Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today Senator Rod Grams and I are introducing the half-and-half bill. We like to say half-and-half is more than just rich milk. We want to have the plan in place so if we, in fact, have a surplus, we will start doing the responsible thing for the people of our country. We believe half should go to debt reduction, to start paying down the $5 trillion debt, and half should go to tax relief for the hard-working American family. The Federal tax burden today is the greatest that it has been in the history of our country. In fact, 38.3 percent of the average family income is spent on taxes. That is a whale of a burden on people who are trying to raise children, trying to put them through college, and we are very pleased to try to bring down that tax burden with the half- and-half Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998. This is what our bill does. First, it eliminates the marriage tax penalty by allowing couples to file as singles. Mr. President, 21 million American couples today pay an average of $1,400 more because they got married. You see behind me an example, and this is a real example. A first-year schoolteacher in Houston is paid $27,000. A rookie police officer in Houston, TX starts out at $29,698. After they get married, their tax burden will be $638.44 more, just because they got married. We do not think that is right. We do not believe that Americans should have to choose between love and money. We want an equitable and fair burden on the taxpayers of this country, and we do not think that people who get married, who are both working, should have to pay more taxes. The second thing our bill does is raise the income levels for the 15 and 28 percent tax brackets. For a single person, before he or she would move into the 28 percent bracket, it would go up to $35,000; a married couple, $50,000, and for a head of household it would be $40,000. The 28 percent bracket would be expanded for a single person to $71,050; a married couple at $109,950, and head of household $93,750 It is very important that we start giving that relief at these lower income and middle income levels, and that is what this bill will do. The bill also repeals the 18-month capital gains holding period and makes it 12 months instead. It is a fact that our elderly people pay the most in capital gains taxes, and we think that is wrong. So we are going to try to reduce the holding period so our elderly people who may have to sell assets to live on will not be burdened any more than is absolutely necessary. We index capital gains taxes for inflation in our bill. Taxpayers should not have to pay a capital gains tax in assets that have increased in value simply due to inflation. Last year we started this process of by allowing an exemption of $500,000 in capital gains for the sale of a home. That's a big help to an elderly person. We want to make it even easier for them. We would cut the top estate tax rate from 55 percent to 28 percent. We believe estate taxes take away from the ability of Americans to realize the American dream of giving their children a better start. So we are trying to bring down the tax burden on the hard-working American family. We believe it is important that people be able to keep more of the money they earn, and 38 percent of the average American's pay, salary, going to taxes, is too much of a burden. So I am very pleased Senator Grams has come on as the major cosponsor of this bill. Mr. GRAMS: Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing legislation to lockbox any budget surplus for tax relief and national debt reduction. Given this week's budget surplus projections, the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998'' is the right legislation at the right time. Eighty-five years ago this week, the Internal Revenue Service began collecting the individual income tax, initiating 85 years of ever- increasing hardship for America's taxpaying families. Now, with a budget surplus closer and taxes at an all-time high, it is time that Washington let the taxpayers keep more of their own money, so that families can spend it meeting their own needs--whether that is child care, health insurance, clothing, or groceries. By dedicating half of any budget surplus to reducing the debt and the other half to family tax relief, Senator Hutchison's legislation protects the taxpayers of today while reducing the burden on the taxpayers of tomorrow. I commend her for her leadership on this timely issue. Mr. President, I would like to offer some perspective into why we are introducing the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act" today. If it seems as though the media has a label for everyone these days, blame it on the era of the 15-second sound bite. At a point in history when many in the media consider brevity the most virtuous of virtues, journalists compete for our attention by whittling down their words into a kind of reporter's shorthand that, over time, becomes meaningless to news consumers. The shorthand gets especially muddied when it is applied to politics. Once a person enters public office, the media is quick to toss them a label--conservative or liberal, left wing or right wing. As political realities evolve, though, the labels have less and less relevance as time goes on. They become a cliche, no longer very useful in describing a political philosophy. I believe the American public has already moved beyond the media in breaking from the label mentality, and whether they consider it consciously, they have shifted their thinking from the old concept of liberal versus conservative to that of taxpayers versus big Government. Today, every action of the government is being evaluated by a standard that strikes home for the folks who work for a living, raise a family, and pay their taxes: does it benefit the taxpayers or does it benefit the Government? What we have discovered through this new way of thinking is that far too often, the Government is prospering at the expense of the taxpayers. Too much faith in Government equals less freedom for families and individuals. Dependency on Government equals less independence for the governed. And as the Government prospers, we have learned that big Government does not necessarily translate into better Government--it is just bigger Government, with more bureaucracy, paid for by higher taxes. Families today are taxed at the highest levels since World War II, with 38 percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the Federal, State, and local level. In nominal dollars, a two-income family is paying more just in taxes today than their paychecks totaled in 1977. That is nearly 50% more than they are spending for food, shelter, and clothing combined. Taxpayers do not mind paying taxes when they can see results. In local government, the results are obvious: clean streets, police cars on patrol, regular garbage pickup. On the Federal level, the results are much less evident. Families want to believe Washington is spending their tax dollars prudently, but when the evening newscasts focus repeatedly on the ``fleecing of America,'' they wonder: is the Government serving the taxpayers, or just serving itself? There is no question the Federal Government is growing bigger. Contrary to the claim of President Clinton in his State of the Union address that ``we have the smallest Government in 35 years,'' the Federal Government will spend more tax dollars in 1998 than it has in the history