Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to first say how much I appreciate Senator Edwards working with me on this amendment. This is a very important issue in North Carolina. He certainly understands it. I appreciate his statements. I ask the chairman if we can have about 15 or 20 minutes in closing before we go to a vote once this is acceptable. Then we could hear from Senator Hagel as well as Senator Edwards.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman. If the Senator will make me an honorary member of the Armed Services Committee, I will be there in a flash.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment later today which I hope can become a part of the bill and will be acceptable to the managers. I have been trying to work with everyone who is concerned about the military health care issue, and I look forward to having it be a part of this bill. Today, I, along with one of my cosponsors, Senator Edwards from North Carolina, will talk about what is in this very important amendment. Both Senator Hagel and Senator Helms are also cosponsors of this amendment. I have just finished touring every single base in Texas--Army, Navy, Air Force--and I have talked to young enlisted people, young noncommissioned officers, recruits. I went to Lackland and I talked to people who are in their first month in the Air Force. I talked to these young people, as well as people all the way up and down the line, about their concerns. Of course, we know that we are having the biggest retention problem that we have had in the military for a long time. In fact, for every pilot we keep in the Air Force, we lose two. We are also looking at tough recruiting. We are looking for ways to say to our military personnel, we want you to come and be a part of our armed services because we are proud of the job that our armed services do; and we are saying to the experienced people in our military, we want you to stay because we need our experienced pilots and sailors and those who are on the ground. We need every one of you to stay in. I talked about why they aren't staying in. First and foremost is pay. We are addressing that in the military bill of rights. Second to pay is health care. Health care is part of the package that we promised to our military personnel. It is part of the package that we say we are going to give to the military, to their families and to retirees. We say we will provide for your health care now and we will provide for it when you retire. That is part of the incentive for signing up for the military. I became very concerned and started looking at the different military health care options. It differs around the country. TRICARE, which has been adopted by much of the military, is the system that really needs fixing. TRICARE says to community doctors, we will reimburse you to serve our military personnel. In fact, we have cut back on military health care facilities in the Base Closing Commission. There are fewer health care facilities, so we reached out into the community. The problem is the bureaucracy. Getting a claim is causing the doctors to say, ``I don't need this, I can't deal with it. It is much worse than Medicare or any other government program with which we have worked.'' Doctors are saying, ``I'm not going to serve our military personnel.'' If you are in the town of Abilene and you can't get a pediatrician for the children of the military personnel, this is a problem. I, along with Senators Edwards, Hagel and Helms, have introduced a bill called the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 1999. This is the amendment that we are offering today. Basically, what the amendment does is require that benefits be portable across the regions established in the current system so that once you have a TRICARE coverage and you move--which we know our military personnel do every 2 or 3 years--you will be able to keep that coverage as you cross regions. That will make it much easier for our personnel to know exactly the kind of care they are getting. We would ensure that military coverage is comparable to the average coverage available to civilian Government employees, many of whom work side by side with our military personnel. We think it should be comparable. Third, we minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims processing. This is one of the big problems. It will not cost money to fix--and probably will save money. If we could streamline the claims processing, it will be easier for the Department of Defense, and certainly easier for the person who is getting this health care. It would increase reimbursement levels to attract and retain qualified health care providers. Now, this is an option with the Department of Defense, where they need to be able to increase the coverage. It would allow the Department of Defense to say, all right, as an incentive to get this coverage for our personnel in this area, we will increase the reimbursement levels. Fifth, it would increase the revenues to military treatment facilities by permitting reimbursement at Medicare rates from third party payers. Now, this is something that will be very important to our military hospitals, where they can get reimbursed at the Medicare level, or they can be reimbursed by Medicare through subvention. We want them to be able to do that. That will, in fact, help our Department of Defense get the same level of reimbursement into the military hospitals that anyone going to a civilian hospital would be entitled to. So we are very hopeful that this amendment will just be accepted by the sponsors of the bill, because you can't have a military bill of rights that says we are going to deal with the biggest issues of recruiting and retention that we have in the military without addressing health care. I want to commend the chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for getting this bill up and out as the very first piece of major legislation we are going to pass in this session. They are increasing the pay, and that is the key issue for most people in our military. And they are bringing the pension up to the 50-percent level. I applaud them for that. I want to add a third element of the problems that our military are facing, and that is quality health care. We have