, such as the Maritime Security Program, the state maritime academies and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. I am a strong supporter of the state maritime academies, in particular, and want to ensure that they are adequately funded. Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program is important to ensuring critical shipbuilding capacity in the United States. This legislation provides $6 million in loan guarantee funds for Title XI in FY2000. However, this program has received substantially more in previous years, and I look forward to working with the Administration to determine the appropriate level of funding. This bill codifies the administrative process associated with Title XI. The measure provides the Secretary the authority to hold all bond proceeds generated under Title XI during the construction period in escrow. Currently, the Secretary must administratively establish a separate construction fund with a private bond agent for a portion of the bond proceeds not captured in escrow. This will eliminate the cost associated with the establishment of the separate construction fund and better protect the government's interest. Futher, the measure provides the Secretary authority under Title XI to collect and hold cash collateral in the U.S. Treasury, under certain circumstances associated with a guaranteed transaction. This will relieve the obligors and the agency from spending the time and money associated with negotiating depository agreements and legal opinions in Title XI transactions. Additionally, the bill amends Title IX to provide a waiver of the three year period bulk and breakbulk vessels newly registered under the U.S. flag must wait in order to carry government-impelled cargo. The waiver would be in effect for one year beginning on the date of enactment. Finally, the bill would reauthorize the War Risk Insurance Program through June 30, 2005, change the requirement for an annual report to Congress by the Maritime Administration detailing its's activities to a biennial report, and make clear the ownership status of the vessel named the Jeremiah O'Brien. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I, too, thank my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Biden, for having principle, for stating their principle very forcefully, even though I disagree with what they are trying to do with the resolution that is before us today. I think every Member of this body has the responsibility to address this issue, to say what we think, and to back that up with action. In fact, I have to say that I was stunned, after the House action last week, that some Members came forward and said, ``Oh, this is partisan.'' Madam President, this is not partisan. There are Members from both sides of the aisle who have very differing views on this. I would never say that someone who does not vote with me is partisan or is coming to this debate with anything other than their own conscience. So I am going to speak from my conscience and my heart. I am against this resolution. I am not against it procedurally; I am against it on the merits. I respect everyone who is on either side of this issue, and I think we need to have the debate. I think we need to take an action that would turn us in a different direction from the course we are on in Kosovo today. Madam President, I have to take a moment of personal privilege and say that I was stunned to pick up my paper on Saturday and read that one of my constituents, Larry Joyce, had died on Friday. Friday night, when I was speaking to a group, I was talking about Larry Joyce--not knowing that he had passed away--because Larry Joyce is one of my heroes. He has had an indelible impression on me. He was watching this debate and this issue very closely, because Larry Joyce was a decorated Vietnam veteran who lost his son in Somalia. Sergeant Casey Joyce was one of the great Army Rangers who lost his life in his first mission as an Army Ranger. When Larry Joyce told me his story, I invited him to come and testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have to say, he gave the most compelling testimony that I have heard in all of my time on that wonderful committee. Larry Joyce was a hero. He was a patriot. He was very concerned about this Kosovo issue. I wish he were alive to see this issue all the way through, because he certainly had a lot to say that was important. This resolution is wrong for a lot of reasons. It is the wrong time-- through no fault of the authors of the resolution because they could not have known, when they introduced this resolution in the Senate, that we would have the release of our American prisoners over the weekend. Of course, all of us were so thrilled when on Saturday we heard that President Milosevic had agreed to release the prisoners, and then on Sunday, when many of us were waking up, we heard the news that they had already been released. I was proud to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales in my home State of Texas on their way to Frankfurt yesterday, and there weren't two more relieved people in the whole United States of America than they were. This release does give us a narrow window of opportunity for a diplomatic solution. I think it is wrong to pass a resolution on the floor of the Senate saying escalate the intensity of this campaign. That is the wrong message. Instead, I call on President Clinton to take bold action, open a door for discussion with President Milosevic, set a timetable, require that there be immediate cessation of any hostilities toward Kosovars of Albanian extraction, and ask Mr. Milosevic if he will agree to come to the table and talk about a peace. This is a window. If it fails, what have we lost? Set a timetable, 5 days. Do you think we could lose 5 days in bombing to save maybe hundreds of lives, maybe thousands of lives, maybe years of conflict? I think it is worth a try. I call on the President today to do just that, take a bold step. This is the opportunity for President Clinton to see if President Milosevic is serious. If he is, talking does not hurt, and it just may help. The resolution is wrong for other reasons. Those who offer this resolution believe it is necessary because Congress has a responsibility to act. I don't think this