Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe everyone knows that today is tax day in America. I think we have been talking about it. And I think it is very appropriate that we have a budget resolution on the floor today that we can say will give tax relief because that is set aside in this budget. The tax burden on Americans is too high. The average American family pays 38 percent of its income in taxes to some government--the Federal Government, the State government, and the local government. As a percentage of gross domestic product, taxes are higher today than they were at any time in this country since World War II. That is why the budget resolution that we are going to pass is significant. The American people should know that on April 15 this Congress is going to pass a plan that provides a $770 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. There couldn't be a clearer message from this Congress about what our priorities are, and that is tax relief for hard-working American families. There are some, including the President, who oppose our plan. They say that Washington will save money for working Americans. But we know that is not going to happen. We have heard that before. And we know that we haven't had a budget surplus nor tax cut in this country--until this Republican Congress was elected--for 40 years. So we know who cares about tax cuts for the American family. I think we have chosen the right course. Giving the extra money to the Government would not ever get it back to the people. But we believe that people who earn the money have the right to it. And that is why we will have a tax bill when this budget is passed. There are many tax proposals that come before the Senate, many of which I support. Certainly reducing capital gains taxes would be good for our country. Reducing or eliminating the estate taxes would be good for this country; and across-the-board tax relief, 10 percent across the board, so that when you are writing your check today, you can just take 10 percent of the check you wrote and know that would not be in your tax bill next year and you would be able to spend that money the way you think it is best for your family. But there is one that is my priority, and it is to eliminate what I think is the worst transgression we have in our Tax Code. That is the marriage tax penalty. Right now, 21 million American families pay up to $1,400 on average more just because they are married. So we say to people, you have to choose between love and money in our country. If you want to get married, start a family, and build up your savings to make a downpayment on a new home, we will make you $1,400 less able to do that. That is a lot of money to the hard-working couples who are hardest hit by this tax. I have introduced legislation to eliminate this penalty. We could allow couples to split their incomes evenly or we could double the standard exemption to widen the tax brackets for married couples so they match those of single filers. We could also let people choose if it is better for them to file as singles or as married couples. That way, no one would pay a penalty for getting married. I hope it will be our highest priority with the tax cuts that are provided in this budget. I read in USA Today an op-ed piece this morning on the marriage tax penalty. Their contention is that this only affects the higher-income couples. They say that the bulk of those suffering this marriage tax penalty are dual-income families at the middle-income level, $50,000. I have a legislative correspondent in my office and his combined family income is $50,000. He makes about $25,000 and his wife must work for them to be able to make ends meet. She makes about $25,000. They are a young couple. I don't think that people who make $25,000 a year are wealthy, and I most certainly think if they have to have two incomes in order to make ends meet that we are not increasing the standard of living in this country. To go forward and say two people who make $25,000 a year should owe Uncle Sam $1,400 more, I think is absolutely wrong, particularly a young couple that is trying to get started, to make a downpayment to buy a home. I hope we can correct this inequity. I think two-income earners at the $25,000 level deserve some help. I am going to try to get it for them. This is a red letter day. This is the day that we see how much it costs for us to support government. All of us want to do our fair share. I would never say we should have no taxes because we do enjoy good service--hopefully--for the taxes that we pay. However, 38 percent of a person's income in taxes is hard to explain. It is hard to explain that you are getting that much service for your dollars. I think you could get a lot less service and a lot more choice if we lower the taxes for everyone in this country so that hard-working Americans could see the benefits of working harder and doing better. That is the American dream. That is what made this country great--that we would say to people, if you work harder you can do better and you can give a little more to your family or your children. That is why adding on some of these taxes is so important. Today, we are going to pass a budget resolution that will do that, that will say to the hard-working American that help is on the way. I just hope we can come to terms with the President so that we will be able to pass a tax bill that really will go to the hard-working American who is struggling to make ends meet. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg for putting this budget resolution forth. I think it is a good one. It is a responsible spending of our hard-earned tax dollars. Most important, on tax day, I hope people realize that we are going to try to cut that burden. This budget resolution is a start in the right direction. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999. My highest priority as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee this year is to pass a re- authorization bill--one that provides some ability for shippers to obtain improved service and rates, while maintaining the ability of railroads to make a return and, indeed, grow. The bill I am introducing seeks to improve competition and the procedures at the Board that shippers and carriers rely upon to adjudicate their rate disputes. At the same time, it recognizes the need for the railroad industry to maintain sound financial footing, capable of maintaining the railroad infrastructure. Last year, at the behest of Chairman McCain and me, the Board initiated a hearing process on competition issues and developed an extensive record on these issues. Specifically, the Board held two days of hearings and received testimony from 60 witnesses. It heard shipper complaints of inadequate service, higher rates, and concentration in the railroad industry. The Board also listened to carriers who stressed that, especially in a growing economy, capacity and infrastructure investment is the key to meeting their customers' needs. In addition, the Board held a hearing in December at my request on the proposals offered by Houston shippers, the Greater Houston Partnership and the Railroad Commission of Texas. As a result of these hearings, the Board has done what is within its authority to help shippers obtain some relief. It undertook two important rulemakings. One provides for alternative rail availability during a service failure. The other streamlines rail rate cases by dispensing with consideration of ``product and geographic competition'' in determining market dominance for rate cases. I commend the Board for making these rules, and --frankly--for going no further. It's refreshing to find a regulatory body that does not attempt to develop a new policy in the absence of Congressional guidance. This bill picks up where the Board's actions left off. First, it codifies the Board's decision to streamline the market dominance test and the procedure for providing alternative rail availability during a service failure. Second, it begins the process of reforming the procedure that small shippers use for rate cases. A recent GAO report highlights the cost, in time and money, of the current process. This bill also sets into motion changes in the Board's revenue adequacy finding, making it a more helpful and real-world standard. It balances the bottleneck issue, enhances the Board's emergency powers and establishes an arbitration system that could lead to better-shipper carrier dialogue. Finally, it clarifies, in a balanced way and without dictating specific outcomes, that competition remains part of the rail merger and national rail policy of this country. It is clear that Congress has a job to do in re-authorizing the Surface Transportation Board and addressing some of the difficult issues associated with it. This bill is a first step. I want to strongly convey that I do not see it as a final product. While I view it as fair to all parties, I am ready to consider changes to improve the bill and ensure its enactment. To that end, I encourage my colleagues to work with me toward the common purpose of reauthorizing the Board and making some common sense improvements. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment that is the regular order is my amendment on Kosovo. A lot has happened since I offered this amendment early last week, because my amendment actually asks the President to come forward and tell us what he was going to do in Kosovo. This assumed a peace agreement. It assumes that we would have a plan put in place before we would take action in Kosovo. Unfortunately, time has bypassed this amendment. Unfortunately, the President made up his mind, I think, before he ever talked to Members of Congress that we would bomb Kosovo. I think we are taking a very important step and one that I hope everyone will take seriously. Bombing a sovereign country that has not threatened the United States of America is a very serious step. I think we also need to look at the NATO mission. We are changing the mission of NATO without debate, without a vote of Congress. We are turning NATO from a defense alliance to an alliance that has now decided it is going to take an offensive action against a country that is not in NATO. This is unprecedented. So I do think the President needs to come to Congress with a plan. If we are going to take step 1, we need to know what step 2, 3, and 4 are. We need to know what could happen and what circumstances would cause us to have more commitments in the Balkans. Mr. President, I think it is premature for us to be doing what we apparently are going to be doing. But I think my amendment has been bypassed by time. So I am going to withdraw my amendment and let the supplemental appropriations bill go forward on the promise from our leadership that we will take up a bill on Kosovo that will have teeth, that will have an up-or-down vote, as Congress is required to do when we have this kind of action by our military forces. So, Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to Congress exercising its responsibility under the Constitution that if there is going to be a war declared, that it will be Congress that will declare it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 81 Withdrawn