more military families than we have ever had in the military before. Back in the old days, many of our people in the military, the personnel, were single. That is not the case today. Now most of them are married and most of them have families. So we must deal with that reality and make the military family-friendly if we are going to keep the good people of our country who want to be married and have families, which is the normal thing that we would like for people to have the option to do. So that is the crux of our amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I believe the Department of Defense will have a lot of latitude to work with this issue. But it must be addressed. We cannot have shoddy health care coverage that differs in different regions of the country, depending on what the military health care facilities are. If you don't have a military hospital in a city that has a military base, you have to provide for that health care. We want it to be good quality health care. I will never forget when I was over in Saudi Arabia visiting an Air Force base with our personnel. We were talking to these fliers and asked, ``What is your biggest problem?'' One flier said, ``Senator, my biggest problem is that I called home yesterday and my wife was in tears because we have a sick baby and not a doctor in the city will serve our baby. That is the biggest problem I have.'' And I said, ``Wait a minute, that is a problem we can fix.'' That is what the amendment that I and Senator Edwards and Senator Hagel and Senator Helms are offering today. We don't want one pilot in our military in Saudi Arabia or in Turkey or in Bosnia or in Italy or anywhere else to tell us that their biggest problem is that they called home last night and their wife is in tears with a sick baby who cannot get a pediatrician to see that baby. So that is what our amendment will do. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the committee allowing me to talk about this amendment. I really hope that he is going to accept this amendment because this could be the third part of the improvement that he is seeking, by increasing the pay, by increasing the pensions, and health care. I hope that we can do this so that we can say truthfully to everyone that comes into a recruiting office that we are going to give you the health care, the pay, and the pension that will make this a great job, because we want you to serve our country and protect our freedom. Thank you. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Idaho has an amendment, after which I would like to be recognized to talk about an amendment as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If a university president, a minister or priest, general or admiral, or a corporate chief executive had engaged in a sexual relationship with an intern under his charge, he would lose his position, with scant attention paid to whether or not such a relationship were ``consensual.'' We place in certain individuals so great a measure of trust that they are seen as acting essentially in loco parentis. The question before us today is: Should the President of the United States be held to a lower standard? The answer is: No. To the contrary; we can bestow no higher honor than to select one individual to represent us all as President. In one person we endow the character of our nation, as the head of state and the head of government. It's with great disappointment, but firm resolve, that I have concluded the President has not lived up to this high standard and that he should be removed from office. The House managers have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that, in addition to indefensible behavior with an intern, which was not illegal, the President engaged in the obstruction of justice and, as an element of that obstruction, committed perjury before a federal grand jury, which is. This case began as an alleged civil rights violation of a young woman who came to the bar seeking justice. The Supreme Court unanimously decided to permit her case against the President to go forward. It was that case which led to the revelations regarding the President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern. Incredibly, an element of the President's defense is that we should take the long view. We are told by the President's defenders that we should not judge his actions toward one individual, in which he schemed to impede her ability to seek redress, because his overall actions on civil rights are so positive. We are asked not to judge his treatment of one woman, or two women, but to evaluate his policies that affect all women. Would the President's defenders forgive a school teacher who molests a student, simply because the teacher's classes are popular and his students all go on to college? Should we ignore the police officer who personally enriches himself by accepting graft, so long as his arrest record is high? Would we look away from the corporate executive who illegally profits from insider information, as long as his shareholders are happy with the return on their investment? We would not sustain civil society for long with such moral relativism as our guide. The President had it solely within his power to keep the country from the course on which it has been for the past year. First, of course, he could have chosen not to engage in the behavior in question. Having behaved as he did, though, and having been discovered, the President could have acknowledged his own actions and accepted the consequences. This could have been an honorable resignation, or an admission, contrition, and a firm resolve to take responsibility; with a request for resolution in a manner short of impeachment and trial. Instead, the President chose to deny the allegations, and fight them with a coordinated scheme of manipulation and obstruction. He lied outright to the American people, to his close associates, and to his cabinet. An enduring image of this whole tale will be his finger- pointing lie to the American people, even after admonishing us to listen closely, because he didn't want to have to say it again. Even in view of these actions, the President missed numerous opportunities to right this matter and get it behind him and the country. At virtually every