resolution is an exercise of responsibility. I think it is an abdication of responsibility. It tells the President, in so many words, don't bother us anymore with this war. Congress doesn't want to know what your plan is. We don't want to know what it is going to cost. We don't want to know from you what the exit strategy is. Congress doesn't want to authorize the use of ground forces. In short, we are saying, President Clinton, go fix it and don't bother us, send us the bill. I reject that view of taking responsibility for Congress. I think we do have a responsibility to say what we think. If we have learned one lesson from Vietnam, it should be that Congress must take the responsibility that is given it by the Constitution and not let something go on and on and on, when we know we are going in the wrong direction. In 1964, the Senate passed what became known as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. That resolution urged President Johnson to take all necessary measures to prevent further aggression in Southeast Asia. The debate on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was much of the same debate we are hearing today--concern about whether our allies were dragging us into a war that wasn't ours; concern about whether they would accept enough of their responsibility; concern about cost; concern about whether we were actually declaring war, but being too timid to do it; and there was concern about escalation. We know what happened. Over the next 10 years, every one of us can tell what happened. Congress abdicated its responsibility. They let the war go on and on and on, and we lost 59,000 Americans because Congress did not stand up and say, wait a minute, we are going in the wrong direction, let's do something about it. I am not going to abdicate my responsibility. If I were the only vote in this body, I would vote against this resolution on the merits right now. That is not to say that I would not welcome the President coming to Congress and telling us what he wants, but he has not asked for more force. He has not submitted a plan. He has not stated goals with which I could agree. Why would we take an action that would give him more authority to use more force at exactly the wrong time? The President had not submitted a plan when the Senate voted to authorize the air operation, and that is why I voted no. At the time, we were told the operation would deter President Milosevic from hurting the Kosovar Albanians. When the bombing began, we all know that he escalated the atrocities against those poor people. That is not our fault. I would never blame us for that. But it is our fault that we didn't have a contingency plan. I would never compound that problem by giving the President more authority to send our troops in on the ground and put them in harm's way with no contingency plan. He has not come to Congress; he has not asked for more authority. The last thing we ought to do is give a blanket authority when we do not know the plans. It would be an abdication of our responsibility to do that. I think the administration has been all over the lot on the policy that we say that we want to solve this problem. Do we want an independent Kosovo? The administration says no. Do we want to drive Mr. Milosevic from power? The administration says no. Do we want to encourage European democracies who are very strong and stable right now to assume more responsibility for European security? The administration says yes, but the crisis is demonstrating the opposite. Do we want a strong NATO with a clear sense of purpose and the ability to defend a united Europe? The administration says yes, but I think this Balkan policy is going to tear the alliance apart. It goes far beyond what 19 countries can agree to in a consensus. We are learning that you cannot fight an offensive war by committee. What we want in Yugoslavia, according to the administration, is a multiethnic, multiparty democracy. We seem to be prepared to impose it on both sides, neither of whom are ready to accept our terms. We have tried an experimental Balkan policy in Bosnia. It is not workable. Thousands of American troops are there with no end in sight. The head of the international observer group has fired elected officials and canceled sessions of parliament because opposition parties oppose what we are doing in Kosovo. People vote in elections and then cannot stay and serve where they are elected. I do not think that is an example of a democracy. I think it is a collection of countries trying to force their will on the people of another country. I certainly do not think we should try to do this in Kosovo with Bosnia as an example. Are we going to require the Kosovar Albanians to live under Milosevic? Surely no one could seriously take that as a goal, but that is the goal stated by the administration-- an autonomous region within Serbia that is protected by a NATO force with no end in sight. So, Madam President, I think it is time for us to look for a responsible force that has a chance to succeed. With the glimmer of hope that we have with the release of our prisoners, I urge the President to seize the opportunity to seek a diplomatic solution, try to bring Mr. Milosevic to the table, bring in the other parties, and look for a region-wide solution. I think the United States should go back to its role in the region of being a friend to all and an enemy to none. As the world's greatest superpower, we do not have to take sides in ethnic conflicts if we are going to be the neutral party that can bring them together. We should be able to bring the powers together to work out a solution that would have a long-term chance to succeed, one that recognizes the open, gaping wounds of all the parties in the Balkans. It would require much more energy than was put into Rambouillet. It would require President Clinton to take a personal interest and an investment in the solution. And he can do that. The effort would be worth it. We should bring Russia back to the brink to forge an alliance with the West, not push them further away from us. We should provide people in the region self- determination so they can create countries that have a chance for longevity. It would keep the United States from devoting incredible resources for its open-ended