Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to speak until the beginning of the vote. As soon as that is called and they are ready, I would ask to be interrupted. But I want to speak briefly on the nomination of Federico Pena for Secretary of Energy. This is a very important position, and one that I think will certainly have an impact on the energy policy of our country in the future. Knowing how important having a healthy energy policy and a strong industry that can produce our own energy domestically is to this country, I think this nomination and the support for Federico Pena is important to all of the Senate. I am cochair, along with Senator Breaux, of the oil and gas caucus. We are going to work this year to make sure that we eliminate redundant and unnecessary regulations on the energy industry so we will be able to go out and drill in our country for our natural resources. We want tax incentives which encourage oil and gas drilling, especially marginal wells and formations which are difficult to develop. These are important because we want to have energy sufficiency in our country. Not only does it create jobs, but it creates security. A country that is dependent on foreign oil and gas is not going to be a strong country. It is not going to be a superpower. So, having a healthy energy policy in our country will be most important for us to be able to strengthen the ability to get oil and gas on our own shores. I see, Mr. President, that our leaders are ready to start a vote. I will stop and then hope to be able to speak on behalf of Secretary Pena's nomination at a later time. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last Congress, we made substantial progress toward enacting ocean shipping reform. The House passed a bill and, under the leadership of Senators Lott and Pressler, we in the Senate were presented with a very workable framework for ocean shipping reform. I am pleased to make it the framework upon which we base the bill which Senators Lott, Gorton, Breaux, and I are introducing today. It is my hope that we can develop the consensus necessary to pass this measure in a timely way. The next step in this process is the hearing later this month before the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, which I chair. I am looking forward to hearing from those who will be impacted by our legislative efforts. Ninety-five percent of U.S. foreign commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Half of this trade, which is carried by container liner vessels with scheduled service and is regulated under the Shipping Act of 1984, is affected by these reforms. This legislation represents an important opportunity to ease the hand of regulation on a significant sector of commerce, and eliminate a regulatory agency altogether. Our bill terminates the Federal Maritime Commission and consolidates remaining maritime regulatory responsibilities into a renamed Surface Transportation Board. Thus, we will eliminate one regulatory agency and improve another by making its mission more reflective of the shipping world where commerce moves intermodally--over rail, road, and ocean. This bill allows for greater flexibility in service contracting by shippers and ocean common carriers, which will permit freight to move at the most competitive prices while we continue to protect against discriminatory practices. To this end, we continue to require a form of tariff publication. However, it is much more flexible than current tariff filing. Tariffs become effective upon publication through a private system, not the Government, and tariff changes do not require Government approval. This puts the maritime industry on similar footing as other transportation industries which we have deregulated in recent years, providing carriers with much greater rate flexibility. At the same time, we preserve protections required to counter the effects of ocean carrier antitrust immunity and foreign carrier involvement in this segment of commerce. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last Congress, we made substantial progress toward enacting ocean shipping reform. The House passed a bill and, under the leadership of Senators Lott and Pressler, we in the Senate were presented with a very workable framework for ocean shipping reform. I am pleased to make it the framework upon which we base the bill which Senators Lott, Gorton, Breaux, and I are introducing today. It is my hope that we can develop the consensus necessary to pass this measure in a timely way. The next step in this process is the hearing later this month before the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, which I chair. I am looking forward to hearing from those who will be impacted by our legislative efforts. Ninety-five percent of U.S. foreign commerce is transported via ocean shipping. Half of this trade, which is carried by container liner vessels with scheduled service and is regulated under the Shipping Act of 1984, is affected by these reforms. This legislation represents an important opportunity to ease the hand of regulation on a significant sector of commerce, and eliminate a regulatory agency altogether. Our bill terminates the Federal Maritime Commission and consolidates remaining maritime regulatory responsibilities into a renamed Surface Transportation Board. Thus, we will eliminate one regulatory agency and improve another by making its mission more reflective of the shipping world where commerce moves intermodally--over rail, road, and ocean. This bill allows for greater flexibility in service contracting by shippers and ocean common carriers, which will permit freight to move at the most competitive prices while we continue to protect against discriminatory practices. To this end, we continue to require a form of tariff publication. However, it is much more flexible than current tariff filing. Tariffs become effective upon publication through a private system, not the Government, and tariff changes do not require Government approval. This puts the maritime industry on similar footing as other transportation industries which we have deregulated in recent years, providing carriers with much greater rate flexibility. At the same time, we preserve protections required to counter the effects of ocean carrier antitrust immunity and foreign carrier involvement in this segment of commerce. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I stand today to sponsor, along with Mr. Abraham, Mr. Campbell, Mr. D'Amato, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Cochran, the introduction of the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1997. This bill is identical to the bipartisan and widely supported legislation I sponsored during the last session. This measure will create jobs, expand economic activity, and improve the physical appearance and increase the value of residential and commercial buildings in America's most distressed urban and rural communities. The bill provides a targeted tax credit to businesses to help defray the cost of construction, expansion, and renovation in these areas, and in the process will generate billions in privately based economic activity in those areas that need the most help in our country. The Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act will fill in the gap between the broad range of tools our States and localities utilize to make declining neighborhoods healthy places to do business, to work, and to raise families. This tax credit will help businesses form a partnership with the Government to help revitalize areas of our country that have, in many cases, suffered from neglect and despair. As we continue to look for ways to combat the decay of our inner cities and to raise the standard of living in many of our rural areas, I believe, and numerous studies demonstrate, that improving the physical structures in our neighborhoods not only has economic benefits but also tends to lift the hopes and expectations of the residents of those neighborhoods. Indeed, one of the key recommendations of the recent top-to-bottom review of law enforcement in this city, our Nation's Capital, was to improve the many abandoned buildings in the city that create an atmosphere conducive to crime and despair. This legislation will build on local initiatives like this in the District of Columbia, as well as many now underway in cities in Texas and throughout the country. The Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act will build upon the empowerment zone/enterprise community program that is now unfolding in 109 communities in the United States. Texas has five of these specially designated areas: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Waco, as well as one rural zone in the Rio Grande valley covering four counties. Not only will these cities qualify for the credit under my bill, but so will the 400 communities in the United States that sought such designation but were not selected. State- established enterprise zones and others specifically designated revitalization districts established by State and local governments will also be able to participate. In all, over 1,000 areas will qualify for this credit nationwide. Our bill contains the following main features: A tax credit that may be applied to construction amounting to at least 25 percent of the basis of the property, in designated revitalization areas; qualified investors could choose a one-time 20-percent tax credit against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation. For instance, if the expansion of a supermarket in Brownsville, TX, in the Rio Grande valley, in the empowerment zone there, cost $150,000, the tax credit against income would be $30,000. Alternatively, the business owner could take a 5-percent credit each year over a 10-year period; And tax credits totaling $1.5 billion would be allocated to each State according to a formula, with States and localities determining the priority of the projects. Mr. President, with a minimum level of bureaucratic involvement and through a proven tax mechanism, this initiative will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of families in need and for the economies of hundreds of distressed urban and rural communities across this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this sound and effective pro-growth initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for the fine job he has done in leading this very important debate, because really this debate is one of the most defining moments of our times. Will Congress deliver a balanced budget? Will we set the future economic stability of our country in place right now? Will we win this fight that we have undertaken on behalf, not of ourselves, but of our future generations? The American dream has always been that a parent could wish that his children or her children would have a better quality of life than he or she has had. That is why people came to this country. They wanted to work harder so that they could give their children a little better chance in life. What we are fighting for is a change that will assure that we can keep the American dream. We are trying to make lower interest rates, a higher standard of living, more job opportunities, a country liberated from an ever-increasing debt. Our children will not have a higher quality of life if we continue to build on this $5 trillion debt, Mr. President. This debate is about our children. It is not about political expedience. We know what must be done. Thomas Jefferson told us. Thomas Jefferson said one of the two things that he was concerned about after the Constitution was written and adopted was that we had not provided for the constraints on Congress that would not allow them to spend more than was in the public Treasury. Jefferson said that. In fact, his quotes were: Each successive generation ought to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding it. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson was the greatest visionary President perhaps we have ever had. Even Thomas Jefferson would not have dreamed our country, that he worked so hard to put together, would one day have a $5 trillion debt. Even Jefferson could not have been that visionary, and thank goodness, because so many of his generation fought and died for this country to be formed. If they had thought that the stewards of our future would not have the guts, would not have the ability to constrain their spending to the tune of $5 trillion, I wonder if they would have fought so hard. The idea of saddling generation after generation of Americans with a suffocating debt would have been unthinkable to those honorable men. Some say we don't need an amendment. They say we haven't been tuned in. I am going to tell you something, I have been tuned in. I have been watching the debate on this floor. I have seen what has happened to Medicare reform, to Social Security reform, to welfare reform, to Medicaid reform. It has taken a lot to get one of those four--welfare reform--and we have failed on the other three. If you think we do not need an amendment to constrain the appetite of Congress to spend other people's money, you have not been tuned in. Some say that this is going to tie the hands of Government. Hallelujah. That is exactly what we want to do. We want to get big government out of the hard-working American's pocketbook. Most Americans pay 50 percent of what they earn in taxes of some kind. All of us want to pay our fair share. But, Mr. President, 50 percent is too much. That does not allow the freedom to pursue the American dream. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will cure that appetite because Congress will be constrained, yes, their hands will be tied, from getting into the pocketbooks of our children and their children. So, Mr. President, I think the time has come for us to do what is right. The greatest issues of our time have taken many years. Americans debated the evil of slavery from the earliest days of the Republic, but it was not until 1865 that the 13th amendment to the Constitution was ratified and slavery was abolished. Women began their fight for suffrage in the early 19th century, but it was 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified giving women the right to vote. Like these two epic struggles, the balanced budget amendment has been fought for a long time. It is a fight we are waging on behalf of our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. And we will not stop the fight. Each year we lose by a very narrow margin. Last year it was one vote. This year, unless someone looks up and says, ``My gosh, what am I doing for my children,'' and changes his or her mind, unless someone does that, we are going to lose again probably by one vote. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will not be dissuaded from continuing this fight, because it is worthy of the other great issues that have taken so long. It is very important that we look not to the next election, but to the next generation, as we are making our decision today. This amendment is not the panacea, but what it does is give us the opportunity to make sure that there is a stability in our economy for evermore, that no Congress of the future will be able to go into a deficit unless there is a war or an emergency, which there is a safety valve of a three-fifths vote that can unbalance the budget. Those are the safety valves, of course, if we are in a war or a dire emergency, we will do the responsible thing. But if we can constrain ourselves in normal times, we will have a stable economy. We will have lower mortgage rates, lower car payments rates. We will have more jobs, and we will have more expendable money by the hard-working people of this country if we will face the fact that we need to tie the hands of a government that is so big, it could have brought together a $5 trillion debt. This vote today, if we win, could be the first step in a very long journey, and, by doing this, we would assure that there is a destination to the journey, that there is a shining city on the hill that is America. If we do not have a balanced budget, and the constraints of an amendment that would assure that we always will, there may not be a destination, there may not be a shining city on the hill that is America because future Congresses will be able to add just a little--it does not seem like so much, but just a little is now $5 trillion, Mr. President. We do need to tie the hands of future Congresses so there will be economic stability. And, Mr. President, this Congress has the ability to take the first step in that long journey to put our country back on track so that our children will have the same American dream that we have had, which is that they would be able to wish for their children a better quality of life than they have had because each generation expects to be able to do better. If we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we will assure that that will happen. Mr. President, this debate is defining of our times. And I hope we have the will to do what is right for our children and for theirs. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah. I will quote Ronald Reagan, who said in 1985: Almost 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a moment for the hard decisions. If not us, who? If not now, when? Let us make it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to spend more than the Federal Government takes in. A very simple notion. Ronald Reagan, our President, said this in 1985. It is 1997, and we have not yet taken the action the American people have asked us to take, to make it unconstitutional to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren. That is the vote today. The Republicans are going to keep their promise. We will be back again until we win this fight so that when we leave this place, we will know we have done our duty to protect the future of this great country that so many people have died to defend. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, 161 years ago yesterday, 54 delegates of the Convention of 1836 signed the Texas declaration of independence at the village of Washington-on-the-Brazos, which is near Houston, TX. Each of the settlements of Texas were represented. Texas was, at the time, a territory of Mexico. The delegates hurriedly wrote and adopted the declaration of independence, prepared a constitution for the newly formed Republic of Texas and organized an interim government. Mr. President, my great-great-grandfather was one of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence. His law partner, Thomas Jefferson Rusk, was also one of the heroes of Texas' quest for independence. Thomas Rusk also went on to serve as a Senator from Texas, and was the first Senator to hold my Senate seat. So I have grown up knowing much about Texas history since its days as a territory of Mexico. In fact, my great-great-grandfather was the ``alcalde,'' which was the mayor of the territory for the country of Mexico. Then, he, Thomas Rusk and Sam Houston, all hailing from Nacogdoches, TX, where my mother grew up, were leaders in the effort to wrest their independence from Mexico and for Texas to be able to set up its own government. I am proud, Mr. President, that Texas is the only State in America that was once an independent nation and, in fact, we were a republic for 9 years before becoming a State. So we like to recall the history of our independence, just as we do our history of American independence, every year. Yesterday in Texas we celebrated our Texas Independence Day. We commemorate the time that we became a nation, and we remember the brave and wonderful people, not only those who signed the declaration of independence that day, but those who were at the same time girding for war at the Alamo several hundred miles away. Former Texas Senator John Tower began a tradition among Texas Senators. Senator Tower would read William Barret Travis' letter from the Alamo. As I alluded to a moment ago, as they were declaring independence at Washington-on-the-Brazos in 1836, 6,000 Mexican troops were marching to the Alamo. They were marching to the Alamo to take on soldiers who had come from many States--Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and so on--to help defend Texas in its stand against the Mexican Army at the Alamo. The declaration of independence said: . . . We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare that our political connection with the Mexican Nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic . . . Several days earlier, William Barret Travis had written from the Alamo his famous letter to the people of Texas and to all Americans. He knew that the Mexican Army was coming, and he knew that they had few people to help them defend the Alamo. Here is the letter by Colonel Travis: Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, or patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barret Travis, Lt. Col., Commander. P.S. The Lord is on our side--when the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn--we have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 heads of beeves. Despite that declaration, Mr. President, we did not win independence from Mexico at the Alamo. In the battle of the Alamo, known as the ``13 Days of Glory,'' 184 brave men died fending off Santa Anna's huge army. But the Alamo was crucial. It gave time to Gen. Sam Houston, who was the commander in chief of our Armed Forces, to get more volunteers and to decide when to take on this vast Mexican Army again. And because those brave men at the Alamo held out for so long, Houston had time to muster his forces. Gen. Sam Houston was wounded in the battle, but was able to take the surrender of General Santa Anna. Texas won her freedom on April 21, 1836. San Jacinto is near Houston, and home to the battle we commemorate as the ``Great Battle of Freedom.'' So, Mr. President, I like to recall this time because it is an important time in the history of America as well as in the history of Texas. Our independent nation lasted for 9 years; for 9 years we brought our State together to prepare it for admission into the United States of America. In fact, the debate recorded in the Congressional Record on whether Texas would become a State was very interesting. Texas would join the Union if several conditions were met. Those conditions were outlined in a treaty. In the treaty, Texas was able to keep certain rights when she joined the Union--rights to her tidelands, rights to her public lands, which is why much of our public land is State owned rather than federally owned. This is why we have some different issues in Texas. We were able to control the tidelands because that was part of the treaty. We also had the right to turn into five States if the State of Texas decided to break away from the Union. Now, that causes a little concern here on Capitol Hill when they think of having the possibility of 10 Senators from Texas instead of 2. There are a few cold stares when that is brought up. But I must say that was all part of the treaty. The treaty did not pass because supporters couldn't muster the two- thirds vote necessary to ratify it. So President John Tyler introduced a bill to annex Texas as a State. Texas became a State because of a bill, not a treaty. The interesting thing was that the bill passed by only one vote in each House of Congress. Any of those who think it might have been a mistake to annex Texas almost won a victory. We did have a long, hard-fought battle before we joined the Union. One of the annexation proposal's most vocal opponents at the time was President John Quincy Adams, who had returned to Congress by that time. He spoke every day on the floor against the annexation of Texas. The reason he was so far out on the limb against Texas is because he was afraid Texas would become another slave State. He did not want to disrupt the balance that existed in the United States of America at the time. Once we did become a State, I think we began a tradition of great contributions to the United States. And, of course, just recently we have become the second largest State in America--second to California, overtaking New York State. So that is a little bit of Texas history, which I am always glad to recall on Texas Independence Day. I like to read the letter from William Barret Travis to remind you of the pride Texans share for their independence from Mexico and their membership today in the United States of America. We are proud that we were an independent nation for 9 years and then took our rightful place in the United States of America. I hope that people feel that we have earned the right to be proud of that, and also hope that people feel that Texas has done her part as a State. We are proud of our heritage. We are proud of our history. And most of all, today, I want to pay tribute to the brave men who died at the Alamo and the brave men, numbering among them the first Senator to hold my Senate seat, the first Senator to hold the other Texas Senate seat, Gen. Sam Houston, and my own great-great-grandfather who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became the chief justice of Nacogdoches County. These were brave men who forged a new nation at great cost. They went through many of the same things that our forebears in the United States of America did in wresting our independence from England. So I am proud of that. I am proud of the patriots who gave their lives for our freedom or who risked their lives for our freedom. I want to pay tribute to them today, and I will do so every year that I am able to serve as a Senator from the great State of Texas. Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate being able to start the Senate this morning, because we had a very important anniversary yesterday in Texas that I want to talk about. But first, I want to say to my colleagues and friends from my neighboring State of Arkansas how sad we all are at the ravage that the State of Arkansas took yesterday from the weather, the storms and the floods. Lives were lost. I want Senators Bumpers and Hutchinson to know that the prayers of Texans are with them in this time of healing for their State. We know that everything that can be done for the victims of that flood will be done.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. We have now finally passed the bill in both Houses of Congress that will name a post office for Frank M. Tejeda. It is a fitting tribute to a wonderful former Member of the U.S. Congress. Senator Gramm and I are very proud to have served with him and to cosponsor this bill. I thank the Senator from Iowa, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Phil Gramm and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, because it is very important that we pass a bill tonight. It is for a fallen colleague on the other side of the rotunda. We lost the Congressman from San Antonio a few weeks ago at the age of 51 to a battle with cancer. Frank Tejeda was a great Congressman, he was a great friend, and he was a patriot for this country. He left high school at the age of 17, joined the Marine Corps, came back and graduated from St. Mary's University. He then went on to distinguish himself and earn degrees in law from U.C. Berkeley and Yale, as well as a masters in public administration from Harvard. Frank Tejeda was a hero. He earned the Bronze Star for valor, and received the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in combat in Vietnam. But most of all, he never forgot where he was from--south San Antonio, TX. As a leader in his community and as a public servant, Frank always remembered the people he represented and was always there for them. For that reason, Mr. President, my colleague Senator Gramm and I want to name the Postal Service facility being constructed at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, TX, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building.'' So I am going to make two unanimous-consent requests to discharge H.R. 499, which passed unanimously in the House of Representatives on February 5, 1997, in order to complete the naming of this post office for a great patriot, a great friend, and a wonderful Congressman from Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 499; and further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are talking about the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and we are talking about even international travel and commerce and goods that are going into international commerce. Mr. President, the effects of this strike are going to be so far reaching that it will have an economic impact on this country that will be quite severe. The pilots union is meeting with the company as we speak. The deadline before a strike is midnight this Friday. We have the opportunity with the resolution that I am introducing to have a sense of the Senate that the President would use all of his persuasive powers to get these parties to sit down, and that the President would be able to use his powers to appoint an emergency board which would automatically keep the contract in place for 30 days and then provide for another 30-day cooling-off period. This will give 60 days to these people to be able to work out their differences. I think that the pilots union and the airline company, American Airlines, are certainly big enough people to be able to work out their differences and not cause the disruption of so many lives in our country and the economies of so many States in our country. So I am asking that the Senate vote on this on Thursday, if nothing has happened in between. I hope the President will use all of his persuasive powers between now and Thursday to make sure that everything is being done to settle this strike. But if nothing has happened by Thursday, we want the President to use the powers that Congress has given him to call an emergency board together to give a 60-day cooling- off period so that the negotiations can continue. This is something that Congress and the President have worked out in the past. This is the process, Mr. President. Let us step up to the line, and we hopefully will be able to work with the President to make sure that he has all of the tools necessary to do what is necessary to save this country from a real economic hit that could come within the next 3 or 4 days. We can do something about it. The President can do something about it. And we are going to ask him to do that in this resolution. As I said, I am going to submit this later. I am going to ask for unanimous consent to be able to vote on this on Thursday. I hope it is a moot point by that time. It is very important that the President address right away this impending crisis that can affect the lives of so many people and the families of so many people in this country and the economies of so many States in this country. The ripple effect is devastating. We can do something about it. I hope that the President will use the powers that he has for that very purpose. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to submit a resolution this afternoon and ask it be considered. It has not yet been cleared. I hope it will be cleared so we will be able to vote on this resolution on Thursday if we do not have a settlement of the American Airlines strike. Mr. President, I am submitting this resolution on behalf of myself, and Senator Gramm. Perhaps others will want to come forward as well. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious economic crisis pending Friday about midnight. If we do not have some agreement by the two parties, American Airlines and its pilots union, we could hold up about one-fourth of the traveling public at the beginning of a holiday weekend. We could cause 75,000 other employees of American Airlines all over our country to be laid off without pay. We are causing, if that happens, other employees of rental car companies--people who sell food to airports and to airlines--all of these people who have livelihoods, who have families, to possibly be totally deprived of their ability----