of this nation--$1.7 trillion. That is a 19 percent increase since the President took office in 1993, although inflation during that same period has risen less than 14 percent. The President would add thousands of new civilian federal employees and, according to an analysis of his budget by the Senate Budget Committee, $123 billion in new federal programs that would touch nearly every aspect of daily life, from our classrooms to our boardrooms to our bedrooms. To pay for all that new government, the President calls for boosting taxes by $115 billion over the next five years. That is a massive hike that would effectively wipe out the hard-fought $85 billion tax cut Americans won under last year's Taxpayer Relief Act. A big, expensive federal government is a bad deal for the taxpayers. It is an even worse deal for my fellow Minnesotans. A recent study conducted by the Northeast-Midwest Institute shows that Minnesota ranks 49th of 50 states in Federal dollars returned to the State. The people of Minnesota pay one of highest tax rates in the Nation, but only one other state receives less service in return from the Federal Government. According to the National Taxpayers Union, if Congress could roll federal domestic spending back to 1969 levels, a family of four would keep $9,000 a year more of its own money than it does today. Millions of families would pay no income tax at all. Unfortunately, tax-and- spend, not tax relief and streamlining, is the policy Washington now pursues. The most disturbing sign that the taxpayers are losing the ``taxpayers versus big government'' debate is the rush in Washington to spend a budget surplus that does not yet exist. If a surplus does develop, the Government has no claim on it because the Government did not generate it. A surplus will be borne of the sweat and hard work of the American people, and it therefore should be returned to the people as called for under the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998.'' When Washington serves itself instead of meeting the needs of its owners, the taxpayers, spending rises, taxes increase, responsibilities are neglected, and people begin to feel constricted by a Government they sense is deeply out of touch. At their urging, we have begun to turn the focus away from the smothering squeeze of big government toward families and new partnerships that move Washington from the center of the circle to another spoke along its hub. Where the Federal Government once held all the power, communities--local churches, nonprofit organizations, job providers, individual volunteers, and charities of all types--have stepped forward to work with neighbors to attack problems on the local level. Freedom for families also means giving families the freedom to spend more of their own dollars as they choose. We have taken steps in Washington to return more of that control to working Minnesotans and all working Americans, through tax relief, beginning with passage last year of the $500 per-child tax credit. Mr. President, the states offer us an excellent model of how we should use a future budget surplus. In recent years, many Republican governors cut taxes and shrank the size of their governments, and in the process turned budget deficits into surpluses. They are now using those surpluses to provide further tax relief. Take my own State of Minnesota, for example. When Governor Arne Carlson was elected to office in 1990, he inherited a deficit greater than $1.8 billion and a government that was spending 15 percent faster than the rate of inflation. Today, the State government has a $1.3 billion budget surplus. Now the Governor is using the surplus to give Minnesotans a property tax cut and an increase in the education homestead credit. Returning a future surplus to those who created it, the Nation's hardworking taxpayers, is the right way to use that surplus. I agree with President Clinton that saving Social Security is vitally important. But I believe we can save Social Security and provide tax relief simultaneously, if we have the political will to enact sound fiscal policies. The best way to save Social Security is to stop looting the Social Security surplus to fund general Government programs, return the borrowed surplus to the trust funds, and begin real reform to change the system from ``paygo'' to one that is prefunded. As the Federal Government has grown, it is ironic that it has grown further away from the one thing from which it derives its strength. And that is the people. In 1998, Congress and the President have the power to bring government closer to the people, to refocus its attention on serving the taxpayers, not fortifying itself. Yet, while Washington may have the power to change, does it have the resolve to change? I believe it does, because if we intend to reduce the growing burden awaiting the next generation of taxpayers, ``Failure is not an option.'' In closing, the Hutchison legislation would help move government toward the taxpayers and toward greater accountability, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, just to sum up. I think the Hutchison- Grams-Ashcroft half and half bill is sound policy. It is a responsible approach. If we, indeed, have worked hard and cut the deficits and will go toward a balanced budget even sooner than we thought, I think we create a great dilemma of what to do with the surplus. Because we have worked so hard and become more efficient, I hope we will take this opportunity not to backslide, not to go into more spending programs that will put us in the same situation we were before, but instead take the opportunity to start paying down the $5 trillion debt. So this would be an opportunity to start paying down the debt and put in the pockets of hard-working Americans more of the money they earn. Thirty-eight percent of a person's income is too much to be doling out to Government programs that you may or may not think are a good priority. So we are going to try to lessen that at the same time that we begin to pay down the debt so our children and grandchildren will not have to take from us that kind of burden. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the managers of the bill for allowing us to take this time to introduce the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grams for taking a leadership role in this. He has been dedicated, since he was elected to the U.S. Senate, to sound fiscal policies. I think this bill is a sound approach to any surplus that we might have. I appreciate his cosponsorship. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Ashcroft as a third original cosponsor of the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today Senator Rod Grams and I are introducing the half-and-half bill. We like to say half-and-half is more than just rich milk. We want to have the plan in place so if we, in fact, have a surplus, we will start doing the responsible thing for the people of our country. We believe half should go to debt reduction, to start paying down the $5 trillion debt, and half should go to tax relief for the hard-working American family. The Federal tax burden today is the greatest that it has been in the history of our country. In fact, 38.3 percent of the average family income is spent on taxes. That is a whale of a burden on people who are trying to raise children, trying to put them through college, and we are very pleased to try to bring down that tax burden with the half- and-half Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998. This is what our bill does. First, it eliminates the marriage tax penalty by allowing couples to file as singles. Mr. President, 21 million American couples today pay an average of $1,400 more because they got married. You see behind me an example, and this is a real example. A first-year schoolteacher in Houston is paid $27,000. A rookie police officer in Houston, TX starts out at $29,698. After they get married, their tax burden will be $638.44 more, just because they got married. We do not think that is right. We do not believe that Americans should have to choose between love and money. We want an equitable and fair burden on the taxpayers of this country, and we do not think that people who get married, who are both working, should have to pay more taxes. The second thing our bill does is raise the income levels for the 15 and 28 percent tax brackets. For a single person, before he or she would move into the 28 percent bracket, it would go up to $35,000; a married couple, $50,000, and for a head of household it would be $40,000. The 28 percent bracket would be expanded for a single person to $71,050; a married couple at $109,950, and head of household $93,750 It is very important that we start giving that relief at these lower income and middle income levels, and that is what this bill will do. The bill also repeals the 18-month capital gains holding period and makes it 12 months instead. It is a fact that our elderly people pay the most in capital gains taxes, and we think that is wrong. So we are going to try to reduce the holding period so our elderly people who may have to sell assets to live on will not be burdened any more than is absolutely necessary. We index capital gains taxes for inflation in our bill. Taxpayers should not have to pay a capital gains tax in assets that have increased in value simply due to inflation. Last year we started this process of by allowing an exemption of $500,000 in capital gains for the sale of a home. That's a big help to an elderly person. We want to make it even easier for them. We would cut the top estate tax rate from 55 percent to 28 percent. We believe estate taxes take away from the ability of Americans to realize the American dream of giving their children a better start. So we are trying to bring down the tax burden on the hard-working American family. We believe it is important that people be able to keep more of the money they earn, and 38 percent of the average American's pay, salary, going to taxes, is too much of a burden. So I am very pleased Senator Grams has come on as the major cosponsor of this bill. Mr. GRAMS: Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing legislation to lockbox any budget surplus for tax relief and national debt reduction. Given this week's budget surplus projections, the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998'' is the right legislation at the right time. Eighty-five years ago this week, the Internal Revenue Service began collecting the individual income tax, initiating 85 years of ever- increasing hardship for America's taxpaying families. Now, with a budget surplus closer and taxes at an all-time high, it is time that Washington let the taxpayers keep more of their own money, so that families can spend it meeting their own needs--whether that is child care, health insurance, clothing, or groceries. By dedicating half of any budget surplus to reducing the debt and the other half to family tax relief, Senator Hutchison's legislation protects the taxpayers of today while reducing the burden on the taxpayers of tomorrow. I commend her for her leadership on this timely issue. Mr. President, I would like to offer some perspective into why we are introducing the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act" today. If it seems as though the media has a label for everyone these days, blame it on the era of the 15-second sound bite. At a point in history when many in the media consider brevity the most virtuous of virtues, journalists compete for our attention by whittling down their words into a kind of reporter's shorthand that, over time, becomes meaningless to news consumers. The shorthand gets especially muddied when it is applied to politics. Once a person enters public office, the media is quick to toss them a label--conservative or liberal, left wing or right wing. As political realities evolve, though, the labels have less and less relevance as time goes on. They become a cliche, no longer very useful in describing a political philosophy. I believe the American public has already moved beyond the media in breaking from the label mentality, and whether they consider it consciously, they have shifted their thinking from the old concept of liberal versus conservative to that of taxpayers versus big Government. Today, every action of the government is being evaluated by a standard that strikes home for the folks who work for a living, raise a family, and pay their taxes: does it benefit the taxpayers or does it benefit the Government? What we have discovered through this new way of thinking is that far too often, the Government is prospering at the expense of the taxpayers. Too much faith in Government equals less freedom for families and individuals. Dependency on Government equals less independence for the governed. And as the Government prospers, we have learned that big Government does not necessarily translate into better Government--it is just bigger Government, with more bureaucracy, paid for by higher taxes. Families today are taxed at the highest levels since World War II, with 38 percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the Federal, State, and local level. In nominal dollars, a two-income family is paying more just in taxes today than their paychecks totaled in 1977. That is nearly 50% more than they are spending for food, shelter, and clothing combined. Taxpayers do not mind paying taxes when they can see results. In local government, the results are obvious: clean streets, police cars on patrol, regular garbage pickup. On the Federal level, the results are much less evident. Families want to believe Washington is spending their tax dollars prudently, but when the evening newscasts focus repeatedly on the ``fleecing of America,'' they wonder: is the Government serving the taxpayers, or just serving itself? There is no question the Federal Government is growing bigger. Contrary to the claim of President Clinton in his State of the Union address that ``we have the smallest Government in 35 years,'' the Federal Government will spend more tax dollars in 1998 than it has in the history of this nation--$1.7 trillion. That is a 19 percent increase since the President took office in 1993, although inflation during that same period has risen less than 14 percent. The President would add thousands of new civilian federal employees and, according to an analysis of his budget by the Senate Budget Committee, $123 billion in new federal programs that would touch nearly every aspect of daily life, from our classrooms to our boardrooms to our bedrooms. To pay for all that new government, the President calls for boosting taxes by $115 billion over the next five years. That is a massive hike that would effectively wipe out the hard-fought $85 billion tax cut Americans won under last year's Taxpayer Relief Act. A big, expensive federal government is a bad deal for the taxpayers. It is an even worse deal for my fellow Minnesotans. A recent study conducted by the