commitment in the Balkans, because our ability to fight elsewhere in the world is being jeopardized by this operation. We are now talking about blockading Yugoslavia. That will take more ships than we now have allocated to this mission. It will hamper our ability to operate in the Persian Gulf. We have already seen that it is diverting military resources from as far as the Asian theater. Madam President, as much time as we have put in on this Balkans issue, I think we need to come out with a solution that is not a ``Band-Aid'' for Kosovo, but something that will settle down the Balkans for a longer term and give them a chance to live as neighbors, side by side, to have stable economies, to get their people back in their respective countries, to be able to live and have self- determination; and then, hopefully, they could become trading partners and friends. Madam President, I don't think that any strategic planner in the world ever thought, as the cold war ended, that we would propose a new strategic concept for America that would include tens of thousands of troops dedicated to the Balkans in perpetuity, but that is exactly what is happening. I have listened to the arguments that are being made. The basic argument seems to be: I don't really like how we got here, but now that we are here, we have to win. We are in it, so we must win it. I keep hearing that over and over again. That is like saying when you are going in the wrong direction, keep going and speed up. I don't think the Senate ought to say that. I think we ought to be a partner with the President in trying to say, wait a minute, Mr. President, we don't agree with what you have done, so let's try to take a different course. I am suggesting tonight that that course be that glimmer of hope that we can have a diplomatic solution, which would be much bigger than just a ``Band-Aid'' on Kosovo. I have heard the argument that the credibility of NATO is at stake. Now, that is a good argument. I want the credibility of NATO to remain intact. But what kind of alliance, with a mistake staring them in the face, would keep going down the same road and say that, in order to remain credible, we have to go down the same road, at any cost in lives, at the cost of any treasure of any of our countries, and we are going to gut it out even though everyone who has any little bit of awareness of what has been going on is bound to say this isn't working very well? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that, if NATO were under attack, we could win a war? No, there is no doubt, because if one of our countries was under siege, we would go all out and we would win. We might use nuclear weapons if we had to, but we would win if one of us had a security threat. But the fact of the matter is, Madam President, we don't have a security risk. We have a humanitarian tragedy. So we are not in this full force. It is a ``gentlemen's war.'' We are doing strategic bombing. We are trying to be careful not to kill civilians, thank Heaven. We aren't going to put in ground troops. The President has said that. This is not a war on which you can judge the credibility of NATO. If we wanted to win, we would win. We have the force to win, make no mistake about it. Nobody in their right mind would doubt it. But the problem here is the same as we had in Vietnam; we are not prepared to use full force to win, because it isn't a security threat. To keep NATO strong, I submit that we don't keep going forward on a mission that doesn't appear to be very positive. To keep NATO strong, we should have a clear principle, a clear mission, and not an immediate reaction, but be slow to get into action. And when you go, by God, you go to win. That is what was wrong with Vietnam, and it is what is wrong today in Kosovo. It is not the credibility of NATO that we don't win a ``gentlemen's war.'' The credibility of NATO would be tested if we had a real security threat to one of our countries, and we would go in and we would win. So I think the resolution today is meaningless, because we know we are not going to use full force. We are not going to use weapons of mass destruction, and we are not going to use ground troops. The President has said that. He hasn't even asked for it. And this operation should show us, and it should be a lesson for NATO, that if we are not prepared to go for a win, we should not take the first step. That is the lesson to keep the credibility of NATO. If we are not prepared to go for a win and declare war on Serbia we shouldn't have started the bombing, and we shouldn't continue in this direction. That is why the resolution is wrong. I am not ready to declare war on Serbia. I think they have a despot as a leader. But I don't think the American people are ready to declare war on a country that is not a security threat to the United States. I don't think we should start bombing another country if we are not ready to declare war. Madam President, I don't think it is right for Congress to say go full force in the same direction you have been going. I think it is my responsibility as a Senator to say: I think we are going in the wrong direction, Mr. President. Let's take stock of the situation, and let's try to do something that would be a positive turn. I was reading in the New York Times this morning a column by William Safire about the price of trust. The central question is, Do we trust the President to use all force necessary to establish the principle that no nation can drive out an unwanted people? And the answer is no. The distrust is palpable. Give him the tools and he will not finish the job. Madam President, I don't want to give him the tools in that kind of atmosphere. It would be an abdication of my responsibility as a Member of the Senate to do that. The only responsible action for the Senate is to ask the President to come to Congress if you want to escalate this conflict. Come to Congress, and tell us why and tell us what your plan is. Tell us what the cost is. Tell us how many troops you need, and for how long. Tell us what the mission is. And what is victory? How could we say that passing this resolution is an act of responsibility? I don't doubt for one minute that everyone who votes for this resolution is doing it because they believe it is right-- because they