opportunity, though, he chose an action that further prolonged the matter and led directly to his impeachment. The President chose to impede the pursuit of justice by the Independent Counsel, who was given the authority to investigate this matter by the President's own Attorney General. The President chose to construct a cover story with Ms. Lewinsky, should their relationship become public. The President chose to direct his personal staff to retrieve items from Ms. Lewinsky that he knew were under subpoena in a federal investigation. The President chose to seek the assistance of friends to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky, and to intensify that job search when it became clear that Ms. Lewinsky had become a target of the civil suit against him. The President chose to lie to his staff about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky herself, with the expectation that these lies would become part of the public perception. And, the President chose to lie before a federal grand jury about his actions with regard to some of the elements of obstruction of justice, including the concealment of the gifts that were likely to become evidence in the civil case against him. As a result of these choices by the President of the United States, the Senate was left with no choice other than to confront the charges and hear the case pursuant to the President's impeachment in the House of Representatives. In so doing, the Senate conducted a fair and expeditious trial. We rejected the idea of an early test vote that would have truncated the process. We rejected the motion for an early dismissal. The Senate is fulfilling its Constitutional responsibility to hold a trial with a complete evidentiary record and a final vote on each article of impeachment sent to the Senate by the House of Representatives. Through skillful use of the written record compiled by the Independent Counsel, videotaped depositions, and hard evidence, the House managers presented a compelling case. The case for perjury was difficult. The President's testimony before the Grand Jury was guarded. He was fully aware of the evidence the prosecutors had with respect to this case. He chose his words carefully. He admitted his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky before the Grand Jury, but did so only after confronted with clinical evidence of its existence. But he lied to the Grand Jury to deny other key facts. He perjured himself as an element of a broader attempt to obstruct justice. There are two false statements that are the most persuasive. First, when asked if he directed Betty Currie to retrieve gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, he stated unequivocally, ``No sir, I did not do that.'' The facts are contrary to that allegation. Ms. Lewinsky testified that Betty Currie called her to suggest that Ms. Lewinsky give her the gifts. We have cellular telephone records that indicate a call from Ms. Currie to Ms. Lewinsky at about the time the gifts were picked up. It was clear that Ms. Currie initiated a retrieval of the gifts at the direction of the President, for this was the only source of information she had that there were gifts. The evidence is overwhelming that the President directed Betty Currie to retrieve these gifts. Thus, his statement is false. Not only is this perjury, it is obstruction of justice. The President also lied before the Grand Jury about his conversations with White House aides regarding Ms. Lewinsky. He testified that ``I said to them things that were true about this relationship.'' We know this to be completely false from the testimony of Sidney Blumenthal, who stated directly and unequivocally that the President had lied to him about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The legal standard for perjury is high. Under Section 18 U.S.C. 1623(a), a person is guilty of perjury if he or she knowingly makes a false, material statement under oath in a federal court or Grand Jury. I believe these statements were false, intentional and material in that they attempt to put a false impression on key events in a series of attempts to obstruct justice. In effect, the President knew his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was shameful, but not necessarily illegal. But he knew his obstruction of justice was illegal--so he lied about it to a Grand Jury. In many ways, obstruction of justice is even more corrosive than perjury to the machinery of our legal system. As the target of a grand jury and an independent prosecutor, the President has defended himself against charges of perjury by claiming he was caught off guard, was misinterpreted, was attempting to mislead but not lie. Obstruction of justice, though, is a quite different matter. It is an affirmative act that occurs at the person's own initiative; in this case, the President. It involves actions taken that were not instigated by anyone else. It has been said in his defense that the President did not initiate his perjury in that he was led to it by the prosecutor. But there is no similar argument regarding Article II, the Obstruction of Justice. Without the affirmative actions of the President, there would have been no Article II. The President sought out Mr. Blumenthal to tell his misleading story about the nature of his relationship and the character of Ms. Lewinsky. Separately, the President enlisted his personal secretary to further his obstruction of justice. He asked Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts. He summoned her to coach her testimony under the guise of ``trying to figure out what the facts were.'' He did so within hours after coming back to the White House on January 17th from his deposition in the civil sexual harassment lawsuit. He required a face-to-face meeting with her the next day, a Sunday. It couldn't be done over the phone, and it couldn't wait until Monday. It was clear he needed her to reaffirm his false testimony. This is obstruction of justice. The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down. Every day, thousands of citizens in thousands of courtrooms across America are sworn in as jurors, as grand jurors, as witnesses, as defendants. On those oaths rest the due process of law upon which all of our other rights are based. The oath is how we defend ourselves against those who would subvert our system by breaking our laws. There are Americans in jail today because they violated that oath. Others have prevailed at the bar of justice because of that oath. What would we be telling Americans--and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries--if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way? I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote ``Guilty'' on Article I, Perjury. I vote ``Guilty'' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice. I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe the White House attorneys should have the same privilege of being escorted out.