Northeast-Midwest Institute shows that Minnesota ranks 49th of 50 states in Federal dollars returned to the State. The people of Minnesota pay one of highest tax rates in the Nation, but only one other state receives less service in return from the Federal Government. According to the National Taxpayers Union, if Congress could roll federal domestic spending back to 1969 levels, a family of four would keep $9,000 a year more of its own money than it does today. Millions of families would pay no income tax at all. Unfortunately, tax-and- spend, not tax relief and streamlining, is the policy Washington now pursues. The most disturbing sign that the taxpayers are losing the ``taxpayers versus big government'' debate is the rush in Washington to spend a budget surplus that does not yet exist. If a surplus does develop, the Government has no claim on it because the Government did not generate it. A surplus will be borne of the sweat and hard work of the American people, and it therefore should be returned to the people as called for under the ``Tax Relief and Debt Reduction Act of 1998.'' When Washington serves itself instead of meeting the needs of its owners, the taxpayers, spending rises, taxes increase, responsibilities are neglected, and people begin to feel constricted by a Government they sense is deeply out of touch. At their urging, we have begun to turn the focus away from the smothering squeeze of big government toward families and new partnerships that move Washington from the center of the circle to another spoke along its hub. Where the Federal Government once held all the power, communities--local churches, nonprofit organizations, job providers, individual volunteers, and charities of all types--have stepped forward to work with neighbors to attack problems on the local level. Freedom for families also means giving families the freedom to spend more of their own dollars as they choose. We have taken steps in Washington to return more of that control to working Minnesotans and all working Americans, through tax relief, beginning with passage last year of the $500 per-child tax credit. Mr. President, the states offer us an excellent model of how we should use a future budget surplus. In recent years, many Republican governors cut taxes and shrank the size of their governments, and in the process turned budget deficits into surpluses. They are now using those surpluses to provide further tax relief. Take my own State of Minnesota, for example. When Governor Arne Carlson was elected to office in 1990, he inherited a deficit greater than $1.8 billion and a government that was spending 15 percent faster than the rate of inflation. Today, the State government has a $1.3 billion budget surplus. Now the Governor is using the surplus to give Minnesotans a property tax cut and an increase in the education homestead credit. Returning a future surplus to those who created it, the Nation's hardworking taxpayers, is the right way to use that surplus. I agree with President Clinton that saving Social Security is vitally important. But I believe we can save Social Security and provide tax relief simultaneously, if we have the political will to enact sound fiscal policies. The best way to save Social Security is to stop looting the Social Security surplus to fund general Government programs, return the borrowed surplus to the trust funds, and begin real reform to change the system from ``paygo'' to one that is prefunded. As the Federal Government has grown, it is ironic that it has grown further away from the one thing from which it derives its strength. And that is the people. In 1998, Congress and the President have the power to bring government closer to the people, to refocus its attention on serving the taxpayers, not fortifying itself. Yet, while Washington may have the power to change, does it have the resolve to change? I believe it does, because if we intend to reduce the growing burden awaiting the next generation of taxpayers, ``Failure is not an option.'' In closing, the Hutchison legislation would help move government toward the taxpayers and toward greater accountability, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison and Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1711 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are we speaking as in morning business for this time period, so that I can introduce a bill? If not, I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, now I would like to see if there could be an amendment--Senator Abraham wants to offer a short amendment. I am told it will take only a couple of minutes. I am willing to let him do that if it is acceptable to the Senator from Rhode Island, but it would change the unanimous consent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this just reiterates the importance of the cooperation between the Department of Transportation and the transportation research projects now being done by the Department of Transportation through several universities in my State of Texas, as well as California, Minnesota, and the State of Washington. They are doing very valuable research on relieving congestion. Through transportation and computer systems, they are able to determine how you can relieve congestion in our major cities. I appreciate the fact that both sides have agreed to this amendment. I offer it for consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me, if I could, ask the chairman a question. Does he want me to introduce the amendment that is agreed to and get that taken care of?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask consent to speak 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill that was just introduced by my colleague from Colorado. I appreciate the fact that he is trying to preserve an important piece of history of our country. I will be happy to work with him to make that a reality.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill that was just introduced by my colleague from Colorado. I appreciate the fact that he is trying to preserve an important piece of history of our country. I will be happy to work with him to make that a reality.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a point of history as well. That is to commemorate, today, from 162 years ago, Texas Independence Day. Each year I look forward to March 2. This is a special day for Texans, a day that fills our hearts with pride. On this day, 162 years ago, a solemn convention of 54 men, including my great great grandfather Charles S. Taylor, met in the small settlement of Washington-on-the-Brazos. There they signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. The declaration stated: We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare . . . that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic . . . At the time, Texas was a remote territory of Mexico. It was hospitable only to the bravest and most determined of settlers. After declaring our independence, the founding delegates quickly wrote a constitution for the new born republic. Then they organized an interim government. As was the case when the American Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, our declaration only pointed the way toward a goal. It would extract a price of enormous effort and great sacrifice. While the convention sat in Washington-on-the-Brazos, 6,000 Mexican troops were marching on the Alamo to challenge the newly created republic. Several days earlier, from the Alamo, Col. William Barrett Travis