Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask I be notified after 22 minutes because that is the time I will control. My senior colleague, Senator Gramm, will have the other 23 minutes. Mr. President, I want to say that I am one of the most prodefense people in this body and I think most of this bill is very good and very important. I am going to speak on the part of the bill that I think is very shortsighted and will, in fact, hurt our readiness in the future if it is not fixed. I will continue to urge the committee to work to fix it because I do believe that all of us want a stronger national defense and we want the taxpayer dollars to be spent wisely. In fact, passing this bill will waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and those aren't my figures. Those are the figures of the experts. So why would we do that? Let me first say that the points that were made by Senator Kempthorne and Senator Cleland can be met. I agree with them. It is most important that the pay and compensation issues, the health care issues, the military construction issues be addressed. In fact, a clean bill has been introduced that would cover those items, that if this bill is vetoed by the President--which I hope it will be, so it can be corrected--we can take care of those very important compensation, health and military construction issues, and that bill has been introduced. This can be worked out. It can be worked out for the good of everyone, for the good of the Department of Defense, for our men and women in the military and for the taxpayers of our country. I want to read from the Base Closing Commission recommendation. The Base Closing Commission recommended the closing of both Kelly Air Force Base and McClellan Air Force Base, but it did reserve the right of the Department of Defense to make the decision about where the work would be done and how it would be done. It says that ``the workload would be moved to other depots, or to private sector commercial activities, as determined by the Department of Defense.'' Now, what we are doing in the bill, if it is passed today, is taking that flexibility away from the Department of Defense. What we are saying is, you cannot have a level playing field, you cannot have real competition for the most cost savings and for the readiness issues in the maintenance of our equipment. This is a crucial issue, and it is not an issue that is just for McClellan Air Force Base or Kelly Air Force Base or California or Texas. This is an issue about how we are going to conserve the dollars that we spend on defense so that they can be spent for our troops, for the quality of life, and for the readiness that we must have to face the security threats to this country. The savings are absolutely--it has been proven--achievable, and it has been shown already by the most recent competition, the one that took place on the C-5, which saved $190 million on the cost of doing the maintenance of the C-5. This was won by a public depot against the private sector bidders that I had hoped would win. Nevertheless, I didn't win, but the taxpayers did, and the Department of Defense will save $190 million because we had the competition. In fact, private-sector companies that outsource frequently achieve cost savings of 20 to 30 percent. That is proven. If the Department of Defense could achieve similar savings by outsourcing $15 billion in annual depot maintenance, that would free up $2 billion a year for other purposes--$2 billion a year. Just think of it. Our operations in Bosnia cost us $3 billion a year. Most of that could be achieved with savings from efficiencies gotten with competition in the depots. That was proven within the last 2 months in the C-5 competition that was won by Warner-Robins. It was only because there was competition that these efficiencies were made. Otherwise, it would have been business as usual. Everything would have been done the same way. In fact, we would have paid $190 million more to do this work. One corporation, with much experience in commercial aircraft maintenance, has already looked at the engine maintenance work at Kelly. They have concluded that, by employing commercial-sector business practices, they can reduce the cost by over $1 billion over the life of the contract. They can reduce the amount of time necessary to repair engines by as much as 40 percent. So that is a readiness issue. And they can improve safety of flights through their process modifications. We all know that safety is of paramount importance when we are talking about our young men and women flying in the aircraft provided to them by the Department of Defense. So why wouldn't we bring this kind of expertise and savings into our military maintenance? I don't understand it. Look at the people who have spoken on this issue. Adm. William Owens, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when he was going out of office, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee said: The world's largest business is 65 to 70 percent fixed cost, 35 percent variable cost. The variable cost translates to the war-fighting capability. The money is in the fixed costs, and that is what we've got to work on. We must work on the fixed costs, like maintenance. Dr. John White, Deputy Secretary of Defense, March 1996: Privatization provides substantial savings. Now as we go forward, we have a situation where we have to emphasize modernization. General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 1996: I believe we must go on with privatization, with outsourcing. We need your support to make the hard choices and to change it to make these initiatives work. I particularly ask for your support where changes in law are required. I don't think the general would want to have constraints on competition and privatization as we are seeing in the bill before us today. William Cohen, the present Secretary of Defense, June 18, 1997: The San Antonio and Sacramento workload involve thousands of highly trained workers and large, expensive equipment and facilities. This work is critical to the continued operation of national assets. To transfer all of these workloads without a competitive evaluation and risk assessment would be unwise, from a business perspective, and would involve a significant risk of disruption in mission performance and degradation in military readiness. Now, these are the people in charge of our military. They are talking about the importance of privatization, the option of privatization. They are saying, look, we are willing to live with fewer dollars and provide the security that we are supposed to provide to the people of America. But don't tie our hands. Let us have the option, let us have the ability to do this job with the options and flexibility we must have to put the dollars where we need them. And we are seeing the capability of saving $2 billion a year if we will allow full competition. What is Congress doing in the bill that is before us today? It is tying the hands of