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I am introducing this bill today on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Thurmond and Senator Sessions, because I think that today when we are laying to rest a person who has given his life for the public protection, Officer Gibson, in the District of Columbia, who was brutally murdered in his squad car. A person went up to his car, stuck a gun in his face and shot it. If we cannot protect that man and make sure that he has every possible ounce of support that we can give to protect him, then I do not know what we can do to help the crime rate in the District. I hope very much that the Mayor of the District and Congresswoman Norton will be helpful on this. I have not yet been able to talk to them though I have put in a call. But the bottom line is we are trying to make the Capital City good for the people who live here but also good for any American or any foreign visitor, so they can come and see the most beautiful symbol of America possible. And that is not the case today. So we are asking for the death penalty for the murder of a police officer in the District of Columbia, the same protection that a member of the Capitol Police now has and that police in 38 States now have. I think this is one way to say that if you are going to commit a heinous crime like this, you are going to face the ultimate of penalties. I want Officer Gibson and his family to know that we appreciate that he gave his life in the line of duty. I want them to know that in the future, in his memory, we are going to not only give the highest penalty to someone who would kill one of his comrades, but we will also give restitution to the family that is suffering from the loss of their breadwinner, their father, their husband. So I will introduce this bill today. I hope that we can get immediate action on it because it is time for us to say that the District of Columbia is going to be the model Capital City. I know all of us, on a bipartisan basis, want to make that happen. We want to come together to make this city work. After all, it is the beacon to the world for what is good about America. It is time that the Capital City met that test. So in memory of Officer Gibson, I hope we will pass this bill. I hope we will do everything possible to get the crime rate in our Capital City down so that visitors from all over America will want to come and see this beautiful city that is our Capital.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate this opportunity. I came to the floor because I want to introduce a bill today that I think is very important. It is the Officer Brian Gibson District of Columbia Police Protection Act. I send this bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I am introducing this bill today on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Thurmond and Senator Sessions, because I think that today when we are laying to rest a person who has given his life for the public protection, Officer Gibson, in the District of Columbia, who was brutally murdered in his squad car. A person went up to his car, stuck a gun in his face and shot it. If we cannot protect that man and make sure that he has every possible ounce of support that we can give to protect him, then I do not know what we can do to help the crime rate in the District. I hope very much that the Mayor of the District and Congresswoman Norton will be helpful on this. I have not yet been able to talk to them though I have put in a call. But the bottom line is we are trying to make the Capital City good for the people who live here but also good for any American or any foreign visitor, so they can come and see the most beautiful symbol of America possible. And that is not the case today. So we are asking for the death penalty for the murder of a police officer in the District of Columbia, the same protection that a member of the Capitol Police now has and that police in 38 States now have. I think this is one way to say that if you are going to commit a heinous crime like this, you are going to face the ultimate of penalties. I want Officer Gibson and his family to know that we appreciate that he gave his life in the line of duty. I want them to know that in the future, in his memory, we are going to not only give the highest penalty to someone who would kill one of his comrades, but we will also give restitution to the family that is suffering from the loss of their breadwinner, their father, their husband. So I will introduce this bill today. I hope that we can get immediate action on it because it is time for us to say that the District of Columbia is going to be the model Capital City. I know all of us, on a bipartisan basis, want to make that happen. We want to come together to make this city work. After all, it is the beacon to the world for what is good about America. It is time that the Capital City met that test. So in memory of Officer Gibson, I hope we will pass this bill. I hope we will do everything possible to get the crime rate in our Capital City down so that visitors from all over America will want to come and see this beautiful city that is our Capital.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I appreciate this opportunity. I came to the floor because I want to introduce a bill today that I think is very important. It is the Officer Brian Gibson District of Columbia Police Protection Act. I send this bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I yield to the Senator from Vermont and appreciate his willingness to let me introduce this bill on the day the officer is being buried. Thank you. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Vermont. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 294 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')