sent his immortal letter to the people of Texas--and to all Americans. He knew the Mexican Army was approaching. And he knew that he had only a very few men to help defend the San Antonio fortress. Colonel Travis wrote: Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barret Travis, Lt. Col. Commander. What American, Texan or otherwise, can fail to be stirred by Col. Travis' resolve? In fact, Col. Travis' dire prediction came true--4- 5,000 Mexican troops laid seize to the Alamo. In the battle that followed, 184 brave men died in a heroic but vain attempt to fend off Santa Anna's overwhelming army. but the Alamo was crucial in Tax independence. Because those heroes at the Alamo held out for so long, Santa Anna's forces were battered and diminished. Gen. Sam Houston gained the time he needed to devise a strategy to defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, just a month or so later, April 21, 1836. The Lone Star was visible on the horizon at last. We Texans continue to commemorate the heroic times during which we won our independence, when we existed as a republic and finally joined the Union. Each year, on March 2, there is a ceremony at Washington-on-the- Brazos State Park where there is a replica of the modest cabin where the 54 patriots laid down their lives and treasure for freedom. Each year, as close as possible to March 2, I read Colonel Travis' letter to my colleagues in the Senate, a tradition started by Senator John Tower. This is a reminder to them and to all of us of the pride Texans share in our history and in being the only State that came into the Union as a republic. Mr. President, I am pleased to continue the tradition that was started by Senator Tower because we do have a unique heritage in Texas where we did fight for our freedom. Having grown up in the family and hearing the stories of my great-great-grandfather, it was something that was ingrained in us--fighting for your freedom was something that you did. We did it for Texas and we have done it for America. I think it is very important that we remember the people who sacrificed, the 184 men who died at the Alamo, the men who died at Gilliard, who made it possible for us to win the battle of San Jacinto and become a nation which we were for 10 years before we entered the Union as a republic. Now we fly both flags proudly--the American flag and the Texas flag-- over our capital. I am very pleased to once again commemorate our great heritage and history.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Rhode Island would yield, I am happy he mentioned the corridors, the trade corridors, that were also included in the recent agreement. As we have opened our trade with Mexico, it has caused a huge congestion on the NAFTA corridors that come through my State but also through other States that are on the border and also up into the rest of our country. I am very pleased you have allocated an extra amount for wear and tear because it will ease the congestion and stop some of the long delays that we are seeing at the border because we don't have enough bridges and gateways. This will help alleviate that and make it even easier to trade with our neighbor to the south.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I also want to say I was here on the floor during the recent agreement that was made on the highway bill. I commend my fellow Senator, my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, for working with Senator Byrd in what I think is a very important accomplishment not just for my State but for all Americans. Many of us feel that our transportation infrastructure is the key to our continued economic viability in this country. Many of us have been very concerned that we have shortchanged that infrastructure by putting money in other areas. What Senator Gramm and what Senator Byrd did today was to assure that we are going to have the money that people pay in their gasoline taxes each day when they go to work, assure that it comes back in the form of a user fee to help ease the transportation congestion in our urban areas and to make it easier to access our rural areas in this country. I commend Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus for working with Senator Gramm and Senator Byrd to come out with a very fair agreement that will benefit everyone. I especially thank also Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for helping to make sure that would happen without busting the budget caps because that is also our responsibility as stewards of our Nation. I think we had a very important agreement, and I look forward to voting for this agreement tomorrow on the floor. I think everyone will be pleased that we are going to have the money that is paid every day by Americans, that 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax, go right where it should go, and that is to ease our transportation byways and highways and the transit systems that keep us from having congestion and environmental pollution in our cities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I'd like to join my colleagues in commending the industry representatives for their efforts in crafting the modifications which have allowed them to join together in support of ocean shipping reform. The scope of industry support is impressive and includes U.S. and foreign flag carriers, the National Industrial Transportation League, the American Association of Port Authorities, and organized labor. I would like to detail some of the modifications to the manager's amendment of S. 414. I believe these modifications show how much thought and work have gone into this agreement. Those modifications being made to the manager's amendment of S. 414 are as follows: 1. Amend section 8(c) of the 1984 Act to provide that all service contracts are treated in a uniform manner. Individual ocean carrier and agreement service contracts would be filed confidentially with the FMC, and an abbreviated set of essential terms would be made publicly available. A similar uniform method of contract regulation was unanimously adopted by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for S. 414 and was included in the bill as reported. This addresses the core concern and goal of shippers and various carriers who want to be able to enter into contracts with confidential rates and service terms. At the same time, it allows for some transparency, thereby addressing the concerns of ports, labor and some small shippers and carrier interests. 2. Revise section 8(c) of the 1984 Act to provide for a mechanism for labor organizations to obtain information on the movement of cargo in the dock or port area that would otherwise not be disclosed as a result of these amended service contract publication requirements. This will help these organizations to continue to enforce their collective bargaining agreements with ocean carriers. 3. Continue the existing requirement that NVOCCs offer their services to shippers pursuant to tariffs, instead of service contracts. NVOCCs, as shippers, are free to pursue the purchase of ocean carrier service through the amended service contract process. 