the people who are asking for our help in order to do the job we are asking them to do in the most efficient way. Mr. President, why would we do this? I can't understand it. We have heard quotes from the people on the military side. Now let me quote from a letter received today from the Industry Depot Coalition. These are the people who do the work. These are the people who have been in this business, who know what the cost savings can be, who provide the 20 to 30 percent cost savings when they do the work. They have written a letter to Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin. It says: The Industry Depot Coalition, comprised of eight national associations representing the breadth of the defense industry and thousands of American businesses, large and small, wishes to register, for the record, our concerns relative to the depot maintenance provisions that are contained in the FY98 national defense authorization bill. In so doing, we wish to raise with you a number of impacts we foresee resulting from the provisions, as well as our sincere hope that you will give serious consideration to making modifications in that language. They state as a primary concern: The legislation requires that the Secretary of Defense assign sufficient workload to public depots to ensure cost efficiency. However, the arbitrary assignment of workloads will not ensure efficiency. Efficiency can only be ensured through competition, innovative management initiatives, and the adaptation of commercial practices, none of which is adequately addressed in this legislation. In addition, we are concerned that the legislation's requirement that DOD have in-house capability to repair all new systems within four years of initial operating capability could result in DOD having to create and maintain redundant facilities and capabilities, even when doing so is neither cost-effective nor, in the judgment of the Department, necessary for the national defense. A second area of primary concern: The legislation places in statute competitive requirements that are at this time only to be applied to the proposed competition for the workloads at the Kelly and McClellan Air Logistic Centers. As believers in fair competition and equal treatment in all areas of competition, we simply cannot support a statutory requirement such as this one that places unique requirements on one category of bidders. Mr. President, we have heard from the industry, we have heard from the Department, we have heard from the military chiefs--they need the flexibility. They need the ability to be able to do the work in the most efficient way, and that is what we are trying to provide them. The bill before us today does not allow that competition. It does not allow a free and fair competition; it weights toward the public depots to such a great extent that even one of the greatest proponents of this language admits exactly what they want to do, and that is keep private bidders from bidding. I will just quote from the Daily Oklahoman, where the junior Senator from Oklahoma says: With the language in the bill before us, I think it is highly unlikely any contractor would want to bid on it. So they are trying to stifle competition, and I don't understand why the committee is letting them do this. I do not, in any way, challenge the motives of the committee. I know they want to do what is right. But I think they have not looked at the quote of the Senator from Oklahoma, who admits he is trying to put language in so that no one will bid. They are overlooking the Defense Industry Depot Coalition, who have done the work and know that they can do it more efficiently. They are overlooking the fact that, where private industry is doing maintenance, it has worked very well for the Department of Defense. One of the best examples of this was in Desert Storm, where we had much private maintenance that kept right up to the readiness requirements of the Department of Defense. Mr. President, all the evidence is against what is in this bill today; yet, everyone who is arguing for this bill seems to say that this is just one little issue; it is just one little issue that can save $2 billion a year--$2 billion a year. We could start deploying theater missile defense. We could pay for most of our operation in Bosnia with these savings. Why won't the committee work with us to make sure that it is not just the one narrow interest of people who do not want competition who are winning? That is why the President has said he is going to veto this bill. He has told the Members of Congress he is going to veto this bill, and he is right because he knows that, as he himself is trying to lower the defense costs to our country, he has to have the flexibility to do his job. He can't afford to let $2 billion lay on the table in inefficient operations because a few people don't want competition. The President has said he is going to veto the bill because he knows that it is wrong to stifle competition and waste taxpayer dollars when we need to provide for the readiness of our country. We are not talking about one State or one depot. We are talking about the readiness of our troops, and the quality of life for our troops. We are talking about doing a job with fewer dollars from our taxpayers but fulfilling our responsibility for the security of our country. How could we pass a bill that we know is going to waste $2 billion a year, according to the Department of Defense statistics? How could we do it? I urge the committee to work on this language and make it fair. I urge my colleagues to listen to the debate because, if you vote on the merits, we can fix this bill, and we can provide for competition. We are not asking for favors. We are not asking for anything more than a fair and level playing field. In fact, in my conversations with the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I said, ``If you can answer one question for me, I will be for this bill because I like most of what is in it.'' Answer one question. ``Can you have a fair and open competition with the bill language as it is before the Senate today?'' And the answer was ``no.'' The answer was no from the Deputy Secretary of Defense. That is the only question that matters. So when you hear people glossing over this issue as if it is some small thing, as if it is some parochial, minor issue, $2 billion of taxpayer money, $2 billion of readiness, $2 billion of quality of life for our troops, and $2 billion toward systems that will protect the security of our country, it is not parochial. I urge my colleagues to get engaged on this issue and do what is right. We still have time to pass a good armed services authorization bill that provides for health care, quality of life, pay raises, military construction, and free and fair competition for savings, for good jobs, for people who win on the merits--not through a fix. And the fix is in the bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask that any balance of my time be given to Senator Gramm.