Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me add this. If you are wanting the last 5 minutes, how about your taking 10:55 to 11 and letting me have my last 5 minutes, giving 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho at this time, and then 2 minutes, before you go into your last 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I do object, Mr. President. What I would like to do is ask that 3 of the 5 minutes from my last 5 minutes go to the Senator from Idaho now, and then I would like to have the last 2 minutes of the morning business time. So if you would like to extend for 5 minutes, would you be willing to extend 5 minutes from 10:58 to 11:03?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 of the 5 minutes that I have remaining at the end be allocated now to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Idaho for talking about General Scowcroft, who is one of the great foreign policy minds of our country, and I thank the Senator for talking about the principles that we should have in foreign policy. I think it is very important we look at the principles of foreign policy with the eye toward letting our enemies, as well as our allies, know what they can expect from us. Mr. President, what we are talking about today is a very important issue that is to be discussed in the Capitol, and that is defense spending. In fact, the President asked for $234 billion for defense spending. Congress asked the President to sign a bill for $244 billion. There is a difference of $9.5 billion between the President's request and that of Congress. Now, Mr. President, we are in military operations in Haiti, in Bosnia, we have been in Somalia, which cost precious defense dollars, we now have an escalation in the Middle East, we have 3,500 troops as we speak on their way to Kuwait because we have an escalation there, and yet the President of the United States, while putting our troops into these missions that are costing approximately $10 billion all together, nevertheless is asking us to cut $10 billion from the defense budget. Now, I point out some of the things that Congress would like to have in the defense budget that the President did not request. Two additional F-16's, to replace fighters that are lost due to combat, such as Captain O'Grady, who was shot down and was a true hero in surviving after being shot down by the Serbs. And, in fact, we are also sending F-16's right now to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to try to make sure that we have enough F-16's, which are such an important base of our operations in the Middle East. In fact, we are sending 23 F-16's right now. We are asking for two additional ones, which the President wants us to cut from the budget. We added $66 million above the President's request for additional up- armored Humvees. I am sure my colleagues will remember that it was up- armored Humvees that saved the life of one of our soldiers in the early days of the Bosnia conflict when his vehicle was destroyed--actually, it was struck by a landmine, but was not destroyed, because it was one of the up-armored Humvees. We want more of those to protect our troops if they are going to be in harm's way. But the President says ``no,'' he wants to cut those, even though they are proven to have saved at least one life in the Bosnia operation. Next, $190 million for additional scout helicopter aircraft. They are playing a major role in Bosnia today, and the Army is critically short of these scout helicopters. We are asking to upgrade the fleet of helicopters because they are such an important part of our military readiness. But the President says ``no.'' Then there is $53 million for night vision devices that allow our soldiers to fight and win at night against this adversary that can't see us. That's what we are asking, Mr. President, among other things, for the readiness of our forces. Yet, the President, as the troops are going into harm's way for the protection of our interests, says he will veto a defense budget, unless we cut $2 to $3 billion out of it. Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. You cannot send our American troops into the world to be police and peacekeepers and to secure the interests of America--you can't ask them to do that if we don't have the equipment and the protection for them with theater defenses. Mr. President, you can't do it. Why would you threaten to veto a bill because it has $2 to $3 billion you would like to put somewhere else, when you are asking more from our military and they are performing? Mr. President, they are performing as they always do. They are performing with guts, with patriotism, and with belief in our country. They are representing our country. Mr. President, now is not the time to argue about cutting the defense budget. How much is this operation in Kuwait going to cost to defend against an aggression that might occur from Iraq? How much? We don't know how much. So, of course, the idea of cutting our defenses beyond bone, beyond muscle, but into contingencies, does not make sense. How could our Commander in Chief be talking about vetoing the Defense appropriations, the Defense appropriations bill? How could he be talking about vetoing the Defense appropriations bill at the time that he is sending our troops into a heightened area of awareness and caution and readiness in the Middle East? How could he do it, Mr. President? It's not right, and we, today, are calling on the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, to work with us to keep our defenses funded. He is commanding our armed services, and he must fund them. Congress is trying to do that. Mr. President, work with us. If you expect our troops to do the great job they always do, you must fund them. You must give them the equipment. You must give them the ballistic missile protection in the theater. From my home State of Texas, we are sending 3,500 troops on the ground to Kuwait. We have sent about 120 from Fort Bliss, with the Patriot missiles, to protect them. Mr. President, we even have missiles that the President, the Commander in Chief, did not ask for, that have already been used in this conflict with Iraq. As the Senator from Arizona has said, the President did not ask for the missiles that he has already used. We must have the replacements. We have already used them. How could he at this time be talking about cutting $2 to $3 billion out of our defense budget at the same time we are having cost overruns in Bosnia that will have to be funded, and we don't even know what Iraq will cost? This is not the time, and this is not leadership. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished President pro tempore, the dean of the Senate and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has done so much to make sure that our men and women that serve our country are equipped and trained and protected, the Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified at the end of 40 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent the remainder of my 45 minutes then be delayed until 10:55.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 10 minutes of our time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is acceptable. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, who has provided so much leadership in our Nation's defenses, and ask how long, approximately, he would like.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the reason that I asked for the time this morning is I think we have a very crucial decision that is being made right now in our Nation's Capital, and that is how much we are going to fund the defense of our country. In fact, Congress is in a dispute with the President, as we speak, about how much we should spend to defend our Nation. I find it ironic, if not sad, that as 3,500 of our American troops are on their way to Kuwait right this minute that the President would be threatening to veto the Defense appropriations bill if $2 to $3 billion is not cut from that bill. Our troops are on their way, possibly for a conflict. We hope not. But, as you know, as the distinguished Presiding Officer is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the President pro tempore of the Senate, this is not the time to let down our defenses. This is not the time to say that we should be shifting valuable weapons systems for the protection of our troops and for their ability to protect the interests of the United States into unnamed other programs--social programs, perhaps education programs. I don't know what the President has in mind. But I do know that the President of the United States is today saying he will veto an appropriations bill for the Defense Department at the same time that he is ratcheting up a conflict in the Middle East. Mr. President, several people would like to speak on this issue. I have more to say, but at this time, I am going to yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we are now in morning business, according to the order, and I control 45 minutes of time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for the work that he has done on the aviation security issue and the aviation funding issue. He has worked on that for a long time. It is something that we share as an issue. Having been a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, I have looked at aviation safety for a long time. I think that the United States and the FAA have done a very good job with the job at hand. The issue used to be hijacking. That is what we were worried about. That is when passenger screening came into being--when we worried about the possibility of someone with a firearm coming in and taking the plane away to hijack it and the passengers. But now we have a different threat. Now we must meet a different test. And that threat, of course, is terrorism. We must do everything we can to protect the traveling public against the people in this country that would kill and maim innocent people in the name of a cause; people who would go in and blow up a building, or blow up an airplane, or any other kind of heinous crime not even knowing the victims, not even knowing their families. And, yet, because they believe in some cause that they want to get publicity for they would do these terrible acts. It is hard to deal with something like that, but we must try. And we can do a lot just by having in place strong security measures that would protect the traveling public and let would-be terrorists know we are going to meet them at every point that they would try. I think Senator McCain's bill is a good one because it does put in place studies where we are not sure what the ramifications would be, and regulations to be made by the FAA where we know that we can do certain things that will make it better. I think baggage checks, which is something that is done on international flights, is something that we ought to look at on domestic flights. It is not easy. I know that the airlines are very concerned about not only passenger security but, of course, the ease of travel and the ability to keep time. It is an issue for them. I understand that. But I think we have to try. I think we have to see how we can make it work. Technology is changing every day. It is getting better. I went to the airport yesterday morning, and they put my ticket through a screening device and brought out the boarding pass. Clearly, they are now being able to check whether a ticket is valid. That is good. I was pleased to have that little, tiny delay because I knew that it made me safer in the air. So I think with the technology we have, that probably we can work out something with baggage checks that would not be onerous for the airlines. Certainly, background checks for baggage handlers and passenger screeners is going to be something we would like to have looked at. We want to make sure that we are able to screen