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. At some point following the Murkowski amendment, I would like the opportunity to address my amendment and set it aside.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Where in the line is the Hutchison amendment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct, it was laid down Friday. But this amendment does not prohibit the airstrikes. It just says that we must come to Congress first, that the President must come to Congress and present a full plan first. And I think that is warranted before this type of action would be taken in this very unusual circumstance. But as the Senator said, it is coming to a head very quickly. This amendment was offered last week. The second-degree was also offered last week. So we are trying to have a clear plan, certainly, before we get into a situation which could be very long term, with very dire consequences. And I think the full debate is what we are looking for, not necessarily a cutoff, but certainly having all the facts before us before we make such an important decision.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I just say to the Senator from North Dakota that I understand the concern about timing. And I could not agree with him more about the timing. But I will just point out that the amendment I offered was actually offered early last week as an amendment that I thought should be considered in a supplemental appropriations bill because, of course, it will require a supplemental appropriation. As you know, after the bill was laid down and other amendments were considered, this second-degree amendment was put on Friday. And now so much has happened in the last 48 hours that the timing is not perfect; there is no question about it. I just say to the Senator from North Dakota that we have been trying to talk about this for quite a while. And the House took up an amendment 2 weeks ago that now is totally obsolete, because the Serbs have refused to come to the table. So I concede that the timing is bad, but I do not know when it gets better. We certainly are not going to influence Mr. Milosevic right this minute in that Mr. Holbrooke is talking to him right this minute. But I do think that we have to have this debate, because if we do start an action before we have had this debate, and before the American people fully understand what the issues are and can weigh in, I do not think that would be acceptable, particularly if it is a long-term commitment. So I do not disagree at all with what seems to be very bad timing. I just do not know when it gets better.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the situation in Kosovo. We have been watching this situation unfold for days, actually months--actually, you could say thousands of years. But it is coming to a head in the very near future, perhaps in hours. As I speak today, Richard Holbrooke is talking to Slobodan Milosevic and trying to encourage him to come to the peace table. I hope he is successful, and I know every American hopes that he is successful. But what I think we must talk about today is what happens if he is not. What happens if Mr. Milosevic says, ``No, I am not going to allow foreign troops in my country,'' and if he says he is going to move forward with whatever he intends to do in the governance of that country? I think we have to step back and look at the situation and the dilemma which we face, because there is no question, this is not an easy decision. What comes next? Basically, the President has committed the United States to a policy in NATO to which he really does not have the authority to commit. The consequences are that we have to make a decision that would appear to walk away from the commitment he made without coming to Congress, and that is not a good situation. I do not like having to make such a choice, because I want our word to be good. When the United States speaks, I want our word to be good. Whether it is to our ally or to our enemy, they need to know what we say we will do. But the problem here is, the President has gone out with a commitment before he talked to Congress about it, and now we have really changed the whole nature of NATO without congressional approval. We are saying that we are going to bomb a sovereign country because of their mistreatment of people within their country, the province of Kosovo, and we are going to take this action, basically declaring war on a country that should not be an enemy of the United States and in fact was a partner at the peace table in the Dayton accords on Bosnia. So now we are taking sides. We are turning NATO, which was a defense alliance--is a defense alliance--into an aggressive, perhaps, declarer- of-war on a country that is not in NATO. Mr. President, I just do not think we can take a step like that without the Congress and the American people understanding what we are doing and, furthermore, approving of it. There is no question that Mr. Milosevic is not our kind of person. We have seen atrocities that he has committed in Kosovo. But, in fact, there have been other atrocities committed by the parties with whom we are purporting to be taking sides. The Albanians have committed atrocities as well, the Kosovar Albanians. So we are now picking sides in a civil war where I think the U.S. security interest is not clear. I think it is incumbent on the President to come to Congress, before he takes any military action in Kosovo, to lay out the case and to get congressional approval. What would he tell Congress? First of all, before we put one American in harm's way, I want to know: What is the intention here? What is the commitment? What happens in the eventuality that Mr. Milosevic does not respond to bombing, that he declares he is going to go forward without responding to an intervention in his country? What do we do then? Do we send ground troops in to force him to come to the peace table? And if we did, could we consider that is really a peace? What if NATO decides to strike and an American plane is shot down? What if there is an American POW? What then? What is our commitment then? My concern here is that the administration has not looked at the third, fourth, and fifth steps in a plan. They have only addressed step 1, which is, we are going to bomb because they will not come to the peace table and accept the agreement that we have hammered out. I just say, before we go bombing sovereign nations, we ought to