4. Amend section 10(c)(4) of the 1984 Act to permit ocean carriers to jointly negotiate U.S. inland transportation rates and services with truck, rail or air carriers when such negotiations are subject to pro- competitive restrictions, such as the antitrust laws. Today, ocean carriers cooperate with respect to the utilization of space on vessels. Enabling them to cooperate in connection with rail service, for example, will allow for greater efficiencies. Such cooperation could improve movement of containers in and out of the port area. 5. Revise section 13(f) of the 1984 Act to make clear that, while a common carrier may be penalized for charging shippers less than its tariff or service contract rates, a carrier should not be able to collect from the shipper the difference between the tariff or contract rate and the rate actually charged and agreed upon in writing. The collection of these so-called ``undercharges'' was a major problem for shippers when the trucking industry was deregulated. We want to avoid any recurrence of that problem in connection with ocean shipping reform. Finally, we will clarify that members of an agreement will not be penalized under the revised 1984 Act because a member divulges confidential service contract information. The offending member will be liable for breach of contract damages, but the government should have no role in policing the confidential agreements of carriers and shippers. While no revision to S. 414 is needed to accomplish this objective, an appropriate statement of clarification will be made by the managers of the bill. Mr. President, again let me express my appreciation to all those who have worked on and support these modifications and the passage of meaningful ocean shipping reform. I and my colleagues, as well as the maritime industry, look forward to enacting this bill this year.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the resolution to override this line-item veto. I have heard the argument both philosophically about not overriding the President and on the specifics, and I am not persuaded in either case because I supported the line-item veto. I see absolutely no inconsistency in supporting the line-item veto and supporting this override because that is exactly what was intended by the line-item veto in the first place. It was to let the President have a chance to cut projects that he considered inconsequential or not necessary, and Congress reserved the right, as it always does, to override a President's veto by two-thirds vote. It is a higher standard. I think this meets the test of the higher standard, because the President went back and looked at the line-item vetoes he had made and admitted he had made mistakes in his calculations. The Department of Defense also said that some of the information was erroneous. For instance, these projects are in the military 5-year plan. Many of these projects are very important for our military readiness. In fact, one of the specifics that was mentioned by the Senator from Arizona, the Fort Bliss ammunition storage facility, is necessary and will actually pay for itself because you won't have to pay for the transportation of ammunition 20 miles from a firing range into Fort Bliss. So you are going to save transportation costs and, most of all, you are going to have a safety factor that will be better because you are able to have the ammunition stored in and next to the firing range where it will be used. This is the end of a project that has already been started. So this is just one instance. I don't disagree with, perhaps, the other suggestions of the Senator from Arizona. I don't know much about that. I know that at Fort Bliss the ammunition storage facility is essential. In fact, I thought it was interesting that the President signed the bill for ammunition storage facilities in Europe. He signed the bill for facilities such as operations headquarters in Europe, and yet he vetoed those that were in the budget in the United States. So I think he has shown that he sees the importance of operational headquarters and the importance of ammunition storage facilities. I just think we need to have those at our bases where they are necessary and where they are in the 5-year plan in our military here. I think it is important, as we are testing the line-item veto in Congress--and it is already being tested in court--the test should be exactly what we are looking at today. It should be the importance of these projects where Congress has said in its budget submission to the President that they are a high priority. The military has given them a high priority, and I think Congress certainly should have the ability to add to the priorities. In fact, Congress has added to the military budget every year that I have been in Congress and that President has been in office. President Clinton cuts the military budget and Congress puts it back in because Congress values military spending. Congress believes that the readiness of our forces depends on many things, such as quality of life, pay raises, our military construction, our equipment being maintained. All of this is an issue between Congress and the President, and it is a legitimate issue. Congress has spoken. The President has spoken. Congress has the right under the line-item veto, with a two-thirds margin, to override the President and say these are in fact priorities. So I hope the President will understand that we have our set of priorities. We are going to fund the military. We are going to make the military a priority. This is our national security at stake, and we believe these projects meet the test. The Senate has a rigorous test. We don't even add in the Senate military budget a military construction project that isn't already in the Defense Department 5-year plan. We never do that. That is our standard. So it is not like we picked something out of the air that the military didn't think was important. It is in the military 5-year plan, and we believe that spending this money for military construction is part of readiness. As we have added equipment, training, salary increases, we are also adding military construction for the overall readiness of our troops. We cannot continue to add to the responsibility of our military and cut the spending for the military budget. We cannot do it. We are facing a crisis in Iraq, which we must meet, and I support the President sending troops to make sure that we shore up our situation in the Persian Gulf. I hope the President will give us a plan of action for the future there. We support that. But we can't take from military readiness accounts all over the world when we have a situation like we do in Iraq where we need to respond. That is why we are trying to plan for the future, and that is why it is important to override this line- item veto of the President, so that we can maintain that readiness. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to make some remarks about the situation in Iraq as well. Is this a time that has been set aside within the MilCon debate, or should I ask consent?