Kay Hutchison

Ms. HUTCHISON

Ms. HUTCHISON. I agree with what the Senator from Connecticut is doing in laying this aside. I do think we need a process and procedure. I am on the Rules Committee. I will work with the Senator from Georgia and our leadership as well as the Democratic leadership. I would like to see us have a process in which all the views are represented and then we can go forward. And I pledge to the Senator from Connecticut my support.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I, too, thank the Senator from Georgia for getting the time in the Chamber to talk about the President's budget submission and some of the things that we hope Congress is willing to do in working with the budget that we have. I concur with my friend from Arizona who just spoke and, before that, my senior colleague from Texas who talked about the very clear choice we have in dealing with the budget issues. The clear choice is, do you believe that we should increase Government spending by $123 billion this year or do you think the hard- working American family should get back more of the money it has earned and worked for. And do you think we have a responsibility to our future generations to pay down the $5 trillion debt that has accumulated over the last 40 years in our Congress. That is the clear choice. I come down very strongly on the second choice. The choice should be that we would do what is responsible for ourselves and for future generations, and that is to pay one-half of any surplus we might have on the debt so that we start whittling it down to a reasonable, manageable size. We cannot turn over to our children and grandchildren a bill of $5 trillion, that if we are in a recession, will skyrocket their taxes in order to pay. The other half should go back to the people who earned it. I never cease to be amazed at the way people who want to have more Government spending talk about tax cuts. They talk about tax cuts in terms of what is it going to cost the Federal Government. I talk about tax cuts in terms of what is it going to cost the American family if we don't give back to them the money they worked so hard to earn, for them to decide what they would like to spend it for in their own families. That is the difference in framing the question. And I am for the hard-working American family. Most families in this country--in fact, the average family in this country pays 38 percent of what it earns in taxes. That is wrong. We do not need to have that much Federal Government encroachment into the pocketbooks of the American people. We do have responsibilities in Government, but we do not have to take such a chunk out of the hard- working American's pocketbook if we manage our taxes and our spending responsibly and if we are efficient in spending the taxpayer dollars. So I would just say that I think the President has gone on the wrong track when he says we are going to have a surplus and therefore I want to increase spending by $123 billion. He is mortgaging the future of our children and he is saying I want to spend today and let's not think about tomorrow. That is not what our responsibility is, as the stewards of our country and our Government. So I am hoping we will do the right thing. I am hoping that as we are looking at a level budget that we will also prioritize within that budget and I hope we will remember, on the eve of potential problems and conflicts in the Middle East--that we will remember one of the main roles of the Federal Government is to provide for the national defense. In fact, this budget does begin to stop the decline in spending for procurement in our national defense. It does provide for a 3.1 percent increase for our military personnel--well deserved. But it continues to decrease the personnel strength. In fact, in this year's budget it decreases another 43,000 in our troop strength from 1997 levels. We are already at the lowest levels this country has been since the Korean war. There was the assumption after the cold war that somehow the world was safer. But now, because we see escalating tensions in the Middle East, because we know the North Koreans continue to train and build up their military, we see the conflicts around the world and the potential conflicts--and it is clear the world is not a safe place from which we can retreat. So I hope we will look at this drawing down of our strength. From Desert Storm levels, we will be down half a million in troop strength, from roughly 2 million, drawing down under this budget request of the President to 1.4 million. I do not think that is responsible. In fact, at a time when the Army had its worst recruiting year since 1979, I do not think it would be prudent to put more responsibility on the thinning ranks of our troops who are leaving our armed services because of the overseas deployments. So, I am going to stand for the strength of our national defense, for that priority in our spending. I want to keep the other side, the increase in bureaucracy down, so our national defense stays up and so we can return to the taxpayers the hard-earned tax dollars that they deserve; and that we start paying down the debt. That would be my approach and I hope that is what Congress will do in the budget deliberations. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to check on the status. I believe that under a previous order I have 30 minutes reserved. Is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I asked for 30 minutes today because I think it is very important that we address an issue that will be coming before the Senate in the very near future. It is an issue that has been brought about by the President's pronouncement that he wants to keep our troops in Bosnia in an undefined mission for an undefined time. Mr. President, I think that would be a mistake for our country. I hope the Senate will focus on this issue. Indeed, I hope the American people will focus on this issue, because it is going to set a precedent that I think is very bad. I do not want to pull up stakes and leave Bosnia without doing it in a responsible way. I think America has that responsibility. But in fact many of us have asked the President to lay the groundwork with an established and clear mission that has a chance to succeed and a mission that has a finite term so that both our allies and any enemies of our cause would know exactly what to expect from America. But in fact both our allies and our adversaries could not possibly know what to expect from America because in fact America has said it is going to leave twice and we have not left. In fairness, we have not left because we have not laid a proper base to leave. What I am asking the President to consider and what I would ask the American people to consider is starting the process of an honorable and responsible approach to Bosnia which includes an honorable exit. Mr. President, we are looking at a time when our readiness is being called into question. In fact, if you look at all