have a plan. We ought to know what steps 3, 4, and 5 are, because I believe Congress has a right to know what this commitment is. How many people from the United States of America are going to be put in harm's way? What is it going to cost and where is the money going to come from? Is it going to come from other defense accounts, so other places in the world where we have troops are put at risk? Is it going to come at the risk of our Strategic Defense Initiative? Just where is the money going to come from? Most of all, most important of all, what is the mission? How much are we going to be required to do and what is the timetable? Mr. President, I would support a plan that would say when the two parties come to a real peace agreement, we would put our troops, along with our European allies in NATO, together in a peacekeeping mission of a short duration which would make sure that things settle down until we could have others rotate in and take our place. I would support a plan that went that far. I would also support a plan of helping the Kosovars, but without putting American troops in harm's way. You know, the difference between the Clinton doctrine and the Reagan doctrine is that President Reagan would support freedom fighters with arms, with monetary contributions, with intelligence--many, many forms of support for freedom fighters-- but he would never put a U.S. military person in the middle of a civil war. He would help, but he would not make that commitment. Under the Reagan doctrine, therefore, we could help Afghan rebels and Nicaraguan freedom fighters. At the same time, we could also continue to remain strong in Europe and Asia because we could allocate our resources and we would not drain our resources in small civil conflicts in chosen places around the world. What bothers me about what has been happening in the last 3 or 4 years is that we have been putting troops into civil conflicts in certain parts of the world but not all parts of the world. So every time we do it, it makes the decision not to do it somewhere else a little harder. We practically invaded Haiti and we still have 500 troops in Haiti today. We had 18 Army Rangers killed in Somalia in a mission that was ill-defined and was actually mission creep. The original mission of feeding starving people had been accomplished, but we didn't leave. We decided to capture a warlord, something our military is not trained to do and, therefore, the miscalculation cost us the lives of 18 great young Americans. We have inserted ourselves into places like Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia, but we have not inserted ourselves into Algeria, where there are just as many atrocities as there have been in any place in the Balkans. We have not inserted ourselves into Turkey, where there is mistreatment of the Kurds. We aren't getting involved in the Basque separatist movement in Spain. We didn't step into Iran when the Ayatollah took over from the Shah and was assassinating almost every military leader that couldn't get out of the country, plus the religious minorities that were still there and their leadership. It is very difficult, when you start choosing where you are going to involve yourselves, to extricate yourself when there is no clear policy. That is why so many of us in Congress are concerned and why we realize the dilemma. We understand that this is not an easy black and white decision. We are talking about a commitment that the President has made. I do not like stepping in and saying that we shouldn't keep a commitment the President has made. Overriding that great concern is the consequence of not requiring the President to have a plan and a policy that will set a precedent for the future. I think we could explain it by sitting down with our European allies and saying, first of all, if we are going to change the mission of NATO, this must be fully debated and fully accepted by every member of NATO within their own constitutional framework. If we are going to turn NATO from a defense alliance into an affirmative war-making machine, I think we need to talk about it. I will support some affirmative action on the part of NATO, if we are able to determine exactly what would trigger that and not go off on one mission without having a precedent for a different mission and, therefore, creating expectations among more and more people that we will step in to defend the autonomy of a country such as Kosovo or Bosnia. We must not allow the expectations to be such that we are drawn into every conflict, because we will not be able to survive with the strength that we must have when only the United States will be the one standing between a real attack from a ballistic missile or a nuclear warhead or an invasion of another country where we do have a strategic interest. We cannot allow there to be so many questions because there is so little policy. That is the responsibility of Congress, to work with the President. We will work together. Congress will work with the President to hammer out a new mission for NATO. We will always do our fair share in the world. We will never walk away from that. We have to determine what is our fair share, what is our allocation. I submit that the United States will always be the leader in technology, and we will create a ballistic missile defense that will shield not only the United States and our troops wherever they may be in any theater in the world, but we also will protect our allies, if we have the strength to go forward. We will not have the strength to go forward if we continue to spend $3 and $4 billion a year on conflicts that do not rise to the level of a U.S. security interest. We must be able to choose where we spend our defense dollars so that we will all be protected, ourselves and our allies, from a rogue nation with a ballistic missile capability that can put a chemical or biological or nuclear warhead on it and