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize an outstanding American and Texan and to take note of his recent reappointment by President Clinton as a member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation. Many in South Texas know Frank Yturria, and is wife, Mary, for the many years they have devoted to public service in Brownsville, TX, and throughout the Rio Grande Valley. As a leading voice for community improvement, Frank Yturria has served as an example of devotion to community. He and his wife have been involved in, and often led, numerous community projects in the south Rio Grande Valley. They are also pioneers in the effort to forge meaningful and productive relationships with private and public sector community leaders on the Mexican side of the border. Frank Yturria was first appointed in 1990 by President Bush to serve as chairman of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation, a development agency which promotes self-help community efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean. During his tenure, Frank Yturria instituted necessary reforms at the agency and insisted on program accountability. Because of his efforts and hard work, Frank Yturria is the first member of the Inter-American Foundation's Board of Directors to be reappointed by any President, Democrat or Republican. This reappointment by President Clinton clearly speaks volumes about Frank Yturria's contributions to his community, Texas, and to our Nation. I support his reappointment and wish him well as be continues to work for mutual friendship and prosperity of the United States and Latin America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would enable the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority in Texas to use the Canadian River Project's water distribution system to transport water from sources other than those envisioned when the project was conceived nearly 50 years ago. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is a State agency which supplies water to over 500,000 citizens in 11 cities on the Texas high plains, including Lubbock and Amarillo. The water authority was created by the Texas Legislature which authorized it to contract with the Federal Government under Federal reclamation laws to build and develop the Canadian River Project, also known as Lake Meredith. While the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the project were transferred to the water authority, the Bureau of Reclamation retained the title and ownership of the project. The quality and supply of water from the Canadian River Project has not met the expectations of either the Bureau of Reclamation or the residents of the Texas high plains. Not only is their insufficient water to provide adequately for the needs of the communities Lake Meredith serves, but the water has high levels of salt. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has proposed to supplement the water in Lake Meredith with better quality groundwater from nearby aquifers. While this will not require any Federal funding, the Bureau of Reclamation has ill-conceived guidelines precluding nonproject water from flowing through their reservoirs or distribution systems. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the use of the Canadian River Project water distribution system to transport better quality water from the nearby aquifers which are outside the originally defined project scope. An environmental review, as required by law, would be conducted and completed within 90 days of enactment of this legislation. Congressman Mac Thornberry has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The citizens of the Texas Panhandle have long suffered from insufficient water and poor water quality. The Bureau of Reclamation has worked with the water authority to develop a solution to the high salt content in the water. Local officials believe that one solution is to simply dilute the poor quality water with better quality water from the nearby aquifers. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation quickly to meet the long-term water needs of many Texas Panhandle residents.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would enable the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority in Texas to use the Canadian River Project's water distribution system to transport water from sources other than those envisioned when the project was conceived nearly 50 years ago. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is a State agency which supplies water to over 500,000 citizens in 11 cities on the Texas high plains, including Lubbock and Amarillo. The water authority was created by the Texas Legislature which authorized it to contract with the Federal Government under Federal reclamation laws to build and develop the Canadian River Project, also known as Lake Meredith. While the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the project were transferred to the water authority, the Bureau of Reclamation retained the title and ownership of the project. The quality and supply of water from the Canadian River Project has not met the expectations of either the Bureau of Reclamation or the residents of the Texas high plains. Not only is their insufficient water to provide adequately for the needs of the communities Lake Meredith serves, but the water has high levels of salt. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has proposed to supplement the water in Lake Meredith with better quality groundwater from nearby aquifers. While this will not require any Federal funding, the Bureau of Reclamation has ill-conceived guidelines precluding nonproject water from flowing through their reservoirs or distribution systems. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the use of the Canadian River Project water distribution system to transport better quality water from the nearby aquifers which are outside the originally defined project scope. An environmental review, as required by law, would be conducted and completed within 90 days of enactment of this legislation. Congressman Mac Thornberry has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The citizens of the Texas Panhandle have long suffered from insufficient water and poor water quality. The Bureau of Reclamation has worked with the water authority to develop a solution to the high salt content in the water. Local officials believe that one solution is to simply dilute the poor quality water with better quality water from the nearby aquifers. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation quickly to meet the long-term water needs of many Texas Panhandle residents.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified if I go over 5 minutes, which I don't expect to do. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Stevens' putting this bill forward, along with Senator Burns, because I think this is exactly the way the process should work. I am, frankly, puzzled by some of my colleagues who are arguing that they aren't going to vote for this bill because they voted for the line-item veto. I voted for the line-item veto. This is exactly the way the process should work. The President vetoes, and the Congress does not take away its right to disagree with the President. The Congress has not taken away its right to override. In fact, that is part of the process. That is the way it is supposed to work. I don't accuse the President of partisanship. I think he has vetoed projects that he probably considers were not worthy in States and districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. But I do think the President is wrong. I think the President did not have the facts straight, and I think he has vetoed essential projects that the military has asked for, and I think we need to override this veto. In fact, the President vetoed these measures that are operational. Let me just read you a couple of examples: A repair of the launch facilities for missile systems in White Sands, NM; to expand ammunition supply facilities at Fort Bliss; consolidation of B-1B squadron operations facilities. These are projects the military has said are essential. They are in the military 5-year plan. The reason they weren't in the President's budget is because the President always comes in below Congress in the military budget. Congress believes the military has certain needs for our readiness, and Congress has increased the President's budget every year since I have been here. So it is not unusual that the President would not have in his budget some of the needs that Congress believes are essential. In fact, the President left in many military construction projects at NATO facilities that are exactly the same type of facilities that he vetoed on American bases. So I think this is exactly the kind of override that the process calls for. The President did not have his facts. The Department of Defense admits that their data was not up to date. The military asked for these projects. They are very important for readiness. And I think it is time for us to exercise our rights as Congress to override the President's veto, not because we think he was sinister in what he was trying to do but because we think he was wrong. It is Congress' prerogative to do this. I think it is important that we stand by the needs for the military that we have studied and that we believe are necessary, and that we stand by what we did and override the President's veto. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent my staff member, Karen Knutson, be allowed access to the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, only to ask unanimous consent that a staffer be allowed on the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send an amendment to the motion to postpone to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Just to end my remarks, if you want to have the argument on fairness, I will just quote from the junior Senator from Oklahoma who says in the newspaper that the requirements that are in this bill put on contractors new language which would likely keep them from wanting to bid for the work. He says contractors will have to include in their bids millions of dollars in costs that weren't previously required. ``I think it's highly unlikely any contractor would want to bid on it,'' he said. Madam President, that is prima facie evidence that they are not looking for a level playing field. If they will sit down and work with us, we will provide the level playing field, the winners will be the taxpayers of America, the winners will be the Department of Defense, the winners will be our men and women in the military, and the winners will be the secure Americans who will have the hundreds of millions of dollars that competition will give us in national security rather than in Government waste. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask Senator Gramm for half a minute.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I thank all of the Senators who are trying to do what is right in this bill. I hope very much that we will be able to come to an agreement that will allow free and fair competition. We are not asking for something special. We are not asking for an advantage. In fact, we have gone so far beyond where BRAC, the Base Closing Commission, was that I think we have gone overboard to allow the public depots to even compete, because the Base Closing Commission report in 1995 states specifically, and I am reading from the report: Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Realign Kelly Air Force Base, including the Air Logistics Center, consolidate the workloads to other Department of Defense depots or to private sector commercial activities as is determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council. ``As determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' By the law that this Congress passed in adopting the Base Closing Commission report in full, the Department of Defense has total discretion about whether to move the depot maintenance from Kelly and McClellan or whether to privatize it in place. The concept of competition came forward in the intervening years, and we all believe that is fair. Why shouldn't the public depots be able to compete? We think that is best for the taxpayers. So, of course, there we were trying to get a fair and level playing field so that the public depots could compete, so that there could be private competition in the depots that were closed, and that is what is right for this country. It is what is right for the Department of Defense, and it is what the Department of Defense wants. So we have added a huge measure of support for the public depots to be able to compete. In the last 2 years, I have heard Member after Member who represents a depot State saying, ``There can't be fair competition between the public sector and the private sector.'' In fact, the first competition that was held for part of the work that is now being done at Kelly went out for competition and, in fact, the bid was awarded to a public depot in Georgia. In fact, the Department of Defense personnel say that they don't think there was a level playing field in that bid. But nevertheless, the bid was won. Did the people of San Antonio stand up and whine about not getting the bid? No, they didn't. Even though they were told it wasn't fair, even though they were told that their bid was better, they did not whine about it because they believe that if they have a fair chance, they will be able to compete the next time. Now we have a bill before us that does not allow them to compete on a level playing field once again. At some point, there has to be integrity in the process. At some point, the people of San Antonio or the people of Sacramento must know that there is a fairness because the Base Closing Commission recommended that the Department of Defense be given the option of privatizing in place or going to a public depot. They have competed fair and square, and they have been beaten. They have been beaten. So you can have a fair competition. It has been shown. Who was the winner in the C-5 competition? It was the taxpayers of America, because there was competition. The taxpayers of America and the men and women in our military gained $190 million because that is the efficiency that would be gained because there was competition. If you take the other competitions that are left to go during the years, think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be available for a better quality of life for our men and women in the services, for the equipment and the technology that would protect them when they are in the field, and that would make our security of our shores intact. Those hundreds of millions will go for our national security rather than on wasted depot space.