of the responsibilities that America has in the world, I think we are spending too much on Bosnia and therefore putting in jeopardy the security of the United States in the future and the future of our ability to respond to other places where America may have to respond even unilaterally. And, Mr. President, that is not what we should be doing. I think it is most important that America start with the issue of Bosnia, address it in the way that America should, and we must look at our overall responsibilities in the world. The Bosnia operation has already diverted nearly $8 billion from our national defense. A growing lament at the Pentagon among senior officers is that we are in danger of returning to the hollow military of the late 1970s. Let me list some of the indicators that demonstrate that our military is once again at risk. Last year, the military had its worst recruiting year since 1979. The Army failed to meet its objective to recruit infantry soldiers, the single most important specialty in the Army. A Senate Budget Committee investigator recently reported finding serious Army-wide personnel and readiness problems. At the National Training Center, where our troops go for advanced training, units rotating in typically come with a 60 percent shortage in mechanics and often a 50 percent shortage in infantry. These shortages were blamed on the fact that these personnel, especially the mechanics, are deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. More than 350 Air Force pilots turned down the $60,000 bonuses they would have received to remain in the cockpit another 5 years. A 29 percent acceptance rate for the bonus compares with 59 percent last year and 81 percent in 1995. Mr. President, that is stark difference. The Air Force is finding, whatever the perks, it cannot hold on to its best pilots. Last year, about 500 pilots resigned, most of them lured to the airlines. This year, the number will top 700, and the Air Force says it is not able to train enough new pilots to replace them. Recently, a lack of critical parts for F-16 aircraft forced two fighter squadrons in Italy to cannibalize grounded aircraft to ensure they can continue to conduct the NATO peace enforcement mission over Bosnia. A Senate Budget Committee investigator also found that some small units are now being led by junior people because sergeants are off on peacekeeping duty. As a result, subunits, from basic squads on up, do not train with the leaders that they would go to war with, breaking the rule of ``train just as you would go to war.'' Since 1991, the United States has cut its Armed Forces by about a third. It may be more difficult, more risky and possibly more costly to invade Iraq again now. We are going to debate and vote on a resolution today expressing our support for the President's strong actions toward Iraq. But the fact is, if anything went wrong, we would have to divert troops from every theater in the world to prevail. This is not the best situation considering the heavy responsibilities that we have in other parts of the world. Defense cuts of almost 50 percent over the last decade have put our security at risk. But this has been made worse by the diversion of U.S. resources and readiness in Bosnia and elsewhere. Policymakers in the Clinton administration have spent more time discussing Haiti than China, more on Bosnia than on missile defense. We are not developing a policy that is going to put our country in the best position to deal with the myriad of issues that will face this country and our security in the next century. The Clinton administration is missing a big-picture view of the world and the proper role for the United States. Our growing involvement in Bosnia is a very good example of that. Just last week, U.S. forces were directly involved in tracking down and capturing a war criminal who called himself ``the Serb Hitler.'' The Dayton accords made apprehension of war criminals a priority. But those agreements also made it clear that this responsibility would be the responsibility of the parties to Dayton--civilian police and Government officials. In fact, less than 1 year ago the former NATO commander, George Joulwan, told the Congress this: The military are not policemen. And I think . . . the proper responsibility rests on the parties. That is what Dayton says . . . [I]f we are not careful we will go down this slippery slope where the military will be put in the position of hunting down war criminals. This is not within my mandate. That is Gen. George Joulwan speaking. I joined with many of my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the decision to send our troops to Bosnia. One of our principal concerns was that, once there, our mission would be indefinite and it would lead to mission creep. We were bolstered in our concerns by former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Shalikashvili, who warned us that without a specific deadline for withdrawal, there would be the potential for expanding the mission. I am concerned that Secretary Perry's warnings are coming true. While we were in recess, the President announced that thousands of U.S. troops would remain in Bosnia after the June 30 deadline, and remembering that the Senate had unanimously endorsed that deadline of June 30, 1998, which his administration had established. After 240 U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon in 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger established six principles upon which the decision to send U.S. ground troops should be based. Here is what he said: The U.S. should not commit forces unless the engagement is in our vital national interest. If we do commit forces, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. We should know how those objectives can be accomplished and we should send the appropriate forces to complete the objectives. We must constantly reassess and adjust our relationship between our objectives and forces if necessary. The commitment of troops should be a last resort, not the first. We have violated virtually every one of Cap Weinberger's principles in Bosnia. Bosnia was supposed to be a 1-year peacekeeping operation that would keep the factions apart until their own forces could come in and keep the peace from the ground up. They would have local elections and general elections for their national leadership. They would begin to resettle refugees. Two years have gone by since Dayton. I was in Brcko in August, one week before the eruption in Brcko in which U.S. troops were harmed. I was able to see how far we had come. It was my fourth trip to Bosnia, my sixth trip in 2 years to the whole region. I'm going back next week with other concerned Members of Congress. What I saw in Brcko was the resettling of refugees who did not even meet their neighbors from the other factions, even though they were living next door to each other. The atrocities committed right there in Brcko against thousands of Muslims are as bad as