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to add my thanks to the Chief Justice for his untiring efforts throughout the impeachment trial and to commend him for his dignity, fairness, and humor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It does not require each person to ask unanimous consent to insert their remarks, just giving it?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it is important, for the record, that it be known there are at least 60 to 70 Members in the Chamber, ready to proceed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Leader, would you yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. Motion to Close the Doors for Final Deliberation

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chief Justice, rule XX says that while the Senate is in session the doors shall remain open unless the Senate directs that the doors be closed. My inquiry is this: If the Senate, by a majority, voted not to direct the doors to be closed, would it be in order to proceed to deliberations with the doors open?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 1999. This bill is a first step to reform the military health care system known as TRICARE. We are trying to recruit and retain the best people for our nation's military. To do this, we must pay them better, maintain good retirement benefits and improve the health care we provide them and their families. Mr. President, there is a growing perception among active duty military, their dependents and military retirees that the military health care benefit is no longer much of a benefit. We have not done a very good job of keeping the promise the government made to military personnel: That in return for their service and sacrifices, the government will provide health care to active-duty members and their families even after they retire. In the past 10 years, the military has downsized by over one-third, and the military health care system has downsized by one-third as well. While hospitals have been closed as a result of BRAC or downsized in the past decade, the number of personnel that rely on the military and the military health care system has remained constant. Today, our armed forces have more married service members with families than ever before. In addition, those who have served and are now retired were promised quality health care as well. In place of the promise, these individuals and families have been given, instead, a system called ``TRICARE.'' TRICARE is not health care coverage, but a health care delivery system that provides varying levels of benefits depending largely on where a member of the military or a retiree lives. Unfortunately, what we find is that the TRICARE program often provides spotty coverage. My offices and those offices of my colleagues in the Senate no doubt have received thousands of complaints regarding access to care, unpaid bills, inadequate providers and difficulties with claims. For their part, the doctors who participate in TRICARE complain about a host of administrative problems including delayed payments and a very cumbersome claims process. Many doctors have simply left the program, and in some locations, there are simply no providers at all in certain specialties. This is unacceptable. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill to improve the health care benefits under the TRICARE program by ensuring that the health care and dental coverage available under TRICARE is substantially similar to the health care coverage and dental care coverage available under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. This bill will: Raise reimbursement levels for TRICARE, the military health-care delivery system, to attract and retain more participating doctors to the program. Expedite and reduce the costs of TRICARE claims processing, which has been a thorn in the side of both beneficiaries and providers. Require portability of benefits between regions. This would make it easier for military personnel and their families to receive health care benefits when they travel to different regions. Minimize the cumbersome pre-authorization requirements for access to care. Mr. President. This bill will help break down the bureaucracy that exists in the current system. There is no single solution to this problem, but we must begin now to ensure we honor our commitments. This is a critical issue to recruiting and retaining qualified people in the military--which is critical to the security of our country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Allard and Hagel and look forward to working with my colleagues to keep the promise and improve the military health care system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, 46 States reached a settlement last November which added them to the other States that already had settled with the tobacco companies, making every State in America now in a settlement with the tobacco companies. These States have not just chosen to put the money that is coming in from the tobacco settlement on Medicaid and health care issues. There are myriad State issues that this money is going to be used for. But that is in limbo today because the President has given notice that he is going to seize this money from them. So everything is going to be held in abeyance until we settle this issue once and for all. That is what our bill will do. There is no reason--no reason whatsoever--that we should take money from the Medicaid funds that go to the States which provide a safety net for the millions of low-income and disabled Americans who