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Majority Leader is correct. S. 414 does not limit the United States' ability to address similar situations in the future. The U.S. Transportation Board would have the same authority, independence, and I believe the same willingness, to protect America's interests as the FMC.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to add my congratulations to the FMC, the Maritime Administration, and the administration as well. The resulting improvements in Japan's port practices will benefit not only U.S. ocean carriers, but other ocean carriers and the shippers of the world trading through Japan's ports.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. For many years, the United States has attempted to negotiate commonsense changes to this system with Japan. Japan also faced criticism from the European Union. However, no progress was made until earlier this year when the FMC voted to assess $100,000 fines against Japanese ocean carriers for each United States port call. It is reasonable for the United States to collect fines from the Japanese shipping lines. Before these fines were to be imposed, the Government of Japan agreed to make the necessary changes. The FMC judiciously gave Japan until August 1997 to work out these changes. When Japan failed to meet this generous deadline, the fines automatically went into effect. By last week, the Japanese ocean carriers had missed the FMC's deadline to pay the first $5 million in fines. Realizing that Japan would not follow through on its promise to fix its port system unless stronger measures were imposed, the FMC voted last week to deny the same Japanese ocean carriers entry to and exit from United States ports.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Americans should not have to choose between love and money. In a country that values families, the Federal Tax Code shouldn't punish people for being married. The number of unmarried-couple households increased 80 percent from 1980 to 1990, according to census figures. The percentage of people who never marry has doubled, from 5 percent in the 1950's to 10 percent today. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation with Senators Faircloth and Mack that will abolish the Federal income tax marriage penalty. Under this legislation, families will have the choice of filing as single or married, depending on which method works best for them. There is something wrong with a law that imposes higher taxes on married people with two incomes than on single people. The hallmark of a fair tax system is even-handedness, and the current law flunks this test. From 1913 through 1969, the Federal income tax treated married couples either better or as well as if single. Since then, progressive tax rates have meant that married couples with two incomes have to pay more in Federal taxes than they would as individuals. The Congressional Budget Office reports that in 1996, more than 21 million married couples paid the marriage penalty. The average couple now pays $1,400 in additional income tax simply because they're married. One thousand four hundred dollars could mean six or seven car payments, a family vacation, or a computer for the family. For example, a single person earning $24,000 a year is taxed at the rate of 15 percent. But, by taxing them on their combined income, the IRS collects 28 percent in tax from a working couple in which each spouse earns $24,000. It is wrong for two people living together to pay less taxes than if they were married. Because American families increasingly have had two breadwinners, instead of one, more Americans are impacted by the marriage penalty. In 1969, 52 percent of American families had only one bread winner. Today that figure is 28 percent. Mr. President, under current law, the only way to avoid the marriage penalty is not to marry or to leave your spouse if already married. This is wrong. We need a Tax Code to encourage marriage, not penalize it. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union. We are introducing this bill with 34 co- sponsors, including every Member of the Republican leadership. I am very pleased to be working with Senators Faircloth and Mack and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will join us in rectifying this unfair tax treatment of married couples.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Majority Leader has summed up this situation exactly. If we really care about our national rail passenger system, the communities that it serves, the employees that work there and the role it plays in our transportation infrastructure, then we need to take up and pass the Amtrak authorization bill that has been reported from the Commerce Committee. If the Senate wants to give Amtrak the tools it needs to run a national system and collectively bargain with the employees, the Senate needs to act now. The clock is ticking and time is running out. Congress needs to act or there most likely will be a national rail strike, crippling transportation of people and goods across the country. Congress also needs to act on the Amtrak reforms to ensure it receives adequate capital funding and becomes solvent. If Congress doesn't act, there will be no national rail passenger system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Amtrak is at a crisis point. Actually, it faces two crises: a strike and the financial crisis brought about by failure to reform the railroad. Reform is a prerequisite to accessing the much-needed capital Congress provided for the railroad in the Balanced Budget bill. Congress decided when that bill was passed that it did not make sense to provide that money unless the railroad was able to act more like a business. I strongly support intercity passenger rail but believe that reform is essential before putting this major financial commitment in place. First, and most immediately, Amtrak is facing a possible national shut down because of an impasse between the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) and Amtrak over wages and work rules. At question is Amtrak's ability to pay for any increase in wages during the difficult