anything I have ever heard reported from the Nazi atrocities in World War II, and yet we are trying to say come and live together in the American way. I have called this an attempt to Americanize the Balkans--multiethnic neighborhoods which we, thank goodness, do have in America--but forcing people to do this so prematurely could be antipeaceful. I think it is going to prolong the uprisings if we try to force this before the people themselves are ready, before the wounds have healed from the atrocities that have been committed. That is why I have suggested that perhaps it would be better to take one step in between. Let the peace settle in. Let the economic development start. The geographic regions established by the conflict and endorsed by the Dayton accords are nearly 90 percent homogenous. The Bosnian state is 90 percent Muslim. Srpska, the Serb part of Bosnia, is 95 percent Serb. Croatia is almost exclusively Croatian. Within these divisions they are beginning to be able to have a semblance of government, but they are not going to get economic stability if forced refugee settlement continues to cause further conflict. The ``elections'' that they held last year were elections in which the voters came in under armed guard. They voted for people who cannot live there. They left under armed guard and the people elected cannot serve. They are themselves exiles from the regions they ``represent.'' We have declared that a victory. Mr. President, people elected by voters under armed guard, and the people elected are not even living there is not what I consider an election in our sense of the word. There are other things that I hope we consider in trying to have a positive approach to the situation we face today. There are a variety of conditions that I suggest would lay a ground work for a peaceful situation in Bosnia, that would allow them to begin to grow and build in economic stability, and in which America could have an honorable exit. Hopefully, our European allies and our Russian allies who are there on the ground, as well, would be able to leave the country in the hands of its own people. First, reconvene the Dayton parties for a progress check. Be willing to modify where it is necessary. Dayton was certainly brought about by people who want to do the right thing. It is not bad to say that we should come back together and assess where we are 2 years later and modify, if necessary. I think the administration could take the lead here. Second, establish a civilian-led and operated police training task force. Establish a police training academy capable of graduating 500 police every quarter. A similar process was attempted in Haiti. General Joulwan was a strong supporter of this approach. Third, establish the remaining ground troops as a combined joint task force in accordance with the President's own partnership for peace initiative, originally under American command, but to be turned over to allied command within a specific period of months. This should include significant participation by prospective NATO allies--Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary--as an opportunity to bear the burden of post-cold war European security. Four, require the administration to make a supplemental appropriations request for Bosnia of a specified duration in advance of its spending the funds. Mr. President, this should not come from our defense budget. We cannot take from our defense readiness to the tune of $3 billion a year and expect to be able to keep a military that has a quality of life that would continue to attract our best and brightest, and it most certainly should not take from our strategic defenses for the future. Last, build a firewall between Bosnia operating funds and procurement and research and development funds. It is very important that we begin to look at letting the people of Bosnia have some form of self- determination. Without conditioning our continued troop commitment to Bosnia, I'm afraid we are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. We would be looking at American troops indefinitely. We would be looking at a never-ending commitment, and we would be taking resources that are vitally necessary for our own security and for our responsibilities around the world. Mr. President, I think it is most important that we look at this issue of Bosnia and establish a policy that has a chance to succeed. If the President would do that, I would be the first in line to support the decision. As a matter of fact, I think keeping thousands of troops in a 30,000-troop enclave in Bosnia in perpetuity is not good military strategy and is not based on a policy that has a chance to succeed. Remember what General Shalikashvili said, and that is that having a defined deadline is important to avoid mission creep. We have learned that before and we should not forget that lesson. I think it is important that we continue to reassess Bosnia because this is laying the predicate for our responsibilities and our actions in the world in the future. I think it is possible to have a policy that has a chance to succeed with honorable American involvement. I think Americans will support a continued troop commitment if it has a chance to succeed. Teddy Roosevelt was right. He said ``America must speak softly and carry a big stick.'' That is the role of a superpower. We don't have to shout. We do not have to have troops on the ground at every civil uprising around the world. If we do, we make enemies and we are in danger of doing that right now with the Serbs. We will become the focal point and the target of the hostilities and then we will be in a situation where we will have to defend ourselves. We need to step back and act like a superpower. Once we make a commitment we must be willing to back it up and do what we say we are going to do. That is what is so important about acting firmly in Iraq. We must be a good and solid ally and we must be a feared and respected enemy. That is what a superpower should be. We must realize our place in the world. Make sure our defenses are strong. Make sure we are not dissipating our resources to such an extent that we will not be there when only we have the capacity to act. I will close with a quote from John Quincy Adams when he was President, and it is still good today. ``America well knows, that while once enlisting under other banners than her own, she will involve herself beyond extraction in all wars of interest and intrigue. The fundamental maxims of her policy would change from loyalty to force, wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or will be unfurled there will America's heart be. She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well wisher to the freedom and independence of all.'' Mr. President, it is most important that America not succumb to the penchant for wanting to go out and get involved in every conflict in the world but remember as a superpower we have a unique capability to bring warring parties to the table because we are not a party that is hostile to any nation. Mr. President, we could lose that special status that we have in the world if we do not remain strong within ourselves and we will not remain strong if we continue to dissipate our resources so that our own readiness and our own strategic capabilities are in any way diminished. I ask my colleagues to help in working with the President and this administration to pursue an honorable policy with our allies in Bosnia, a policy that has a chance to succeed and respects the fact that when we put troops in harm's way it is under the most limited circumstances and only when there is a United States security issue before us. That is not the case in Bosnia. We must help the people of Bosnia but not with continued presence of thousands of troops on the ground when their place can be taken by the parties and the people who live in Bosnia and who we hope will live in peace with our guidance for the years to come. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for letting us talk about this important issue, because I think we are getting to the crux of what Congress wants to do. I am glad to be able to address this issue today after the President's State of the Union Message because I was somewhat concerned that in his State of the Union message. The President seemed to throw aside any hope for tax cuts. That is a very important agenda that I have, and I think most Members of Congress have because we believe that hard-working American families should be able to keep more of the money they earn, not less. I want to outline what I think is the right approach, if we do in fact start seeing budget surpluses. I want to put forward the proposition that ``half and half'' is more than just a high-quality milk product. In fact, half and half is the right formula for the responsible spending of the surplus that we hope to see in our budget over the next 10 years. Half should go for paying down the debt. If we are going to be the responsible stewards of this country for our future generation, we must start whittling away the $5 trillion debt. We have worked hard in a bipartisan way in Congress and with the President to come to a balanced budget. We have done the hard work. To now fritter it away with new ideas for spending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars is the wrong thing to do at this time. So I think one-half should go towards paying down debt, so that we can say to our children we are going to give you at least as good a solid base as we had when we were growing up in this great country. The other half should go for direct tax cuts for the people who have earned this money. When I hear people on this floor talking about tax cuts, you can really tell the difference in the way they frame the question. The question asked by people who do not want tax cuts is ``Well, now if we give these tax cuts, what is it going to cost the federal government?'' That is the wrong question. It is not the government's money, it is the money of hard-working taxpayers. A tax cut lets them keep more of the money they earn. It is not robbing it from the Federal Government. It is letting the people who earn it keep it. So half and half I think is the right formula. I will be introducing legislation very quickly that would provide tax cuts, and it would do it in a descending order of priority so that we would never go over one-half of the budget surplus of that year. Here is what my tax bill would do. It would first eliminate the marriage tax penalty. People in our country should not have to choose between love and money. We value marriage. And the people who get hurt the most are the middle-income. The policeman who marries the school teacher will pay over $1,000 in taxes in a marriage tax penalty just because they got married. That is wrong, and I want to eliminate it. No. 2, I want to raise the level of income that people would start paying taxes at 15 percent and 28 percent. This helps the people who are paying the most. I want to raise that 15-percent tax on a single person which, in 1998 will kick in at $25,350. I want to raise that to $35,000 so that you would not go into that 15-percent bracket until you are single and earning $35,000. If you are married, it would be $50,000, up from $42,350. If you are the head of a household, it would be $40,000, up from $33,950. The 28-percent bracket, the next bracket, would start at $71,000 for a single person, up from $61,109, $109,950, for a couple, up from $102,000, and for a head of household, $93,000, up from $87,000. This just raises the point at which people would have to pay higher rates. It gives a break to those who are paying the biggest share, and that is the lower- and middle-income people of our country. No. 3, the bill will repeal the 18-month capital gains holding period and make it 12 months. I think 12 months is ample time for a capital gains tax to set in. And keep in mind that capital gains are more disproportionately paid by our elderly citizens. No. 4, in my proposal, I will index capital gains for inflation. This will be a tremendous help to elderly people because most of their income is investment income rather than earned income. We are indexing the personal exemption on earned income. Why not do it for those who are earning it through investment, as elderly people are? Finally, my bill will cut the top estate tax rate from 55 percent, to 28 percent. I don't like the estate tax at all because I think the American dream for over 200 years has been that you could come to this country, you could work harder, and you could give your children a better chance than you had. So I do not want the estate tax at all. But if we are going to have one, I think it should be lower so that people will be able to give their children a little bit better start than they had. This is a balanced tax-cut plan. It is not the only one that is good. I have heard many versions of tax-cut plans being put forward by my colleagues that I could easily support. But, I think the important point here is that most Americans, the average American family, pay 38.2 percent of their income in taxes. Mr. President, that is too much. And we want to change it, and it is a priority for this Congress. I thank the Senator from Georgia for letting us focus on this very important issue for strengthening the American family by letting them keep more of the money they work hard to earn. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues for passing the Mammography Quality Standards Act, assuring that national, uniform quality standards will be in place for this lifesaving, preventive procedure. Experts universally agree that mammography is one of the best ways to detect breast cancer early. Yet, statistics show that the majority of women who need mammograms are not getting them. Nearly 40 percent of women ages 40 to 49, 35 percent of women ages 50 to 64, and 46 percent of women 65 years of age and over have not received a mammogram in the past 2 years. With 44,000 women dying annually from breast cancer, one in three of these might be saved if her breast cancer is detected early. Since almost 10 percent of breast cancers are not detected by mammography, it's essential to remember breast self-examination and clinical screening as the other important early detection tools we have at our disposal. This was the first year that the National Cancer Institute joined the American Cancer Society and other breast cancer organizations in support of screening mammograms on a regular basis. Dr. Richard Klausner, NCI Director, announced in March that the mammography recommendations of the National Cancer Screening Board would be adopted by NCI. Dr. Klausner spoke movingly about NCI-conducted focus groups that found that many women are not aware that breast cancer risks increase with age and that most women who develop breast cancer have no family history of the disease. He is to be commended for launching a new education campaign featuring new breast health and mammogram fact booklets, and breast health information hotline and Internet website. The passage of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act dovetails nicely with these efforts. The original legislation passed in 1992 has been successful in bringing mammography screening facilities into compliance with a tough Federal standard. Patients can be assured that their mammography procedures and results are provided by qualified technical professionals and with annually inspected radiographic equipment and facilities. This reauthorization makes some needed improvements to existing law. Facilities are now required to inform the patient as well as the physician about the screening results, and patients may now obtain their original mammogram films and report. Consumers and physicians must now be advised of any mammography facility deficiencies, and both State and local government agencies are granted inspection authority. These improvements were recommended in a GAO report as ways to assure that this vital prevention program continues to protect the public health and address women's health needs. Last, I want to thank all the countless radiologists, radiologic technicians, and support workers who provide this very worthwhile service and make the time spent undertaking this procedure as pleasant as possible. These are the soldiers in our war against cancer, and their contributions are invaluable. I thank you all for your support.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Murray, Snowe, Landrieu, Feinstein, Boxer, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, and Collins this concurrent resolution to grant recognition to the effort now underway to establish The Women's Museum: An Institute for the Future. This important museum, being sponsored by the Foundation for Women's Resources in Texas and to be completed in 2000 in Dallas, will appropriately be designated by this resolution as a national millennium project for the United States. While the resolution will not preclude other official events and activities commemorating the turn of the millennium, it will serve to highlight the contributions of women in our Nation and world and how those contributions promise to continue to expand and evolve into the next century and millennium. The Women's Museum: An Institute for the Future will become a focal point for this recognition and appreciation of the role of women in our lives and culture and in commerce, politics, art, music, the sciences, and virtually every other field of endeavor. Mr. President, I am especially excited about the tremendous potential of this museum to educate all people, particularly young women and girls, about the growing opportunities women have today--opportunities that were only dreams a few decades ago. These visitors to the museum will have the opportunity to learn about the past, present, and potential future lives and accomplishments of women, using a variety of traditional and innovative exhibits and interactive experiences. Moreover, the museum will serve as a center where people may gather to discuss and research the history and trends of issues affecting women. The museum will be housed in the historic Texas State Fair Coliseum, located on the grounds of Fair Park in Dallas, which receives over six million visitors a year and is already home to a host of cultural and artistic attractions. The Women's Museum: An Institute for the Future will be an exciting addition to this state and national asset, and I am confident will continue to attract the enthusiastic support of governments, individuals, and corporations across the nation and across the world. It is my hope that this concurrent resolution will help focus even more attention on this effort to acknowledge and understand the virtually limitless potential of women in our society. Thank you, Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the statement of the managers on fiscal year 1998 Labor Department appropriations. During the debate on S. 1061, I brought to the attention of the chairman an important project that is making a difference in the lives of poor people in two cities in my State and in many other cities across the country. The Community Employment Alliance [CEA], sponsored by the Enterprise Foundation, is working with community development corporations, State and local governments and the private sector to provide a range of employment and training and job creation service to welfare recipients. I appreciated the support of the chairman in urging the Department of Labor to give full consideration for application by the Enterprise Foundation to provide funding for the Community Employment Alliance.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that what Senator McCain said is absolutely true. I think it is fairly clear from his comments that he is not a fan of Amtrak. But as the chairman of the committee, he worked with all of us who do care about Amtrak, who do want passenger rail for our country, to try to give Amtrak a chance to succeed. I think all of us have come together on a bill that will give Amtrak a chance to succeed and will also make Amtrak accountable. That is what Senator McCain is looking for and that is what all of us hope will happen. In fact, Senator Lott, the majority leader, who has worked on this for, as he said, 3 years--he was the Surface Transportation Subcommittee chairman before I took that position, before he became majority leader--Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Breaux, Senator Kerry, all contributed greatly to a very hard-fought compromise. Because, of course, we are making huge changes in the law as it affects Amtrak and passenger rail in our country. Anything that makes this many changes, of course, could not be done easily. It took the labor groups, it took the trial lawyer groups to come together and work with us, along with Senators such as Senator McCain who want