people who are going to have access to the tarmac. I think these are prudent measures and something that we need to know all the ramifications of. We need to know what the costs are. We need cost-benefit analyses. That is common sense. But I think, in the end, this can be done with a cost-benefit analysis that does make sense. I am very pleased we are going to look at passenger facility charges and Airport Improvement Programs for the funding of these security measures. The Senator from Arizona is making it possible in this bill, in the managers' amendment, to have access to those funding mechanisms for more of the security screening systems that are a higher and better technology than those being used at most airports today. We have a number of things that will improve our airport security in this bill. I do think it is important that we take every step we can, that we work with the FAA, that we bring the FBI in to an even greater extent. They are working now with the FAA, but I think they could do even more. I think it very important that we bring all of this together with the mandates and the studies to make sure we do everything possible to make the traveling public safe and to let them know we are taking these steps to make them safe and also to let the potential terrorists know we are taking these steps to counter the threats that they might make on our traveling public. So I am very pleased to have worked with Senator McCain on this bill, to bring what I learned in my days at the National Transportation Safety Board to bear on this, although I must say, when I was on the National Transportation Safety Board terrorism was not the threat. That was in the old days when we were worried about other safety issues, and I think now we do have the safest aviation system in the world, and we are just going to take the next step to make it safer. I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky for their work on this bill. We must pass it, and we will. I thank the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland for the leadership that they are providing in making sure that we have NASA and the space program, because they know how much this has done for our country. They have been there with me, looking at what the space station will be able to do. We have walked through the modules. We have looked at the experiments and how they are done in space and at the unique attributes they have in that space station which will allow them to do things they cannot do on Earth. They cannot duplicate the microgravity conditions on Earth. I just wish the Senator from Arkansas would go with me one day and see what a difference it makes for our country that we have this commitment to space and the future, the essence of what we are debating today, when we take up funding for the space station yet again. This is the 14th time that there have been attempts to terminate the funding, but fortunately Congress has been farsighted, and the administration has as well, to make sure we do not walk away from the future. What we are talking about today is whether we are going to summon the vision to continue this quest in cooperation with other nations. Or would we clip the wings of our civilization and just hunker down here on Earth? The benefits of NASA research are long proven. Every dollar spent on space results in $2 in direct and indirect economic benefit. Breakthroughs in medical technology that we now take for granted are rooted in NASA technology. For example, NASA has developed a cool suit for Apollo missions which now helps improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis victims. NASA technology has provided pacemakers that can be programmed from outside the body. NASA has developed instruments to measure bone mass and bone density without penetrating the skin. These are now widely used to give a test for osteoporosis so that a woman can get a benchmark and then know if she is losing bone loss and needs to add extra calcium to her diet. NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that is only 3 inches across. It provides more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the need for daily insulin injections. The space shuttle has begun to lift the curtain on the enormous opportunities that lie ahead in a manned microgravity laboratory. The station will allow scientists to modify their experiments in orbit and take advantage of the unanticipated results. This is the kind of flexibility that has historically led to the greatest scientific breakthroughs and will do so again to fight cancer, osteoporosis and diabetes. Despite these benefits, some critics have said that the scientific returns for more than a decade of experiments in weightless conditions are not really cost-benefit approved. Dr. Michael DeBakey, the chancellor and chairman of the Department of Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine said: Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only a few hours in the laboratory and then expect them to find cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space in months and years to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. So, Dr. DeBakey is saying we don't need less time, we don't need less emphasis on the space station, we need more. Dr. DeBakey knows what can be done, because he is one of the innovators in this field. Life and work on the station also generates breakthroughs that improve life on the ground. We expect to develop lighter, stronger, superalloy metals, lower cost heating and cooling systems, longer life power converters, safer chemical storage, air and water purification, waste management, and recycling systems. As with the Apollo program before, the space station will be the proving ground for advances in communications, computers, and electronics. Research equipment developed for the space station is already paying dividends. Scientists are growing ovarian tumor samples in NASA's new