financial times the railroad is currently going through. Using the Railway Labor Act, the President has named a Presidential Emergency Board to recommend a solution to the dispute. It concluded its investigation and made its recommendations. The parties are now in a 30 day ``cooling off'' period to consider the recommendations. If no agreement is reached by the end of this period, which falls on October 22nd, we could have a strike or a management ``lockout of employees''. Either action would have the effect of shutting down all commuter operations, as well as other services, across the country. A strike would not be confined to the Northeast Corridor, but would affect all of the passengers in the entire Amtrak system. Amtrak's largest operations are in the Northeast Corridor, where a large number of commuter authorities between Washington, New York and Boston depend on that infrastructure to operate their railroads. They include: the MBTA or Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, CONNDOT, Long Island Railroad, NJ Transit, the SEPTA or Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and the two local services, the MARC or Maryland Commuter service and the VRE or Virginia Railway Express. Each one of these commuter authorities use the Northeast Corridor. If Amtrak cannot operate the Corridor, these services come to a halt. In addition, freight carriers such as Conrail who use the Corridor would be seriously affected, because Amtrak operates much of the track on the Northeast corridor. Mr. President, let me put this in perspective. When a 60-day cooling off period recently expired in California, the San Francisco Bay Area's commuter railroad was shut down by a strike which stranded 270,000 commuters. Dispatchers at Norfolk Southern, which carries commuters between Manassas, Virginia, and Washington, DC recently called a ``wildcat'' strike for three hours and the VRE had to cancel one-half of its afternoon trains. But if Amtrak is shut down, it won't be one commuter authority paralyzed as we saw in San Francisco or Virginia, it will be many. It won't be thousands of commuters, it will be millions. If this happens, the strike in San Francisco will pale by comparison. Mr. President, my colleagues need to be aware of this situation, because the Senate needs to address it head-on before we leave in November. Congress has to act because the future of America's railroad depends on it. Amtrak is simply in a no-win situation. Amtrak cannot afford the terms of the PEB and it cannot afford a strike. The PEB recommended a package of wage increases recently implemented by the profitable freight railroads. The freight deal for the BMWE would cost Amtrak $25 million in FY98. If it were extended to all of Amtrak's employees, it would cost Amtrak $250 million. I seriously doubt that Congress would appropriate funds for these wages. As it is, the railroad is currently borrowing just to meet existing daily expenses. Mr. President, my colleagues have to be realistic. I look forward to working with both the Majority Leader and Senate Labor Committee Chairman to find the right solution to this dilemma. Mr. President, in that spirit, I plan to move forward on Amtrak's reform legislation. I have had extensive discussions with the Majority Leader on this matter and he feels the same way.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Americans should not have to choose between love and money. In a country that values families, the Federal Tax Code shouldn't punish people for being married. The number of unmarried-couple households increased 80 percent from 1980 to 1990, according to census figures. The percentage of people who never marry has doubled, from 5 percent in the 1950's to 10 percent today. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation with Senators Faircloth and Mack that will abolish the Federal income tax marriage penalty. Under this legislation, families will have the choice of filing as single or married, depending on which method works best for them. There is something wrong with a law that imposes higher taxes on married people with two incomes than on single people. The hallmark of a fair tax system is even-handedness, and the current law flunks this test. From 1913 through 1969, the Federal income tax treated married couples either better or as well as if single. Since then, progressive tax rates have meant that married couples with two incomes have to pay more in Federal taxes than they would as individuals. The Congressional Budget Office reports that in 1996, more than 21 million married couples paid the marriage penalty. The average couple now pays $1,400 in additional income tax simply because they're married. One thousand four hundred dollars could mean six or seven car payments, a family vacation, or a computer for the family. For example, a single person earning $24,000 a year is taxed at the rate of 15 percent. But, by taxing them on their combined income, the IRS collects 28 percent in tax from a working couple in which each spouse earns $24,000. It is wrong for two people living together to pay less taxes than if they were married. Because American families increasingly have had two breadwinners, instead of one, more Americans are impacted by the marriage penalty. In 1969, 52 percent of American families had only one bread winner. Today that figure is 28 percent. Mr. President, under current law, the only way to avoid the marriage penalty is not to marry or to leave your spouse if already married. This is wrong. We need a Tax Code to encourage marriage, not penalize it. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union. We are introducing this bill with 34 co- sponsors, including every Member of the Republican leadership. I am very pleased to be working with Senators Faircloth and Mack and I hope Members from both sides of the aisle will join us in rectifying this unfair tax treatment of married couples.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am proud to be able to speak today, as many of my colleagues have done recently, on the significance of Hispanic Heritage Month, being commemorated from September 15 through October 15. For almost 30 years, we as a nation have, in this way, formally acknowledged and celebrated the contributions Hispanic Americans have made and are making to our country. Mr. President, in my home State of Texas, Hispanics are an intrinsic and dynamic part of our history, culture, economy, and civic life. From El Paso to Texarkana, and from Amarillo to Brownsville, over 6 million Latinos in Texas contribute immeasurably to making the Lone Star State the unique and wonderful place it is. Whether they trace their ancestry to the earliest Spanish settlers in Texas or have recently immigrated to this country, individually and collectively Hispanics have made our State and our Nation a richer place in which to live. For at least 250 of the last 400 years, Hispanic heritage was synonymous with Texas heritage. Since the first Spanish