believe in the Presidency. So many of the war heroes in this Senate believe in the Presidency. I think that is why they are standing so tall. But, Madam President, I am a Member of the Senate. I believe in the Presidency. But I believe that when the President is doing something that is wrong--that I should stand up and say so. That is what I was elected to do. That is what the people of Texas sent me here to do. I hope that we can have an influence on the President. I hope he will take bold action. I hope he will sit down tonight and decide that there is a glimmer of hope with the release of the American prisoners and it is worth a chance. That is why I hope we will table this resolution--that we will take our responsibility seriously as Members of the Senate, and say: Mr. President, what we are doing isn't working, and I am not going to escalate it. I am not going to put our troops into harm's way, most assuredly, when you don't ask us to do it. And when you don't give us a plan, and when you don't give us a policy that we can decide if we support or not. The people who elected me to take the tough vote trust me to do what I think is right in my heart. I would never abdicate my conscience by giving a blank check to put our troops into harm's way in support of a policy that I haven't seen, and what I have seen I disagree with. No way. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and Senator Inouye, Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee ranking member. This legislation authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the Maritime Administration. The introduction of this bill demonstrates our firm commitment to our nation's maritime industry and our willingness to work with the Maritime Administration to provide effective leadership on a wide range of maritime issues. The bill was developed along with Administration officials and provides a base to build upon in coming weeks. There are several aspects of this measure that will require interested members of the Senate to work together to come to a consensus. Therefore, this bill can be viewed as a starting point for reauthorizing the agency and making changes to U.S. maritime policy. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the administration to find common ground for a final legislation. The bill authorizes appropriations for the Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2000 and covers two appropriated accounts: (1) operations and training and (2) the shipbuilding loan guarantee program authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. MarAd oversees the operations of U.S. Government-supported maritime promotion programs, such as the Maritime Security Program, the state maritime academies and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. I am a strong supporter of the state maritime academies, in particular, and want to ensure that they are adequately funded. Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program is important to ensuring critical shipbuilding capacity in the United States. This legislation provides $6 million in loan guarantee funds for Title XI in FY2000. However, this program has received substantially more in previous years, and I look forward to working with the Administration to determine the appropriate level of funding. This bill codifies the administrative process associated with Title XI. The measure provides the Secretary the authority to hold all bond proceeds generated under Title XI during the construction period in escrow. Currently, the Secretary must administratively establish a separate construction fund with a private bond agent for a portion of the bond proceeds not captured in escrow. This will eliminate the cost associated with the establishment of the separate construction fund and better protect the government's interest. Futher, the measure provides the Secretary authority under Title XI to collect and hold cash collateral in the U.S. Treasury, under certain circumstances associated with a guaranteed transaction. This will relieve the obligors and the agency from spending the time and money associated with negotiating depository agreements and legal opinions in Title XI transactions. Additionally, the bill amends Title IX to provide a waiver of the three year period bulk and breakbulk vessels newly registered under the U.S. flag must wait in order to carry government-impelled cargo. The waiver would be in effect for one year beginning on the date of enactment. Finally, the bill would reauthorize the War Risk Insurance Program through June 30, 2005, change the requirement for an annual report to Congress by the Maritime Administration detailing its's activities to a biennial report, and make clear the ownership status of the vessel named the Jeremiah O'Brien. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I, with Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee; and Senator Inouye, ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee are introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency composed of five commissioners. The Commission's primary responsibility is administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. By doing so, the FMC protects shippers and carriers from restrictive or unfair practices of foreign-flag carriers. Currently, the Commission is engaged in the implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. The Act, which takes effect on May 1 of this year is the first major deregulation of international ocean shipping. This bill authorizes funding for the Commission to continue its important work. Specifically, the bill authorizes $15.6 million for the FMC for fiscal year 2000 and $16.3 million for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 funding is $385,000 above the amount requested by the President in order to fund the appointment of the fifth commissioner and his or her staff. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I, with Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee; and Senator Inouye, ranking member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee are introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency composed of five commissioners. The Commission's primary responsibility is administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. By doing so, the FMC protects shippers and carriers from restrictive or unfair practices of foreign-flag carriers. Currently, the Commission is engaged in the implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. The Act, which takes effect on May 1 of this year is the first major deregulation of international ocean shipping. This bill authorizes funding for the Commission to continue its important work. Specifically, the bill authorizes $15.6 million for the FMC for fiscal year 2000 and $16.3 million for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 funding is $385,000 above the amount requested by the President in order to fund the appointment of the fifth commissioner and his or her staff. I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this authorization through the legislative process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Kyl for his leadership on this bill that we have just introduced. Senator Kyl and I, along with Senators Domenici, Gramm, McCain, and Bingaman, have been very concerned about the Border Patrol issue that faces our border States. In fact, we were stunned this week to learn that though Congress has authorized and authorized funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents that in fact only 200 to 400 are coming on line this year. Mr. President, that is stunning. That is stunning when you consider that last year the Border Patrol apprehended 1.5 million persons illegally crossing the border, and fully half of those were at my State of Texas. In fact, the McAllen Border Patrol sector, which includes Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen, had the largest number of drug seizures of all Border Patrol Sectors in the United States--1,610 drug seizures just in that one sector. The drugs apprehended have a value of over $410 million. Two Border Patrol agents in the McAllen sector lost their lives last year in a raid of a drug trafficker's hideout. It was the first time Border Patrol agents had been killed during such a raid. Senator Abraham held a hearing this week, and the Chief of the Border Patrol told us that he has not been able to recruit and retain and, in fact, is losing 10 percent of the agents. For every one that we are bringing on, we are losing two, because our Border Patrol agents are capped at a journeymen-9 level. That translates to roughly $34,000 a year for an agent that has several years of experience. For an agent, that is certainly a job of law enforcement at its toughest. Under the bill that we have just introduced, the agents would be eligible to be paid at a journeymen-11 level, which is approximately a $7,000 increase. This pay raise is also consistent with the pay of other law enforcement agencies that work along the border. One significant problem for the Border Patrol has been that many agents go to work for the Customs Service, or the DEA when they reach the cap. So they get to their cap, their experience, and they go over to another Federal agency that pays better. We must solve this discrepancy among Federal agencies in the same place that are doing similar kinds of tough duty work for hazardous pay. Yet, the Border Patrol is $7,000 less than Customs and DEA agents. We must correct this discrepancy if we are going to get control of our borders, which are a sieve right now with drugs moving through at an alarming rate. This is not just a Texas-Arizona-New Mexico-California problem. The drugs that come in from our borders go right up into Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon--all over our country, because we don't have the proper control of our border. Mr. President, there is not a higher priority for the Federal Government than to have the sovereign borders of the United States safe from illegal drugs coming into our country, and most certainly illegal immigrants that have not gone through the proper procedures so that we know who is coming into our country and what their record is so that we have the control that any sovereign nation would have. Mr. President, this is an emergency. It is why Senator Kyl and I have introduced this legislation today, because we are in a crisis. This is a war. It is a war on drugs, and we are losing. We are losing our young people in this country. Part of the problem is that we are not putting the resources into law enforcement. I have to say, Mr. President, that I am disappointed to the maximum that our INS has money from Congress and authorization from Congress to hire 1,000 agents and they have only been able to come up with 200 to 400 agents this year. That means we are 600 to 800 short, as we speak, from what was allocated this year, and which was given priority by Congress. I think the INS needs to make this a priority. We are going to give them the pay increases with the bill that we have just introduced today. Senator Gregg, who has been a strong supporter of our efforts to beef up the border, has said he will work with us to reprogram money from this year's budget for these pay increases so that we will hopefully be able to do this on an expedited basis by October 1 of this year. Hopefully, we will be able to retain agents knowing that this pay raise is in the pipeline. But, Mr. President, it also takes an effort by the INS to make it a priority to fill these slots, because if they don't look at a little more creative approach to recruiting, the $7,000 increase is not going to be enough. I am at my wit's end. Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman are at their wit's end, and certainly Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are at their wit's end with promises made and not fulfilled by the Border Patrol to keep the illegal drugs out of our country that are preying on our young people. This is a priority. It is an emergency. It is a war that we are losing, and we are going to try to fix it. But we must have the support of the INS to do it. We are going to give them pay raises. We are going to create another office in the Border Patrol for recruitment and retention to tell us what else we need to do, and we are going to fix this problem if we can have a hand-to-hand relationship with the INS and the Border Patrol. It is inexcusable that they did not come to us earlier to tell us they were this far behind. We are going to fix this problem. We are not going to sit back and let the children of our country be absorbed in drugs that are illegally crossing the border and made available to young people who are not yet mature enough to know what to do when they are approached. Mr. President, we are trying to do our part. I call on the INS and the Border Patrol and this administration to do their part, because we are not going to take it anymore. We are going to solve this problem. We are going to put the resources in it. If the INS will put those resources to work and be creative and innovative and dogged in their determination, we will make a difference, but we can't do it without their commitment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, because he has provided leadership and support in our committee and because he has the training agency that is sitting empty right now in his State. They do a great job training our agents. He knows what a problem this is. I look forward to his remarks. I appreciate his support, and I appreciate his leadership in the past on trying to help us recruit. I think this is something that is in the interest of all of us to solve so that every school in America will be drug free. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be pleased to add Mr. Hollings as an original cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, because he has provided leadership and support in our committee and because he has the training agency that is sitting empty right now in his State. They do a great job training our agents. He knows what a problem this is. I look forward to his remarks. I appreciate his support, and I appreciate his leadership in the past on trying to help us recruit. I think this is something that is in the interest of all of us to solve so that every school in America will be drug free. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be pleased to add Mr. Hollings as an original cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Kyl for his leadership on this bill that we have just introduced. Senator Kyl and I, along with Senators Domenici, Gramm, McCain, and Bingaman, have been very concerned about the Border Patrol issue that faces our border States. In fact, we were stunned this week to learn that though Congress has authorized and authorized funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents that in fact only 200 to 400 are coming on line this year. Mr. President, that is stunning. That is stunning when you consider that last year the Border Patrol apprehended 1.5 million persons illegally crossing the border, and fully half of those were at my State of Texas. In fact, the McAllen Border Patrol sector, which includes Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen, had the largest number of drug seizures of all Border Patrol Sectors in the United States--1,610 drug seizures just in that one sector. The drugs apprehended have a value of over $410 million. Two Border Patrol agents in the McAllen sector lost their lives last year in a raid of a drug trafficker's hideout. It was the first time Border Patrol agents had been killed during such a raid. Senator Abraham held a hearing this week, and the Chief of the Border Patrol told us that he has not been able to recruit and retain and, in fact, is losing 10 percent of the agents. For every one that we are bringing on, we are losing two, because our Border Patrol agents are capped at a journeymen-9 level. That translates to roughly $34,000 a year for an agent that has several years of experience. For an agent, that is certainly a job of law enforcement at its toughest. Under the bill that we have just introduced, the agents would be eligible to be paid at a journeymen-11 level, which is approximately a $7,000 increase. This pay raise is also consistent with the pay of other law enforcement agencies that work along the border. One significant problem for the Border Patrol has been that many agents go to work for the Customs Service, or the DEA when they reach the cap. So they get to their cap, their experience, and they go over to another Federal agency that pays better. We must solve this discrepancy among Federal agencies in the same place that are doing similar kinds of tough duty work for hazardous pay. Yet, the Border Patrol is $7,000 less than Customs and DEA agents. We must correct this discrepancy if we are going to get control of our borders, which are a sieve right now with drugs moving through at an alarming rate. This is not just a Texas-Arizona-New Mexico-California problem. The drugs that come in from our borders go right up into Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon--all over our country, because we don't have the proper control of our border. Mr. President, there is not a higher priority for the Federal Government than to have the sovereign borders of the United States safe from illegal drugs coming into our country, and most certainly illegal immigrants that have not gone through the proper procedures so that we know who is coming into our country and what their record is so that we have the control that any sovereign nation would have. Mr. President, this is an emergency. It is why Senator Kyl and I have introduced this legislation today, because we are in a crisis. This is a war. It is a war on drugs, and we are losing. We are losing our young people in this country. Part of the problem is that we are not putting the resources into law enforcement. I have to say, Mr. President, that I am disappointed to the maximum that our INS has money from Congress and authorization from Congress to hire 1,000 agents and they have only been able to come up with 200 to 400 agents this year. That means we are 600 to 800 short, as we speak, from what was allocated this year, and which was given priority by Congress. I think the INS needs to make this a priority. We are going to give them the pay increases with the bill that we have just introduced today. Senator Gregg, who has been a strong supporter of our efforts to beef up the border, has said he will work with us to reprogram money from this year's budget for these pay increases so that we will hopefully be able to do this on an expedited basis by October 1 of this year. Hopefully, we will be able to retain agents knowing that this pay raise is in the pipeline. But, Mr. President, it also takes an effort by the INS to make it a priority to fill these slots, because if they don't look at a little more creative approach to recruiting, the $7,000 increase is not going to be enough. I am at my wit's end. Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman are at their wit's end, and certainly Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are at their wit's end with promises made and not fulfilled by the Border Patrol to keep the illegal drugs out of our country that are preying on our young people. This is a priority. It is an emergency. It is a war that we are losing, and we are going to try to fix it. But we must have the support of the INS to do it. We are going to give them pay raises. We are going to create another office in the Border Patrol for recruitment and retention to tell us what else we need to do, and we are going to fix this problem if we can have a hand-to-hand relationship with the INS and the Border Patrol. It is inexcusable that they did not come to us earlier to tell us they were this far behind. We are going to fix this problem. We are not going to sit back and let the children of our country be absorbed in drugs that are illegally crossing the border and made available to young people who are not yet mature enough to know what to do when they are approached. Mr. President, we are trying to do our part. I call on the INS and the Border Patrol and this administration to do their part, because we are not going to take it anymore. We are going to solve this problem. We are going to put the resources in it. If the INS will put those resources to work and be creative and innovative and dogged in their determination, we will make a difference, but we can't do it without their commitment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Cochran, the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1999. This bill is identical to the bipartisan and widely supported legislation I sponsored during the last session of Congress. This measure will create jobs, expand economic activity, and revitalize the physical structure and value of residential and commercial buildings in America's most distressed urban and rural communities. The bill provides a targeted tax credit to businesses to help defray the cost of construction, expansion, and renovation in these areas, and in the process will generate billions in privately based economic activity in those areas that need the most help in our country. As we continue to look for ways to combat the decay of our inner cities and to raise the standard of living in many of our rural areas, I believe, and numerous studies demonstrate, that reversing the physical deterioration in America's cities has numerous and far reaching economic benefits. Revitalization in decaying neighborhoods lifts the hopes and expectations of the residents of those areas that economic growth and opportunity is coming their way. Indeed, one of the key recommendations of a top-to-bottom review of law enforcement in this city, our Nation's Capital, was to improve the many abandoned buildings in Washington, D.C. that create an atmosphere conducive to crime and despair. The Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act will build upon the empowerment zone/enterprise community program that is now unfolding over 100 communities in the United States. Texas has five of these specially designated areas: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Waco, as well as one rural zone in the Rio Grande valley covering four counties. Not only will these cities qualify for the credit under my bill, but so will the 400 communities in the United States that sought such designation but were not selected. State-established enterprise zones and other specifically designated revitalization districts established by State and local governments will also be able to participate. In all, over 1,000 areas will qualify for this credit nationwide. Our bill contains the following principle features: A tax credit that may be applied to construction amounting to at least 25 percent of the basis of the property, in designated revitalization areas; qualified investors could choose a one-time 20-percent tax credit against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation. Alternatively, a business owner could take a five percent credit each year over a 10-year period. Tax credits would be allocated to each state, according to a formula, with States and localities determining the priority of the projects. In all, $1.5 billion in tax credits would be allocated under this tax bill. Mr. President, with a minimum level of bureaucratic involvement and through a proven tax mechanism, this initiative will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of families in need and for the economies of hundreds of distressed urban and rural communities across this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this sound and effective pro-growth initiative.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Cochran, the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1999. This bill is identical to the bipartisan and widely supported legislation I sponsored during the last session of Congress. This measure will create jobs, expand economic activity, and revitalize the physical structure and value of residential and commercial buildings in America's most distressed urban and rural communities. The bill provides a targeted tax credit to businesses to help defray the cost of construction, expansion, and renovation in these areas, and in the process will generate billions in privately based economic activity in those areas that need the most help in our country. As we continue to look for ways to combat the decay of our inner cities and to raise the standard of living in many of our rural areas, I believe, and numerous studies demonstrate, that reversing the physical deterioration in America's cities has numerous and far reaching economic benefits. Revitalization in decaying neighborhoods lifts the hopes and expectations of the residents of those areas that economic growth and opportunity is coming their way. Indeed, one of the key recommendations of a top-to-bottom review of law enforcement in this city, our