undermine the integrity of people living in our country. Mr. President, the consequences are too great for us to sit back and let the President commit U.S. forces in a situation that I can't remember us ever having before; that is, to take an affirmative military action against a sovereign nation that has not committed a security threat to the United States. Before we would sit back and let the President do that, I cannot in good conscience say, well, he has made the commitment, even though he didn't have the right to do it, so we have got to let him go forward. Perhaps if we aren't lucky and if Milosevic does not come to the table, we would have more and more and more responsibilities because of the potential consequences that could occur if he does not come to the table. We must know what those consequences are and what we are prepared to do in the eventuality that an American plane is shot down, that we have an American prisoner on the ground or that we bomb and bomb and bomb and bomb and he still does not do what we have asked him to do. We have to determine what we do in that eventuality. I certainly hope that we will consult with the Russians so that this war does not escalate into something that we haven't thought about. If Russia decides to step in on the side of Serbia, we could have grief beyond what anyone is saying right now. I hope the President will work with Congress to fashion a new mission for NATO that will have the full support of Congress and the American people. I believe we could do that, because I don't think we are far apart at all. We cannot do it on an ad hoc basis. We cannot all of a sudden attack another country on an ad hoc basis and call that a policy. I hope the President will come together with Congress and have hearings. Let's hear from the American people on just what they believe is the role of the United States. Let's hear from Congress about what our commitments should be and what is a ready division of responsibility for keeping the world as safe as we can make it, given that 30 countries have ballistic missile technology, some of whom are rogue nations. Let us step back with our European allies and determine if this is the right decision to make, or are there other ways that we could be helpful to the Kosovar Albanians. I remember hour after hour after hour, over a 2-year period, talking about letting the Muslims have a fair fight in Bosnia, because they didn't have arms when two of their adversaries did. We never took that step. Now there is a cease-fire in Bosnia, but there are also many years to go before we will know what the cost is and if it can be lasting, because today, Bosnia is still as ethnically divided as it ever was because it is not safe for the refugees to move back in. One can say there is disagreement on just how successful was the Bosnian mission. We do not see fighting, but NATO has just toppled a duly elected president of one of the provinces. It is pretty hard to understand. I think it is tenuous that we would go in and forcibly remove an elected president while we are touting democratic ideals. There was a way to go into Bosnia, but Kosovo is very different. Kosovo is a civil war in a sovereign nation. There are atrocities. There have been atrocities on both sides. We are picking one side, and we are doing it without a vote of Congress. I do not think we can do it. I do not think the President has the right to declare war, and under the Constitution, he certainly does not. And under the War Powers Act, it takes an emergency. This is not an emergency. We are not being attacked. United States troops are not in harm's way at this point. We can take the time to talk about it, and the consequences are so great I think it is worth the time to set a policy that allows us to have some continuity for the next 25 years, so that our enemies and our allies will know what the greatest superpower in the world is going to do and they will not have to guess. Mr. President, it is a dilemma, and I realize it is. I do not feel comfortable with the choice. I do not feel comfortable at a time when we have gone out on a limb, through our President who made a commitment for us, even though we were not part of it. Nevertheless, I would like to give the President that support, but it is worth it to take the time and do it right and ask the President to come forward to give us his plan, to tell us what happens when American troops are prisoners of war or on the ground or shot down. We need to know what we would do in that eventuality before we send them there. That is the least that we can expect. I hope we can debate this resolution. I hope people will give their views. I have heard great debates already on it, not on the Senate floor, though. The time has come for us to have this debate, and let's vote up or down. There will be people voting on both sides in good conscience, seeing it a different way but with the same goal. So let's have that debate. Let's do it right. Let's don't haul off bombing an independent nation before the Senate and the House of Representatives has a plan and approves it or disapproves it. That is what our Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution, and it is more appropriate today than ever. I hope we will do that, because then the American people will know what is going on and they will support it or not support it. If we are going to have a long-term commitment, which I hope we do not, but if we do, at least it will be with the support of Congress as Desert Storm was. That was a tough debate. People spoke from the heart on both sides. They took a vote, and Congress supported the President going into Desert Storm. That is the way it should be, Mr. President. That is the way it should be under our Constitution, under our democracy. That is the way our Government works. I hope it will again as we face the crisis today that could have very long-term consequences for our country and for every one of our young men and women in the field wearing the uniform of the United States of America. Their lives are worth a debate and a policy, and that is what we are going to try to give them in the next 24 hours. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