accountability. So I think we have come together in a bill that will give Amtrak a chance. It is not a slam dunk. It is not an assured success. This is the first step in many steps that must be made for Amtrak to be able to operate without subsidies in the future. What this bill has done is authorize the subsidies over the next 5 years that eventually will phase out. At the end of 5 years there will not be operational subsidies by the taxpayers of Amtrak. We have all agreed to that. That is why it was essential that we have reforms, so that Amtrak could be more efficient, so it could compete in the marketplace, so that it could have a passenger operation that would be much improved and, hopefully, bring more people into the system so it could operate without the subsidies. In addition, the $2.3 billion in infrastructure improvements, which are necessary both for the efficient operations and for the higher technology trains that we hope they will be able to operate, is contingent on these reforms. I think it was very wise, in the budget reconciliation bill, that the $2.3 billion that would be put into investment in capital improvements would be tied to these very important reforms. Because without the reforms, Amtrak has no chance to succeed--none. With the reforms, it has a chance. That is what our bill today will give it. I would like to go through a few of the most important points of what we did today. First, some of the labor protections that were mandated by the Federal Government are now taken out of the law. The 6-year statutory severance benefits will now be in place for 180 days as they are negotiated at the bargaining table, after which they will be totally lifted from all negotiation and there will be no Federal mandates. In other words, today if a line goes out of business or Amtrak takes it off, those employees today would be entitled by Federal law to 6 years of severance pay. Most Americans do not have jobs that have 6-year termination agreements. In fact, when Amtrak first came into place, it was a different time. Today, these severance packages are about to break the system, and I think the unions realize that and they are willing to say we will put it on the negotiating table and we will let the free market reign. So that is the first thing we are doing. The second thing we are doing is taking the prohibition against any contracting out out of the law once again. It will be part of the contracts for the next 2 years, but it is on the negotiating table now so that Amtrak, if it sees that it can make efficiencies by contracting out certain services, will be able to do that in a negotiated framework. So that will be on the table as well. It is very important that Amtrak bring its labor costs into line because, in fact, if you look at other forms of transportation, the labor costs in passenger rail transportation are lopsided. For instance, no airline has more than 37 percent total labor expense, yet Amtrak is at 54 percent of its total expenses in labor. No competing passenger industry has similar protection rules that are mandated by the Federal Government. In fact, Greyhound drivers and mechanics, who might be laid off because of service discontinuances, are guaranteed 7 days' notice under union contracts; no statutory guarantee against contracting out. So I think if you are looking at transportation in its totality in our country, you have to have the ability to compete. So we have to have the ability at the bargaining table to bring these costs in line, if Amtrak is going to be a viable alternative form of transportation. Another major area that needed some limitations was liability. Our substitute bill provides for a global passenger liability cap of $200 million. I think this is very important. For any one accident there will be a cap, so Amtrak will be able to buy insurance. That is what we are trying to do, is have some sort of quantifiable limit so we will know what the costs would be in the most extreme circumstances. And Amtrak could buy insurance to cover that, hopefully at a reasonable cost. As Senator McCain mentioned, there is a trigger on this. There will be an Amtrak Reform Council appointed to monitor Amtrak's progress with these new reforms, to look at the 5-year glidepath that Amtrak is on, to try to get to the point that there will be no more taxpayer subsidies of Amtrak. This Amtrak Reform Council is going to look at the Amtrak operation and the reforms and see how Amtrak is doing. After 2 years they will submit a strategic plan for Amtrak, and they will also report to Congress if they just don't think Amtrak has a chance to make it, after which Congress will be able, then, to either implement the plan, the strategic plan that would be put forward, or pull the plug on Amtrak. These are accountability standards that I think are reasonable. Certainly we want to put good money into helping Amtrak succeed, but if it is going to be hopeless, we don't want to throw good money after bad. So I think the accountability is a very important part of this compromise. We also provide in this bill for interstate rail compacts, so that two States that have traffic that would warrant, perhaps, a joint effort toward rail transportation could come together, could pool their resources and provide for rail transportation in their States. I think that is a very important step, for our States to be able to form compacts, because that will add to the options of rail transportation. It also provides that Amtrak will have to give 180 days' notice if they are going to discontinue a route. The previous law required 90 days' notice. That is not enough time for a State to be able to step in and help Amtrak, especially if it's a State that has a legislature that only meets every other year and would have to make some emergency arrangements. So I think we have several new parts of the law that will help very much in giving Amtrak the ability to succeed and also in giving more options to our States to add to the rail passenger capabilities in our country. Because, you see, I think one of the reasons that Amtrak is not only viable but a very important part of an intermodal mobility system for our country is because cities are now going more and more into intracity rail systems. Even in southern States, in my State of Texas, now, in Dallas, Dallas has a rail train system that goes out of the Amtrak station. So I am very happy that the Texas Eagle Amtrak train will be able to start in Chicago, IL, come down through Missouri, through Arkansas, over through east Texas into Dallas and Fort Worth. People can get off the train in Dallas or Fort Worth and they can get on an intracity train and go all over the city of Dallas. They can go to the zoo, they can go to the museums, they can go out north where the commuting traffic is. They will be able eventually to go to the airport. So, as more cities are beginning to have rail transportation options, then the feeding in of Amtrak also provides more