Nation's Capital, was to improve the many abandoned buildings in Washington, D.C. that create an atmosphere conducive to crime and despair. The Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act will build upon the empowerment zone/enterprise community program that is now unfolding over 100 communities in the United States. Texas has five of these specially designated areas: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Waco, as well as one rural zone in the Rio Grande valley covering four counties. Not only will these cities qualify for the credit under my bill, but so will the 400 communities in the United States that sought such designation but were not selected. State-established enterprise zones and other specifically designated revitalization districts established by State and local governments will also be able to participate. In all, over 1,000 areas will qualify for this credit nationwide. Our bill contains the following principle features: A tax credit that may be applied to construction amounting to at least 25 percent of the basis of the property, in designated revitalization areas; qualified investors could choose a one-time 20-percent tax credit against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation. Alternatively, a business owner could take a five percent credit each year over a 10-year period. Tax credits would be allocated to each state, according to a formula, with States and localities determining the priority of the projects. In all, $1.5 billion in tax credits would be allocated under this tax bill. Mr. President, with a minimum level of bureaucratic involvement and through a proven tax mechanism, this initiative will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of families in need and for the economies of hundreds of distressed urban and rural communities across this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this sound and effective pro-growth initiative.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak to a resolution that has been introduced this morning regarding Congress taking an action about our troops in Kosovo and the whole escalation of the operation in Kosovo. The text of the resolution is that we would give the President all of the authority to use whatever force, take whatever steps he sees as necessary. I certainly think we should have a debate on this whole issue of Kosovo. I think it is certainly something that Congress is going to need to weigh in on. But I think it would be vastly premature to take an action before the President has laid out a plan. The President has not asked us for ``all force.'' The President has not asked us, actually, for anything except funding on an emergency basis to make sure we have the ability to fund the operation that is going on in Yugoslavia without taking away from other national security interests. I am going to support the President in that request. The last thing I want to do is have our troops in harm's way, along with our allies', and run out of money or run out of equipment or have any of our national defense personnel anywhere else in the world be shortchanged. We are not going to let that happen. When the President gives us the specificity that is required for the appropriation, I think there will be a resounding vote in Congress to give our troops and our military the leeway they need to spend the money to have the equipment they need to do this job. But I cannot imagine having a carte blanche given to an operation that clearly is escalating a mission and we have not seen a plan. We have not seen a plan. We have not seen a timetable. We have not seen a cost estimate for the long term. So I hope we will take a step back here, and rather than voting on the resolution that was put forward today we would be talking among ourselves, that we will be debating at whatever point is the right one, and that we would be having op-eds in newspapers, which I think certainly have added to the body of opinion on this issue. But Congress should not micromanage this war. The President should come to us and say what he needs, what he is going to do with the money, what kind of plan we have, what kind of troop commitment are we talking about, what is it going to do to the rest of our national defense operation. We need to have a full plan. One of the things that has concerned so many of us is that perhaps we started an operation before we had a contingency plan. Perhaps we started the operation before we knew what we would need for the long term, before we knew the goal. I think the mission has actually changed several times. We obviously have had a different result from this operation than we had hoped. There is no question about that. Whether this is a success is yet to be determined, and I do not think we should be jumping in, saying it has not been a success. But I think it is time for us to let the President take the lead, to let him come to us with his requests. He is the one who is supposed to be executing this operation. I do think it would be a mistake for Congress to put the cart before the horse. I do not think we should micromanage. I do not think we should tell the President what to do. I do not think we should put our opinions on top of his. And most certainly, when I hear our NATO allies saying they would not consider ground troops, the last thing I think we should do is encourage ground troops. I think the case has not been made, the base has not been laid, and our allies are not in support. So I think we need to take a step back. We need to be getting the administration to give us briefings at every point, asking our opinions. Let's debate this, let's talk about what kind of commitment we want to make. But I will not vote for troops on the ground in this operation as a carte blanche, a blank check, before I know what we are going to do. What will our responsibility be? What will our allies' contribution be? What is the timetable? What is the mission? Is it achievable, and what is it going to cost? And what is it going to do to the rest of our national defense? These are questions that must be asked. We must get answers. We must have a full briefing. For Congress to have a vote before we have all of that would be irresponsible. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.