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the leadership that Senator Lott has provided in the ongoing discussions that we have had in Congress on the situation with Iraq. I was very pleased that in the 2 weeks previous to this, when the President came to consult with Congress, that Senator Lott stated that we needed a plan, that it was important that the President have, indeed, in an aftermath certainly the acknowledgment that there might be a retaliation, and asking the President to tell us what the response would be. I think this set in motion, on the part of the President and the President's advisers really the awareness and the reality of the situation--that it is not an immediate situation that is going to be set aside and not visited again. In fact, I think all the indicators point to the fact that we are going to revisit this again--that perhaps we have a reprieve, that we have a window of opportunity. And this window of opportunity should be taken to lay out a long-term strategy--a long-term strategy that would, once and for all, make clear what our policy is in dealing with Saddam Hussein. For whatever else you say about Saddam Hussein, his objectives are clear. He has been very clear in his actions and in his words that he intends to make weapons of mass destruction, that he intends to abuse his people to be able to keep them, that he does not intend to be part of the community of nations. And I think it is time that America be just as clear with Saddam Hussein as he has been with us and with the world. It crystallized I think for the American people a higher-stake universe--not the rabble rousing by the people who were protesting the war. They would protest the war, no matter what. The people who would protest the war for the integrity and the security of the United States are not the mainstream of America. But who was the mainstream of America? It is that veteran, who spoke with a cracked voice, who said, ``I fought in a war. My son fought in a war.'' And he asked the question that the American people and the Congress ask. And that is: What are you going to do? What is the plan? If you are going to put our troops in harm's way, are we going to have the guts to stick with it when the going gets tough? That was his question. He was so sincere. He captured the heart of America in that moment. And he captured the essence of what Congress has asked the President to do; that is, to submit a plan. If our troops are going into harm's way, if we are going to have an altercation with another country, let's be specific about what the mission is. The time has come to stop status quo with Saddam Hussein. The majority leader just mentioned that Saddam Hussein has quite a record. He plotted the assassination of our former President Bush. He used chemical weapons on his own people. He used chemical weapons on the Iranian people. He went into Kuwait, and tried to take over another country. This is not a man that we can deal with very easily. And business as usual has not worked for the last decade with Saddam Hussein. So I believe that the time has come for Congress and the President to work together to address this issue of Saddam Hussein. I hope the President will continue to consult with Congress, because I think in the last 2 weeks there has been a good understanding of where Congress is and where the American people are. Now is the time to put forth a plan. A group of our former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense have made some suggestions. This is not to say that this is the only thing we could do. But certainly having a strategy is something that America has been able to do in the past, and should be able to do today. I think it is important that we look for another Iraqi Government that we could support--one that wants to be part of the community of nations. We could look at lifting sanctions in liberated areas of Iraq and communicate directly with the Iraqi people. Let them know the dangers of the chemical weapons that are being housed in their country and tell them there is another way. We want to help the Iraqi people. We want to give them the food and medicine for their children that we would like for them to have that every parent in the world wants for his or her children. We should target relief supplies to those Iraqi people who are in need. We need to delegitimize Saddam Hussein. And we need to be ready with enough troop force to make the threat and live up to it. That, if Saddam Hussein does not live up to this potential agreement that is laid before the Security Council today, we will be ready to act with force swiftly and go for what will be a destabilization of Saddam Hussein; that is, the military regime. That brings up another question. Are we ready to lead the forces we need for that kind of strength in the area of the Persian Gulf? Are we ready? That brings up the issue of what we are doing in other parts of the world. Is that bringing our forces down to the extent that we are not going to be able to do what we need in the Persian Gulf where everyone I think would agree we have a security interest? Right now we have some pretty alarming statistics. Last year the military had its worst recruiting year since 1979. The Army failed to meet its objectives to recruit infantry soldiers--the single most important specialty in the Army. More than 350 Air Force pilots turned down the $60,000 bonuses they would have received to reapply for the Air Force for 5 more years. That was a 29 percent acceptance rate. Mr. President, 59 percent of the pilots offered that bonus accepted last year and 81 percent in 1995. This is an alarming trend. This is something that we must address as we look at the issues of the use of our force and where they are. I come back to the need for a policy of when we are going to send American troops into harm's way. I think we must be very careful, because they are stretched so thin, that they are not going to be able to establish in the Persian Gulf a major presence in addition to our responsibilities in Korea and in Europe, and then with responsibilities that we have taken on for the United Nations in places like Haiti and Somalia. We have to have a policy. I would ask this administration to look very clearly at drawing down our readiness at the same time we are asking our troops to do more. So, these issues are before us. I think the administration should step back and use the window of opportunity to have a clear policy in Iraq. As we go into the discussion of Bosnia, I hope the President will also look at the fact that we have 500,000 fewer soldiers today than we did in Desert Storm, and that we are having a tough time keeping our good people in the military. Let's have a policy that will use our military when there is a U.S. security interest, but be very careful about dissipating our resources in places where we do not. That is causing us to lose many of our best people in the military. The young men and women who sign up to protect our freedom deserve the support of the U.S. Congress and the President--the support, the training, the quality of life, the equipment to do their job--because their job is protecting our freedom, and there can be nothing as important. I ask the administration to address these issues as we are looking at Iraq, as we are looking at Bosnia, as we are looking at our responsibilities in a global sense. Let's start acting like the superpower that we are and target our defense dollars for our readiness and our national security. Let's have policies where, when the United States speaks, everyone knows that we will be a reliable ally and a formidable enemy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, too, want to commend our two leaders for working together on this very important issue. I think all of us believe that it is our responsibility, as the U.S. Senate, to work in a bipartisan way with the President of the United States on an issue as grave as attacking another country and sending our troops into harm's way. I believe the administration will work with this Congress and I believe we will have a comfort level that there is a plan and that our troops will be sent on a mission that is very clear. That is what this is all about. The message we are sending to Saddam Hussein today is clear: You may either join the community of nations, abide by the resolutions of the United Nations, or there will be serious consequences. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that proposition. We have often debated the importance of international arms control agreements, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty among others. What is clear is that without the resolve of the international community to enforce these standards, they are meaningless. Saddam Hussein has threatened the peace in the Middle East before. His people have suffered mightily for it. But even at that time he did not deploy weapons of mass destruction. We cannot provide him a second chance. International inspectors have concluded that he is continuing to develop an arsenal of these horrible weapons. He has used them in the past, so why wouldn't we believe that he would use them again, unless he is stopped? Just to put this in perspective, when you talk about chemical weapons or biological weapons, someone may say, ``So, what is that? Does that make that much difference? Is that really something that could harm the neighbors of Iraq, or harm the people of any other country?'' Anthrax is one of these weapons. A few pounds--think of what that is. It's something that is about this big. A few pounds of anthrax could wipe out a city the size of Washington, DC. We know that Saddam Hussein has the capability to produce this type of weapon. We know he has Scud missiles, we have seen them. Put that on top of a Scud missile and what does that do to the security of the neighbors of Iraq? Chemical or biological agents could be introduced into the water supply of any city and kill thousands of people. That is the kind of weapon we are talking about. So, if you are talking about, is this really an issue? Is this something that we need to stop? I just ask you, if a few pounds of this kind of agent can kill the inhabitants of a city the size of Washington, DC, who in the world is safe, if someone is manufacturing these and has used them on innocent people before? The United States led in the gulf war. We will lead again. And we will do so with the support of the American people. We are going to stand against nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of someone so irresponsible as Saddam Hussein, who has a record that is known of killing innocent people. We look for support from the international community as we had it in Desert Storm, and as I hope we can count on for the future. We must not let there be a doubt of the resolve of the American people. Saddam Hussein must know that we speak with one voice. We need the resumption of inspections, for Saddam Hussein to show that he wants to be a part of the international community. Military force is justified as part of an overall strategy. Our leader has said that. What Congress will be looking for, what the American people will be looking for from the President and his advisers, is an overall strategy so we know what we are looking at, what our troops are going to be asked to do; so that we can provide our troops with all the means they need to do the job and the protection they need when they are in the field. I hope that part of an overall strategy will be the beginning of the communication directly with the people of Iraq, with the good and decent people who have fled the country, to say we want to support you and we want you to know that the weapons that are being held could be totally deadly to you, to your children, and to the people that live throughout the country of Iraq. What we want to do is make that a safe area so the people will be free and so they can join the community of nations for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Our forces are prepared. They will be capable of dealing a harsh lesson once again. I hope it will not be necessary. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there an order?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my Congressman. The House of Representatives is paying tribute today to our Vietnam prisoners of war. It was 25 years ago this month that those brave men began returning home to America. Among those heroes was Sam Johnson. Sam was a prisoner 6 years 10 months 18 days and 23 hours, which he can tell you to this day. All of us who know Sam know he is a fighter. He was called ``diehard'' by his North Vietnamese captors. Sam was one of 11 prisoners whose total defiance to prison authority resulted in banishment to a high security prison that was dubbed ``Alcatraz.'' The prisoners were placed in tiny cubicles in an earthen- walled facility that was dug out of the center courtyard of the North Vietnam Ministry of Defense in downtown Hanoi. Sam and the other 10 wore leg irons and suffered from severe malnutrition. Sam's defiance continued to the end, until February 13, 1973, when Sam boarded a plane at Gia Lam Airport to return home. Our Nation recognized Sam Johnson's contributions by making him one of the most highly decorated aviators of his era. During Sam's military career, he was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals, and three Outstanding Unit awards. Mr. President, I would like to note also that here in the Senate there are many heroes from among us from World War II, the Korean war and the war in Vietnam. Today, 25 years after the POWs in Vietnam began to come home, it is also appropriate to recall the sacrifice made by our own colleague, my good friend, John McCain. John returned from Vietnam after his own capture and imprisonment 25 years ago next month. Patriots like Senator John McCain and Congressman Sam Johnson remind us of what makes America great--honor, courage, and duty. They enrich the Congress and remind us every day of the important responsibility we have as stewards of the young men and women in our armed forces. As we prepare for a possible conflict in Iraq, I have no higher priority than that those troops will get everything they need to do the job if they are sent. As Americans we have many things for which to be thankful. But perhaps we should be most thankful for the brave Americans throughout our history who have fought the wars to keep America free. It is their sacrifice that has preserved democracy. It is their sense of patriotism and duty that Americans must always embrace if we are to remain free. Commemorating this 25th anniversary is one way that we will make sure that Americans do not forget the sacrifices that have been made for us to be able to stand here in this Senate Chamber and speak on an unfettered basis and openly and freely. I want to say that I am proud that Sam Johnson is my Congressman. I also want to pay tribute to his wife, Shirley. Shirley and Sam are friends of Ray's and mine, and have been for years. But Shirley is a hero, too. Sometimes we do not talk about those who were left home for 6 years to raise the children, to give them the hope and strength and love that both parents would normally give. It is to the Shirley Johnsons, also, that we owe a great debt of gratitude, because she was there never giving up, making sure that America never forgot that some were missing and some were imprisoned. She, too, should be commended today on this 25th anniversary. I am honored to serve with Sam Johnson and Senator John McCain. As we honor them, we make sure that those who came home know how much we appreciate them. And, most of all, we remember those who did not come home. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.