depend on Medicaid for their health care needs. We cannot allow that to happen, and we will not. I intend to work with the cosponsors of this bill to find the first available vehicle to attach it so that we can make sure that this money that our States have worked alone to achieve, with no help from the Federal Government, will remain in their sole jurisdiction; that they will be able to make the choices on what their States need and not have dictated to them by the Federal Government what they will spend this money for. Many States--I was talking to Senator Abraham from the State of Michigan, and they are going to create scholarship funds for low-income students in Michigan, a very worthy cause. Other States are going to be doing education to try to encourage teenagers not to smoke. We don't want to substitute our judgment for the judgment that the States are making for their best and most important priorities. So I am pleased to have the 28 cosponsors of this bill. I think we will pass it. I hope that we can do it quickly so that these States will have the freedom to spend this money on the much needed programs in those States. I am happy to yield to Senator Gorton.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill, along with 27 other cosponsors. The prime one is Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who has worked very hard with me over the last year to make sure that the State tobacco settlements which our States have worked so hard to achieve will remain in control of the States because, in fact, the President's budget which was just released this week assumes that it will still seize $18.9 billion of the State tobacco settlement funds for Medicaid recoupment. Mr. President, that is just not right, and the bill I am introducing with Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Gorton, and 26 others, on a bipartisan basis, will keep that from happening. The bill is strongly supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Conference of State Legislators, and several other groups. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these groups be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 1999. This bill is a first step to reform the military health care system known as TRICARE. We are trying to recruit and retain the best people for our nation's military. To do this, we must pay them better, maintain good retirement benefits and improve the health care we provide them and their families. Mr. President, there is a growing perception among active duty military, their dependents and military retirees that the military health care benefit is no longer much of a benefit. We have not done a very good job of keeping the promise the government made to military personnel: That in return for their service and sacrifices, the government will provide health care to active-duty members and their families even after they retire. In the past 10 years, the military has downsized by over one-third, and the military health care system has downsized by one-third as well. While hospitals have been closed as a result of BRAC or downsized in the past decade, the number of personnel that rely on the military and the military health care system has remained constant. Today, our armed forces have more married service members with families than ever before. In addition, those who have served and are now retired were promised quality health care as well. In place of the promise, these individuals and families have been given, instead, a system called ``TRICARE.'' TRICARE is not health care coverage, but a health care delivery system that provides varying levels of benefits depending largely on where a member of the military or a retiree lives. Unfortunately, what we find is that the TRICARE program often provides spotty coverage. My offices and those offices of my colleagues in the Senate no doubt have received thousands of complaints regarding access to care, unpaid bills, inadequate providers and difficulties with claims. For their part, the doctors who participate in TRICARE complain about a host of administrative problems including delayed payments and a very cumbersome claims process. Many doctors have simply left the program, and in some locations, there are simply no providers at all in certain specialties. This is unacceptable. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill to improve the health care benefits under the TRICARE program by ensuring that the health care and dental coverage available under TRICARE is substantially similar to the health care coverage and dental care coverage available under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. This bill will: Raise reimbursement levels for TRICARE, the military health-care delivery system, to attract and retain more participating doctors to the program. Expedite and reduce the costs of TRICARE claims processing, which has been a thorn in the side of both beneficiaries and providers. Require portability of benefits between regions. This would make it easier for military personnel and their families to receive health care benefits when they travel to different regions. Minimize the cumbersome pre-authorization requirements for access to care. Mr. President. This bill will help break down the bureaucracy that exists in the current system. There is no single solution to this problem, but we must begin now to ensure we honor our commitments. This is a critical issue to recruiting and retaining qualified people in the military--which is critical to the security of our country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Allard and Hagel and look forward to working with my colleagues to keep the promise and improve the military health care system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, 46 States reached a settlement last November which added them to the other States that already had settled with the tobacco companies, making every State in America now in a settlement with the tobacco companies. These States have not just chosen to put the money that is coming in from the tobacco settlement on Medicaid and health care issues. There are myriad State issues that this money is going to be used for. But that is in limbo today because the President has given notice that he is