passengers for Amtrak and more mobility for the citizens of our country. I love the fact that you can go from Chicago all the way down through Texas to San Antonio and then get on another Amtrak train, the Sunset Limited, and go to Los Angeles or all the way over to Florida. These systems will provide vacation capabilities for people in our country to see the sights of America on a train. I think it is something that has been so successful in Europe through the years that it will also have a resurrection in America that will provide more opportunities for families to see this great country from a train and have that experience that we really almost lost in the last 25 or 30 years. So I think what we are doing today is not propping up a historic, old, antiquated type of transportation that we have known in the past in this country. That is not what we are doing today. What we are doing today is providing a new, vibrant option for rail transportation to be added to the air transportation that is so terrific in our country and the bus transportation and the automobiles and highways that provide mobility options for all kinds of people--people who can't drive and people who don't want to drive. People who don't live near airports would be able to go to a train station that is fed from buses from small communities all over our States, going into an Amtrak train station where someone can get off a bus in a very small town and get onto an Amtrak train and go into cities from Florida to California, from Illinois to Massachusetts, and all the way down to Texas. So I think it is a very exciting thing we are doing. That is why I have worked so hard with my colleagues, Senator Kerry, Senator Breaux, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, to make this a reality, to give Amtrak a chance. Because if Amtrak can compete with the other kinds of transportation, I think it will not be a relic of the past but a very important part of an overall transportation system for the future for our country, for our children to have this experience, for our elderly people to have the mobility that train passenger systems can give. I am very excited that we have come to this agreement. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which this agreement has been made. I thank the Senators who are waiting to speak and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts who was so helpful in working out this compromise. I think, as he said, a lot of people had to give something that they didn't want to give, which probably means that we did a fair compromise. Senator Breaux, who is also on the floor, was very much a part of this. Senator Hollings, who was here, I also thank. If there is no one else wishing to speak, then I would like to have third reading and then go to a vote, if that is possible.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am ready to vote, after which we will then debate. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Santorum and Jeffords be added as original cosponsors of the substitute.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that the text of a concurrent resolution passed by the Texas Legislature, be printed in the Record. The text of the concurrent resolution follows: House Concurrent Resolution No. 202 Whereas, Compliance with international disarmament treaties to curtail the proliferation of nuclear arms and defuse weapons of mass destruction has created new challenges for the United States related to the dismantling and cleanup of nuclear missiles; and Whereas, The development, production, and disassembling of nuclear weapons produce transuranic waste, a highly radioactive conglomeration of contaminated laboratory gloves, tools, dried sludge, and other substances from testing and production facilities; and Whereas, To create a safe and environmentally responsible method for permanently disposing of transuranic waste, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has designed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico that will set the standard for deep geologic disposal of defense-related radioactive waste; and Whereas, The transuranic waste to be deposited at the WIPP facility will be shipped by truck from all across the country, traveling through many states, including Texas, which is a major thoroughfare for radio active materials coming from South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, and Ohio; and Whereas, While a majority of the proposed route through Texas is on Interstate 20, a segment runs along U.S. Highway 285; this portion of the route, which begins in Pecos, Texas, and continues into New Mexico, is a treacherous and narrow two-lane road; and Whereas, The State of New Mexico, in a prudent move to protect the public safety of its citizens, has dedicated part of the impact funds received from the DOE for housing the WIPP to widen its section of U.S. 285; this highway is a dangerous and inadequate road that has already been the scene of one accident involving an empty WIPP transport truck; and Whereas, There are currently no federal funds allocated for the State of Texas to take the same necessary safety precautions by widening the section of U.S. 285 running through our State; the health and safety of United States citizens residing in the Lone Star State is no less important than that of our neighbors to the northwest; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 75th Legislature of the State of Texas hereby respectfully request the Congress of the United States to allocate funds for road expansion in Texas along the designated route for transporting hazardous waste to the WIPP project; and, be it further Resolved, That the Texas secretary of state forward official copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the United States Congress, and to all members of the Texas delegation to the Congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader I announce this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m; following morning business, the leader hopes the Senate will be able to consider Amtrak reform under a short time agreement. In addition, the Senate is close to an agreement on the D.C. appropriations bill. Therefore, Members should be prepared to consider that legislation today. Also, the leader hopes that the Senate will be able to consider the FDA reform conference report during today's session. Unfortunately, it is looking like the Senate will need to be in session this weekend to complete work on the pending appropriations bills. Members will be notified as to the possible weekend schedule and necessary votes. Also, the Senate may consider any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate and possibly into the evening. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 6:30 p.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be in a period of morning business until the hour of 5:45.