landing at the mouth of the Rio Grande by Alonso Alvarez de Pineda in 1519, the Spanish, and later the Mexicans bravely began to colonize the vast and rugged land known as Tejas. To this day, Hispanics continue to contribute their boundless determination and unique perspective to every facet of life in Texas and the Nation. Hispanic Americans enrich our lives in virtually every field of endeavor: politics, business, science, education, art, music, film, cuisine, and countless other fields. In my home State, we recently lost two of our greatest native Texas Hispanics, Congressman Frank Tejeda and musical artist Selena Perez. In their own way, both of these individuals demonstrated astonishing determination, which in turn reflected the vibrancy and strength of the Hispanic community: Frank Tejeda, who dropped out of high school from the south side of San Antonio and went on to distinguish himself in military service in Vietnam, in higher education, in the business world, and as a dedicated public servant; and Selena who, at the young age of 23 became a pop icon, entertaining audiences in her hometown of Corpus Christi and throughout the world with her unique brand of ``Tejano'' music. Although the lives of these two great Texans ended far too soon, they will forever inspire the tens of thousands of young Hispanics who will look to them and to the many other Hispanic leaders in our country as symbols of what can be achieved through hard work, ambition, and the support of the community. As a Texas and as a member of the Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs, I remain committed to ensuring that the American dream continues to exist and to come true for all Americans. Through my activities on this task force and in the Senate, as well as through daily contact with my constituents, I have worked hard to ensure that the needs and concerns of the Hispanic community are heard and responded to. While we all share the goal of improving our country and the opportunities for our children, there are economic and other concerns that disproportionately impact the Hispanic community. I believe we in Congress must continue to address those concerns by pursuing policies that promote education, health care, urban renewal, and a business environment that encourages entrepreneurial activity and risk taking. There are certainly challenges ahead. With so many Hispanic-owned businesses starting up around the country, access to capital is a critical need. I have supported and continue to support lending and contracting programs that offer fledgling businesses the opportunity to launch themselves--and to continue to soar. I am also working to give small business people and other Americans relief from excessive levels of taxation and Federal regulation. On the eve of a new millennium, it is vital that we remain a people united, respectful of the individual, the family, and our country as a whole. In this same spirit, it is also important to inform ourselves and our children of the sacrifices and contributions that have been made by our ancestors on our behalf. Hispanics have extremely good reason to be proud of that heritage and to rejoice in it. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to highlight today the contribution of Hispanics to the exquisite mosaic that is America the Beautiful, America la linda.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I say perhaps, for once, maybe Washington could teach us a lesson.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I will be brief because I know a number of people have opinions on this subject. But, Mr. President, I think we are talking about the future of public education. I have heard people say, why not just improve public education? That is what we are trying to do. That is the bottom line of what this amendment is trying to do--introduce some new idea, introduce a new way of trying to improve public education by having competition in our system. Mr. President, what makes America America, what makes America different from other countries in the world has always been our commitment to quality public education so that every child in our country would have the opportunity, with a full range of public education, to fulfill his or her potential. I am a product of public education. I think it is important that we have the quality so that a person like me can stand on the floor with a person like Senator Kennedy who has had quality private education. In order to do that, I think it is important that we have new ideas because, as they say in my home State, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' This is broken. The District of Columbia schools spend more money per student than any school in America, and yet steadily we have seen the decline of the quality of education as judged by the scores on tests. So more money is clearly not the answer. Maybe some competition, maybe letting the mother of a 10-year-old boy who is going to a school that may or may not be open because of fire codes, that may not be able to educate this child because he is being offered drugs on the school grounds, give that mother a chance to do something different for her child, and that is to give her child a chance with a voucher to go somewhere else for competition. And then perhaps, if this works as a test, it might be something that we can do in low- and moderate-income areas all over our country. Maybe that is a new idea that might work. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is a field test for another way to try to improve our public education system, which I think everyone in the U.S. Senate wants to do. But why are we not open to a new idea? Why wouldn't we say if any place deserves a try, it is this community, the District of Columbia, where we see the test scores go down in relation to the Federal money that has gone in. Let's try something new. This is the perfect place to do it. I commend the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Connecticut, and all those who are cosponsoring this innovative idea so we can have a test market to give every child a chance to have a great public education by introducing a choice. With that competition, encouraging every public school to come up in standards to attract those vouchers that would provide that quality public education that we have guaranteed to our people for the last 221 years in this country, and which if we are going to remain the greatest country on Earth, must be the hallmark of our freedom--a quality public education.