going to seize this money from them. So everything is going to be held in abeyance until we settle this issue once and for all. That is what our bill will do. There is no reason--no reason whatsoever--that we should take money from the Medicaid funds that go to the States which provide a safety net for the millions of low-income and disabled Americans who depend on Medicaid for their health care needs. We cannot allow that to happen, and we will not. I intend to work with the cosponsors of this bill to find the first available vehicle to attach it so that we can make sure that this money that our States have worked alone to achieve, with no help from the Federal Government, will remain in their sole jurisdiction; that they will be able to make the choices on what their States need and not have dictated to them by the Federal Government what they will spend this money for. Many States--I was talking to Senator Abraham from the State of Michigan, and they are going to create scholarship funds for low-income students in Michigan, a very worthy cause. Other States are going to be doing education to try to encourage teenagers not to smoke. We don't want to substitute our judgment for the judgment that the States are making for their best and most important priorities. So I am pleased to have the 28 cosponsors of this bill. I think we will pass it. I hope that we can do it quickly so that these States will have the freedom to spend this money on the much needed programs in those States. I am happy to yield to Senator Gorton.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill, along with 27 other cosponsors. The prime one is Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who has worked very hard with me over the last year to make sure that the State tobacco settlements which our States have worked so hard to achieve will remain in control of the States because, in fact, the President's budget which was just released this week assumes that it will still seize $18.9 billion of the State tobacco settlement funds for Medicaid recoupment. Mr. President, that is just not right, and the bill I am introducing with Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Gorton, and 26 others, on a bipartisan basis, will keep that from happening. The bill is strongly supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Conference of State Legislators, and several other groups. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these groups be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 30 minutes thereafter, and I further ask that following my remarks Senator Gorton be recognized, followed by Senator Graham of Florida and then followed by Senator Brownback.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act. Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state of crisis. In energy producing states, we are hearing daily from our constituents about this crisis. This week the oil and gas rig count hit an all-time low of 588 rigs nationwide. This is down from nearly 5,000 rigs operating in 1981. Crude oil prices are at their lowest point in decades, and some think they will fall further. According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, for every dollar drop in the price of oil, ten thousand Texas jobs are at risk. Last year, the energy industry lost 30,000 jobs in the United States. Mr. President, not only is this an economic issue, it's a national security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have worked, on a bi-partisan basis, to develop the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act. This legislation provides tax incentives in two significant areas to boost U.S. oil production. 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 at a time of low prices. Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. On average, they produce two barrels a day. There are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of America's oil. To put this in perspective, we import 20 percent of our oil from Saudia Arabia. Texas, alone, has 100,000 marginal wells. Regrettably, 48,000 wells have been idled or shut in the past year. In recent months, some marginal well producers report prices as low as $6 per barrel. If we don't act soon, these producers--and the thousands they employ--will go out of business. These marginal wells can still be profitable for all of us. In 1998, these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to state governments. Second, Mr. President, the bill would provide incentives to restart inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of doing so. In Texas, a similar program has resulted in 6,000 wells being returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the Texas economy. Mr. President, improving the production and flow from both marginal wells and inactive wells will do a great deal to improve our energy production. This is vital to improving the state of the U.S. oil and gas industry. I am pleased that this legislation has 18 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. I would invite all members of the Senate to join me as a co-sponsor. This morning I testified before the Senate Energy Committee on this bill. Certainly that Committee recognizes the gravity of this situation. I would hope that, with the introduction of this bill, the Senate as a whole will begin to focus on this problem and we can begin finding solutions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act. Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state of crisis. In energy producing states, we are hearing daily from our constituents about this crisis. This week the oil and gas rig count hit an all-time low of 588 rigs nationwide. This is down from nearly 5,000 rigs operating in 1981. Crude oil prices are at their lowest point in decades, and some think they will fall further. According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, for every dollar drop in the price of oil, ten thousand Texas jobs are at risk. Last year, the energy industry lost 30,000 jobs in the United States. Mr. President, not only is this an economic issue, it's a national security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda. To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have worked, on a bi-partisan basis, to develop the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act. This legislation provides tax incentives in two significant areas to boost U.S. oil production. 