cell culturing device so that tumors can be studied outside the body without harm to the patient. A similar trial is underway for brain tumors. The question we are asking today is, will we pursue this knowledge? Science alone is not the reason that we are reaching into space. As the world redefines itself in the wake of the cold war, the space station is a catalyst for international cooperation and a symbol of U.S. leadership in a changing world. We now are drawing on the expertise of 13 nations--the United States, Canada, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia. Failure to fund the space station would undermine our partnerships with Europe, Japan, and Canada which have expended over half of their $9 billion commitment to the $17 billion space station program. It would cause them to conclude that they can no longer count on the United States as an ally; that our commitment would not be good. Mr. President, we do not want to be bad partners. That is not the legacy that this Congress would want to leave. I also remind my colleagues that the space station and NASA has not just been out there in a vacuum as we have been trying to cut the rate of growth of spending. They have stepped right up to the line. They have taken their fair share. Dan Goldin has a zero-based review in place that has shaved the cost off NASA and has made it more efficient for the taxpayers of this country. A 1993 redesign of the program resulted in a space station that is $6 billion more cost efficient. I watched this process closely, and I commend Dan Goldin for this approach. If every agency would do this, we would have a 35-percent budget reduction, saving taxpayers $40 billion more and be able to continue with the mission. So I do not want us to be the Congress in the last half of the last decade of the 20th century that is remembered for displaying the failure of will. No, Mr. President, we have goodwill in the space agency, in the space station and abandoning it would signify, I think, a myopic view of our country and of the world. America has been the leader in space, and now we have a chance to cooperate with our friends around the world and continue to do better for mankind. This is not the time to walk away from the gigantic investment we have made. Any scientist will tell you that you cannot predict what the results are going to be when you go into research, but you can make sure that we have the underpinnings that will keep America vibrant and growing so that we can absorb the new people that come into our system, so that we will create the new industries that create the new jobs that will keep our country economically strong. Our young people must have a place that they know they can go for scientific research and breakthroughs for the future. As we are going into the 21st century, we cannot go back into the 18th century and say, ``Space is out there, but we're not going to explore it.'' Mr. President, that is not the American way. So I hope my colleagues will join us for the 15th time and make sure that we send the clear signal that we are committed to this research, that it is right for America and that we will do better things for the world because of it. Mr. President, I yield the rest of my time to my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Georgia for starting off after Labor Day on this very important issue. Many of us were stunned when the first report came out that showed the enormous leap in drug use and drug abuse in this country in the last 3 years. We knew that it was a problem. But I do not think we realized how big a problem this has become. In fact, I was privileged to be able to see Mrs. Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, who started the ``just say no'' whole effort when she was the First Lady of this country. And I think she was a leader. She was prophetic. I remember that people sort of ridiculed her in a way when she started the ``just say no'' program. They sort of acted like, oh, you know--that really was not cool. Well, it was proven by all of the studies that in fact her willingness to stand up and say we need to go out into our schools and tell our young people to just say no was in fact very effective because it started the thinking of our young people--that they did not have to be with their peers. They did not have to be cool just because their peers would ridicule people who just said no to drugs. In fact, it worked because she started the thinking process in their minds. And the studies showed that between 1985 and 1992 drug use did go down. I remember the ads on television of some of our sports stars talking about the importance of keeping your body clean. That sold to our young people. But then when President Clinton came into office and his administration, he slashed the Office of Drug Control Policy from 147 people to 25 people. There was not a focus on this very important issue. So the gains that were won during those earlier years went by the wayside. In the study that came out just recently in September 1995--the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--said that since 1992 marijuana use among young people has increased an average of 50 percent. Marijuana use jumped 137 percent among 12- to 13-year olds since 1992, and 200 percent among 14- and 15-year olds. Mr. President, we used to worry about our high school kids. And we still need to worry about our high school kids. We are talking junior high and even elementary schoolchildren who are now being introduced to marijuana and other kinds of drugs. And worse yet, of course, they are being introduced to it by their peers because the drug dealers have learned that if they can get a juvenile to do this crime that the juvenile will not be subject to the same penalties. So, Mr. President, it is going to take a concerted effort by the President with his leadership, and by the Congress standing with the President and saying enough is enough. Just say no makes a lot more sense than just say nothing. We must not let a whole generation of our young people think that we do not care about their minds and their futures and their potential. We cannot let that happen, Mr. President. We have to stand up and say we are going to do something about this and we are going to take it from every level. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who is the new drug czar, is well aware of this. I think he is a man who can handle this issue. He, too, believes that having an annual drug awareness day is not enough for our young people; that we must show how serious we are by stopping drugs at our borders, by having education efforts, by having counseling efforts, by having peer groups work with troubled youth. And he is going to try to turn this around. But it is going to take more than just one person. It is going to take all of us working together to try to turn back this terrible increase that we are seeing. The national drug control strategy should interdict drugs in Latin America and at our borders. I am particularly hit by this because I have seen in my State what is happening with the drugs coming from South America through Mexico and right into Texas as well as New Mexico, Arizona, and California. But I happen to be closer to it because my own ranchers are devastated by what they are seeing. And they are frankly in a war with no defenses. We have common ranchers who are now meeting drug warlords with automatic weapons. And if a rancher objects to a drug lord coming across his or her property along the border they will be shot down. It has happened. They are so scared and so defenseless that the worst of all things is now happening. They are having to sell their property. Who do you think is giving them 10 times the worth? The drug dealers. They are the only ones who can afford it. So we are seeing drug dealers buying up the lands in remote parts of our borders so that they will have a free trail right up through South America through Mexico and into the United States. Mr. President, we cannot let this happen. This is a war and we must treat it as a war. If they had chemical weapons coming across our borders we would have an all-out alert. We would declare a war. Well, Mr. President, this is chemical weaponry. Drugs are chemical weapons that are ruining the people, and especially the young people of our country. So, Mr. President, we must get serious about this. I have seen it firsthand. We must increase the number of Border Patrol agents. We must use all the technology that we have available that we are not now using. We have better technology than we are using. A drug enforcer can sit in an office and survey for 25 miles and see movement. But we do not have the up-to-date technology on our borders that is available to us in this country right now, and we have to do something about that. We have to stop the money laundering. I was talking to a Border Patrol agent who said these people are getting so bold that they stopped a man walking down the streets of one of our border cities with a suitcase, dragging the suitcase along. And when they stopped the man and opened the suitcase there was $3 million in cash. That is incredible--that people would be dragging a suitcase with $3 million of cash down the main street of a border community right here in our own country because that money was headed right back into the mainstream of America. That was clearly drug money. So they think they can get by with this--that they would be so bold. Well, we have to tell them that the time has come and we are not going to allow the money laundering. We are not going to allow the buying up of our property. We are not going to allow people to just come into our country with chemical weapons against our young people. We cannot let that happen. We are going to have to come at this from all angles. I thank the Senator from Georgia for working with us to make sure that the people of this country know the seriousness of this issue and to let the people of this country know that Congress is going to get serious about it. We have to be able to work with the President to take control of this cancer on our society. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say, along with many others who have talked about some of the really important legislation that has been accomplished in the last few weeks in Congress, along with the one that I have worked the hardest for, and the one that I think will have a lasting impact, not tomorrow and not next year, but 20 years from now, and that is the homemaker IRA's. When I got to the Senate, I was very surprised that there was still the inequity against homemakers being able to save for their retirement security in the same way that someone who works outside the home is now able to do. In fact, this penalizes the one-income-earner family when the homemaker stays home and raises children. I think we should be encouraging homemakers to be able to do that, rather than discouraging them. That is why Senator Mikulski and I introduced the homemaker IRA bill in 1993. We have been working for these 3 years, and this year, Senator Roth, the chairman of the Finance Committee took up our cause. He and Chairman Bill Archer said that this would be a priority for them, and I want to thank Chairman Archer and Chairman Roth for not only saying it would be a priority, but for delivering on that promise. They have delivered homemakers of this country an equal opportunity to save for their retirement security. What this means, Mr. President, is that a homemaker will now be able to set aside $2,000 a year toward retirement security, accruing tax- free. That can make a difference of over $150,000 in a lifetime of savings, so that now a one-income-earner couple, if they both save the maximum amount for 30 years, would have around $350,000 as a nest egg. That could make a big difference in retirement planning, especially for people who are squeezing to make ends meet so that one parent can stay home and raise the children. So this is a wonderful accomplishment. It is one for which will not be appreciated, probably, in the near future because it does have to accrue into retirement. But this was a great bipartisan effort. I do want to commend Senator Lott for helping us move this through. I want to commend Senator Roth and Congressman Archer for shepherding it through the committees in the House and Senate. I just want to say how much I appreciate Senator Mikulski, Senator Feinstein, Nancy Johnson, and Jennifer Dunn and Susan Molinari on the House side, along with Barbara Kennelly, for making sure that this did become an accomplishment of this session of Congress. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield? There has been no objection this morning. There has been no offer. There has been no objection. The objection was last night by the Senator from Minnesota on a judgeship.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Lautenberg has come to the floor, because I think that he is partially correct in his scenario of July 25, and that is that he and I and the leader of the Democratic side and the leader of the Republican side came together and made an agreement, and it was an agreement that I was concerned about but, nevertheless, was willing to work with all of my colleagues to make happen. That was the following: I do agree with his amendment. I think it is a good amendment. That was never the question. The question is, do we hold up a good bill that protects the stalking victims of this country with an amendment that might bog the bill down because it has to go back to the House? Now, I supported his amendment, but I asked, ``Could we put it on another bill? Could we make the agreement that Senator Lautenberg would get his vote on another bill?'' The distinguished leader of the Democratic Party said, ``Well, they can take it up on a suspension in the House. It really won't delay the bill if they will do that.'' And I said, ``What if it runs into opposition in the House?'' at which time the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from South Dakota agreed that they would let the Senate pass a clean bill that could go directly to the President, pass the same bill clean so it could go directly to the President, to get relief for the stalking victims, with the agreement of the distinguished majority leader that Senator Lautenberg would be able to go to another forum, another bill for his amendment. So when we talk about the extremists that are for wife beaters having guns, that is really not the issue. The issue is, are we going to have the stalking bill, which is a good bill, which passed unanimously in the House of Representatives, if we can't get Mr. Lautenberg's amendment on the bill? That is the question. Now, the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from South Dakota gave their word that if it ran into trouble in the House, they would help pass a clean bill so that we could do that much and give the Senator from New Jersey another opportunity on another bill for his amendment. So that is the issue here. Now it has run into trouble in the House. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky says, ``It has only been passed for a week.'' We got the bill Memorial Day. I had hoped that we could have it passed before Memorial Day. It has been 2 months since the bill came from the House, and we have had this opportunity. I am certainly in sympathy with the Senator from New Jersey in wanting to have his amendment. But he did make an agreement that he would not hold up one good bill for his amendment having to go just on that bill. We have other options. There will be other bills. The majority leader, whose word is good, will find another opportunity for the Senator from New Jersey. But we must know that we are going to have the stalking bill at some reasonable time. I would like to see it before the recess so that we can put this law into place. It has been pending since Memorial Day. So I would like to ask if we could work on having this bill out and work with the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment to go on another bill. It is really quite simple. If everyone is in agreement that the underlying stalking bill is good, then I think we should move forward on that. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it is important to know the arrangement that was given, because I have not mentioned that because I did not want to jeopardize the ability of the amendment to stay on the bill in the House. I have been in good faith. I supported the amendment. I have tried to get House support for the amendment. But I did not mention that we had an agreement with the minority leader, with the majority leader, with myself, with the Senator from New Jersey, that, in fact, if it got bogged down that they would let us pass it clean in the Senate. It has gotten bogged down. Now I want to have an assurance that everyone's word is going to be kept here, and then I will certainly get out of this picture. But it has now become clouded, not of my making, but it has been. That is why I was trying to have the opportunity to see what the commitment will be to see if we cannot have help for the stalking victims starting right now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was attempted to be brought up last night in the House, and it was thwarted. So it has now had an opportunity and it was to be brought up in a way that the amendment would not be on it. I have supported the amendment. I would like to see the amendment stay on it. But nevertheless, it is not one person in the House, it was several who have objected to it. And when it was to be brought up in that way, Members of the New Jersey delegation objected, and, of course, I understand that. I am not being critical. That is everyone's right, but nevertheless, I have