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to speak in morning business about a bill that I believe we have an agreement to bring up at a later time, hopefully in the next few hours. It is a bill that we worked on for quite a long time. We will be talking about it again if we are able to bring it up tonight. But I wanted to get a head start, because I am such a believer in passenger rail transportation for our country. I think we are going to come to closure on an Amtrak reform bill that will allow Amtrak at least to have a chance to succeed. It is not a slam dunk and there is no question that a lot of work is yet to be done, but I think passenger rail in America will add mobility for people in this country who don't have other choices. We have a terrific aviation system and, in fact, there are Federal subsidies of our aviation system. There are Federal subsidies of our highway system. Highways, of course, provide the most flexible mobility for people. But trains can also add something for people who don't live near airports. I think we have a chance to do something that will allow for an intermodal system that will serve the best needs of our country, will be the best for our economy and also will have, I hope, an impact on tourism and transportation in this country. I think it opens up a whole new world if we can have a good, solid transportation system with passenger rail as part of it. We have worked in this bill to try to bring the labor protections into line so that, basically, we won't have protections that are above and beyond protections that most people have in this country. But we would leave it to the collective bargaining system that exists between Amtrak and its unions. I hope, when we have the agreement, to announce that the protections will be gone, and that collective bargaining will be a viable way to determine exactly what the people who work for our passenger railroad will have in the way of protections and also allow the railroad to be competitive, because, of course, if we are going to have a system that will survive. I think Congress has sent the very clear signal that the subsidies are going to be phased out. But in order for the subsidies to be phased out, we are going to try to give Amtrak a chance to succeed. So I am hopeful that in the next few hours or perhaps tomorrow, we will, in fact, have an agreement that we can announce and we will be able to pass this bill, send it to the House and send it to the President in very short order. Of course, everyone knows that there is money from the budget reconciliation agreement that would help on the infrastructure costs that we think will provide efficiencies for Amtrak and make it even more profitable and make it more attractive for people to be able to take high-speed trains, especially in the corridors where there is more density. But the $2.3 billion that has been set aside for the infrastructure depends on the reform bill going through. The reform bill includes taking away some of the protections that are required in law that should be instead agreed to at the bargaining table, having some liability limits that will allow Amtrak and the railroads to buy an insurance policy so that they will know what their liability potentials will be. We also have some protections for lines that are going to go out of existence. Right now there is a 90-day notice for a continuance of a line. I ran into a problem in my State of Texas in which they didn't have the ability to make decisions quickly. Many State legislatures only meet every other year. So if they have a notice of discontinuance of a line, they don't even have a chance to stand up and say, ``Look, we will step in and try to help with some funding.'' We need to give the States more time. We give them, in fact, 180 days notice, up from the 90 days notice, to give them a chance to address any kind of disruption in service that would affect their States. Second, we allow States to create interstate rail compacts. I think this is a very important possibility. It is not a mandate, of course, but it allows the States to come together. States that have commuters that go between two States can come together and form a compact and make a high-speed rail line that both States can contribute to. I think that should add to the ability to have more entrepreneurial spirit in our rail systems and perhaps allow States to work together for their mutual best interests. Third, we provide for accountability. In fact, we want an independent audit of Amtrak. We are going to have, thanks to Senator John McCain, an Amtrak reform council that is going to look at everything Amtrak is doing and determine if there are things they could do better, if there are ways they can give better and more efficient service. In fact, they will report to Congress on their independent recommendations and if they think Amtrak will be able to succeed if these recommendations, along with the reforms in this bill, are put into place. If not, Congress will face that prospect with informed choices and must act on them. I think we have a good opportunity here. I believe very much that Amtrak can contribute to the mobility of our country. It will give more citizens more access to be able to get on a train and, for example, go see a grandchild that they would not have an opportunity to do because they did not live in a city that has an airport. Or take Amtrak to connect to a city with a major airport, making Amtrak part of a connected intermodal system. These are just a few examples of how important it is and can be to our transportation system. So I am looking forward to discussing this bill further when the agreement is made and when we are able to actually act on the bill. But I wanted to give an outline of what we are looking at and what we are trying to do. I am hopeful that we will be able to do it in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to add my remarks to those of my senior colleague. We are so proud in Texas that President Bush is opening his library today. We are proud that he chose to do it in Texas because he had other home States that he could have chosen, but that he came to Texas where he had his roots, his business, and raised his family. It means a lot to us. Also, I think what it is going to add to the intellectual commitment to Texas A&M, the foreign policy commitment to Texas A&M, and to all Americans is going to be great. It is going to be a great contribution for foreign policy debates; for leaders to come together. I think it is going to provide a diversity of views and opinions that will certainly enlighten all of us. So, we are proud that the opening of the library is today. I know that through the years we will all be very thankful that President Bush has chosen to have a school and a place for people to discuss very important domestic and foreign policy issues. I know that he will provide a fine quality of opportunity for all of us to learn from. So I appreciate it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Industry Depot Coalition.