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 at a time of low prices. Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. On average, they produce two barrels a day. There are close to 500,000 such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of America's oil. To put this in perspective, we import 20 percent of our oil from Saudia Arabia. Texas, alone, has 100,000 marginal wells. Regrettably, 48,000 wells have been idled or shut in the past year. In recent months, some marginal well producers report prices as low as $6 per barrel. If we don't act soon, these producers--and the thousands they employ--will go out of business. These marginal wells can still be profitable for all of us. In 1998, these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to state governments. Second, Mr. President, the bill would provide incentives to restart inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of doing so. In Texas, a similar program has resulted in 6,000 wells being returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the Texas economy. Mr. President, improving the production and flow from both marginal wells and inactive wells will do a great deal to improve our energy production. This is vital to improving the state of the U.S. oil and gas industry. I am pleased that this legislation has 18 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. I would invite all members of the Senate to join me as a co-sponsor. This morning I testified before the Senate Energy Committee on this bill. Certainly that Committee recognizes the gravity of this situation. I would hope that, with the introduction of this bill, the Senate as a whole will begin to focus on this problem and we can begin finding solutions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for talking about our very important congressional agenda. I was very pleased to hear the closing remarks from my colleague from Oklahoma, because I think one of the priorities of Congress has been laid right at our feet by the Senator from Oklahoma. And according to the Constitution it is the one major responsibility that Congress must perform--to provide a national defense for the United States and all of its citizens. That core responsibility has been jeopardized in the last 5 years because we have not kept up the investments needed to ensure that we keep and recruit the best people for our military. Equipment is deteriorating, and the big strategic defenses that are vital to our national security have not been deployed. Again, I am very pleased that the Senator from Oklahoma talked about defense, and I am going to add some things that I believe are necessary to regain and maintain a strong national in defense. What we have seen with the President's State of the Union, and the congressional statement of priorities, are some places where we will be able to work together. While we can agree on some goals, I also believe there are some profound differences in how we get there. The Republican plan is very simple while the President's plan is very complicated. It seemed like it was a new idea a minute. It was a shotgun approach to all of the major issues we face. I would like to take each one of those and show how we will be different and hopefully how we can come together. Let us say, first and foremost, that our No. 1 priority is Social Security reform. I think that is also the President's first priority. How we achieve reform is going to be very different, because the President has opted for a big federalized plan whereas the Republicans in Congress are trying to say: We want people to be able to have their own retirement accounts. We want them to be able to make some of the choices in investing their Social Security taxes. And, most of all, we want people to be able to pass their retirement accounts onto their children. This is a very important difference from the President's plan, which is to take 60 percent of the surplus and have the Government invest it in the stock market. While it might make Social Security more secure, I think it could have a disastrous impact on the stock market. The federal government could use its investments to micro-manage certain industries and markets. Free enterprise is the hallmark of our economy and having the government enter the stock market could pose a significant risk to the nature of our economy. Tax relief. I think it is very important that we have simple, straight-forward tax relief for every working American family. Every working American in the Republican plan will get a 10 percent across- the-board tax cut. In order to determine how this plan will benefit you, while you are figuring your taxes in preparation for the April 15th filing deadline, take 10 percent off of your tax liability; and that is what our tax cut will give you. Now, compare our tax cut plan to the President's very complex tax cutting proposals. His plan will add thousands of pages of new rules and regulations to an already burdensome and complex tax code. Only if you spend your money on his priorities will you get any tax relief. With our plan everybody wins. Our plan puts more of the money in the pockets of the people who earn it, rather than giving it to ``Big Brother'' Government to decide how to spend the money you earn and you worked for. Education: The primary difference between our education proposal and the President's proposal has to do with who is in control of the resources. Both plans seek to achieve the same goals, but ours would keep control with those who directly educate children--local school officials, principals, teachers, and parents. We have the same goals, but we will reach them in different ways. The congressional plan is the right one for America. We are going to push ahead and hope that the President will work with us to reform Social Security and make it secure, to give tax cuts to hard-working Americans, and increase educational opportunity so that every child in America can get a good public education and reach his or her full potential. order for recess

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.