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, I am pleased that we are now going to talk about the Kosovo situation. I think it is a very fluid resolution that we have before us but, nevertheless, I think it is very important that we begin to talk about the situation there, because, frankly, in the last 24 hours, things have changed greatly. When the Serbs refused to sign the peace agreement, that started a different dynamic. Many Members of Congress have been in constant meetings with members of the administration, including the President, about just where we are now, where is NATO, what are the commitments and, most important, I think from all of the meetings, it has become very clear that many Members of Congress want to know what is the totality of the commitment. We are beginning to have to address the issue of what kind of hostile possibilities will there be if the NATO forces, which includes the United States, go forward into any kind of a military intervention in Kosovo. We do not know what Milosevic is planning. I believe if President Milosevic starts to take human lives, that is going to trigger a very swift response. I hope the President of Serbia will realize that he could solidify this Congress in a way that nothing else would if he decides that he is going to embark on that course, because I think our forces are ready to stop something that would be the annihilation of innocent people. Mr. President, I think many are not prepared to go into a full-scale altercation with a sovereign country until we have looked at the entirety of that commitment. We need to know the entirety of the commitment of our allies and what we ourselves are willing to do in light of our own principles and our own standards for when we would put American troops into harm's way, into foreign conflicts, and into a situation in which there is no peace agreement. There is even a question of whether it is a real peace agreement if that peace agreement is arrived at through bombing. This is a watershed period for our country, and the Members of Congress who have been participating in the meetings are trying to put before the President and the administration and the people of this country exactly what are our options. I believe it is going to be very important in the next week or so that we do know what our commitments are, if we are going to propose to take any kind of hostile action, that we know what is the end game, what is the strategy, what is the commitment of dollars as well as potential lives. The President of the United States must come forward and not only inform Congress, not only work with Congress on these plans, but inform and work with the American people to explain exactly what is proposed and what will be the end game if we get into this kind of conflict. Mr. President, this is a sobering time. I am pleased that my amendment is the pending business. I am pleased that Senator Lott has now offered a second-degree amendment, because we now have two options. We have the option of an up-or-down vote on whether we are ready to send troops into Kosovo, or we have a second approach, which is, if we are going to do this, let's have a plan. Those are two options, and in the next 72 hours, I think it will become more and more clear what kind of approach we should take. There is one thing that is certain today, and that is, the Congress of the United States has the power to declare war. I suggest that means the power to send our troops into harm's way for a long period of time if we are expecting a conflict. If this is the case, then it is imperative we talk about this issue up front, we have a full debate in the Senate and House of Representatives, that the people of America know what the plans are, know what the potential liabilities are, and the people of America realize what is at stake. There is no substitute for this kind of planning and this kind of communication. So I am pleased that we are now on this amendment. I look forward to working with all the Members of the Senate so that everyone can be heard and so that, hopefully, we will be able to come to an agreement, but if not, a clear agreement that there will be a real vote and that Congress will play its constitutional role in what happens next; because I believe that what happens in Kosovo and the rest of the Balkans in the decisions that will be made in the next few weeks will perhaps have consequences for years to come in our country. Thank you, 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I understand what the majority leader has put forward. The amendments would be amendable with relevant second-degrees; is that correct? Would substitutes also be allowed on amendments?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is the worst of all worlds. It would require every State every year for 25 years to submit a plan about how it is going to spend its own money. What happens if a State legislature is not in session and the Secretary of HHS says, ``I don't think your plan meets my standards for tobacco cessation or health programs,'' and the State legislature is then in the position of losing Medicaid funds and having to call a special session to either change its programs to meet the requirements of the Secretary of HHS, or take the hit, or not serve its own people under Medicaid? Mr. President, this is State money, it is not Federal money. There is no relationship between Medicaid in many of these State lawsuits. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that my 40 seconds be reserved.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.