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye, for producing a defense appropriations bill that will fund the defense needs of our country. It will create a quality of life improvement for those who are serving in our military, and it will give us, to the extent that we can, the equipment that we need for our young men and women to do this job. I want to point out particularly one part of this bill that I think is a major step for this Senate and for our country. That is the part that provides for a cutoff of funds for the Bosnia deployment after June 30, 1998, unless the President comes to Congress 45 days before that time and shows us exactly why he would want to extend the forces, how much it would cost, what it is going to do--what the mission is, and what the exit strategy is. This is what we have been asking the President for, for 2 years. When we started this deployment over the objections of many of us in this Congress, it was for 1 year, from November 1995 to November 1996. Then the continuation came with very little consultation from Congress, certainly no previous consultation, and we started in January 1997 until now; it was set for June 1998. But even today the New York Times editorialized, ``Still No Exit Strategy on Bosnia.'' Congress is saying to the President, we want to see an exit strategy. Many of us are concerned that we are drifting into a potential commitment that we do not understand, that the American people do not understand. They do not see a need for it because they don't see the strategy. It seems, if you are looking at Bosnia, that the military mission is to keep the parties apart. But the political mission is to bring them together, perhaps bring them together prematurely. I have been to the Balkans six times. I was there in August. I walked on the streets of Brcko. I talked to the Serbs. I talked to the Muslim residents. I asked them if they were helping each other move into the neighborhoods to bring the refugees back. They acted like the others weren't there. They are not helping each other. They are not ready for this move. If we are going to try to continue to force this resettlement, is it an inherently peaceful move? Or are we disrupting the peace that we would like to put into Bosnia today? Mr. President, I think what this bill does is say, once and for all, we are going to have consultation. We are not going to allow a mission creep, such as we have seen in Somalia. We are not going to allow a mission creep, such as we have seen in Vietnam. We are not going to allow our young men and women, who are serving in Bosnia, to give their lives before we have a policy in this country about what our mission is there. We are going to do it, I hope, in the light of day, taking into consideration what the U.S. security interest is, what it is going to cost us, what our relationship is to our allies. These are the questions we must address before we put our young men and women into a mission that has no end. So, Mr. President, I commend the leaders of the armed services and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I am on that subcommittee. Under the leadership of Chairman Stevens and cochairman, Senator Inouye, with Senator Pat Roberts, with Senator Russ Feingold, we are trying to fashion a policy that the American people will agree is the right policy for our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I share your concerns regarding the intent of the original OCSLA and the effect of the MMS' actions. MMS is threatening to implement regulations without adequate discussions between the agency, industry, and the original authors of the OCSLA. By utilizing a negotiated rulemaking, we have a unique opportunity to avoid the problems that MMS' current course of action will create. There are many stakeholders in this debate that have valid concerns which deserve to be addressed. The exploration contractors, the oil and gas companies and the MMS all have a lot to lose by pushing through regulations that will cause more problems than they will fix. Each of the stakeholders can make significant contributions to a set of regulations that will accomplish the goals of the OCSLA, the MMS and the industry. I am frankly at a loss to understand why MMS has refused to engage in substantive negotiations on these issues when it is clear that substantive concerns remain unaddressed. The notice and comment rulemaking that surrounded this proposed rule was insufficient. Significant disagreements continue to exist where solutions seem eminently reachable. It makes sense to get the interested parties together to see if they can find a mutually agreeable solution. I strongly urge MMS to abandon the current rulemaking proceeding and to negotiate immediately with the affected parties to avoid placing the OCS lease program in jeopardy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if these concerns are not addressed, one of our country's most successful programs, the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program, may be jeopardized. Under that program, the Federal Government has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in rents and royalties over the last 25 years, while at the same time developing safe and secure sources of energy for our country. Crucial to the success of that program is the ability of the private sector to conduct exploration of the Gulf of Mexico before submitting bids on the tracts offered for oil and gas leases. I recently learned that the Minerals Management Service [MMS] has proposed changes to the rules under which that exploration is conducted. These changes would potentially jeopardize the continuity and success of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCSLA] program. Currently, geological and geophysical companies [G&G companies] conduct seismic surveys under MMS permits which require the permittees to provide the data they collect to the MMS under strict guarantees of confidentiality. The G&G companies then provide the oil companies access to the data through nonexclusive licenses. The licenses allow the oil companies to use the data for any purpose including re-processing the data using their own technology and data. These licenses are given on the condition that the licensee will not show or share the data with anyone else. In this way, the G&G companies are able to offer data to the largest number of possible users at the lowest cost. Under the proposed regulations, MMS intends to extend its ability to obtain data from just the G&G companies to all of the companies who have licensed and reprocessed that data using their own technology. By requiring all industry to share reprocessed data with the MMS, the threat of disclosure of extremely sensitive business data exists. Under any number of situations, including appeal of fair market values, it is unclear if the proposed changes would protect the confidentiality of that data. This threat to sensitive business data could ultimately threaten the success of the OCS leasing program. I understand and appreciate the need for MMS to have accurate data. However, I question the need of the Government to obtain reprocessed data that belongs to the business community especially if it could potentially be released to competitor companies. It is my understanding that my colleague, Senator Breaux was an author of the original OCSLA. Do you believe the MMS' proposed regulations accurately reflect the purpose of that legislation?