been told I should be grateful for the help in passing my bill, which is now dying, and I am trying to see where we can make an agreement on this in order to free the business of the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just get a little clearer idea of where we are. I feel like there has been a mixture of issues here. I did object to Judge Montgomery's going forward, because I wanted to finish looking at this. There are a number of people who have been concerned about the nominations that had gone through and want to look at the overall record. I am not prepared--I will object until I know a clear field and have a better idea of where we are going. But I am not saying that I will keep the objection on Judge Montgomery. But in the rhetoric that has been flying around on the floor I think the stalking bill has been brought up. I did not put them together. But in his statement the night before last, when I objected, the distinguished leader of the Democratic Party said that I should be grateful to him for his help on the stalking bill and, therefore, not use my right to object to a judge. And I was just very concerned about that, because I have worked on this stalking bill since Memorial Day. I have tried to pass a bill that would protect the stalking victims of this country since Memorial Day. I have been held up by a Senator, whose sincerity I do not doubt, but, nevertheless, he knows that the amendment that he wanted to put on had some problems. He knew that it might cause a problem. I suggested that if he would just put his amendment on another bill, mine then could go forward to the President and we could have the protection for the stalking victims of this country today, because the President, I believe, will sign it very quickly. All the indications are it passed unanimously in the House. We wanted it to be passed unanimously in the Senate without amendment so it could go straight to the President. We wanted that on Memorial Day. But nevertheless, the minority leader says I should be very pleased he helped me pass my bill, and my bill is dying in the House right now because of the amendment that he forced me to take in order to move on another issue. So I don't doubt anyone's sincerity here, but I do want to have a clear picture of when we are going to take up the stalking bill. I said I would be happy to work with the Senator, whose amendment is causing the problem, to do it on another issue. But since they have been joined--not my me--I do think that it is fair for us to take a little time and let me see what the clear picture is on the stalking bill, and then I think we can--I am sorry that they were joined. I didn't join them. But now that they are, I would like to have a clear picture. I don't want rhetoric to continue to get out of control here, but I would like an answer. So, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am not worried about the majority leader being committed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield myself up to 10 minutes. Mr. President, this is landmark legislation, and it is a pivotal point in our Nation's history and future. What it does, this bill before the Senate, it does, indeed, change welfare as we know it. This is what the hard-working American people have been asking Congress to do for years. It limits welfare to 2 years for able-bodied individuals, and there will be a 5-year lifetime on welfare for any individual in our country. Mr. President, this sends a message to the working people of our country that, yes, we understand how hard it is to make ends meet. All Americans work hard. Welfare recipients should not be an exception. If we have uniform requirements for work, we will then say that this Nation is a Nation that has a work ethic and values people who are trying to be productive citizens. This bill requires all able-bodied welfare recipients to work within 2 years, or lose their benefits. States will be required to have 50 percent of their welfare recipients working by 2002. And to ensure that child care is available for a single parent, this bill provides an additional $4.5 billion more than current law for child care. So we are making sure that there is a safety net, while at the same time we are going to save the taxpayers of our country $58 billion. Now, I want to put this in perspective just to show what the American people are seeing in our welfare system as it is today. In many States, welfare systems provide the most perverse incentives. In 40 States, welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job. In 17 States, it pays more than a $10 per hour job. In six States, and in the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job--more than two times the minimum wage. In nine States, welfare pays more than the average first-year salary of a teacher. In 29 States, it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. In the six most generous States in this Nation, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a computer programmer. Mr. President, no wonder our welfare system is broken. No wonder the American people are saying that we must have relief from a system that would pay more to people who do not work than a teacher, a computer programmer, or a person making $12 an hour that is getting up every morning, putting their lunch together, and walking out the door to make a living for his or her family. Mr. President, what we are doing here tonight is saying that those people have a value in our society. And people who can work, but won't, will not be any better off than the person who gets up, puts his or her lunch in a box, goes to work, and is a productive citizen of this country. This is indeed landmark reform. It is fair. It will stop a system that has become a cancer on our society. It will give self-worth to the people who will now have to work for any benefits they receive. And it will say to hard-working Americans that are struggling to make ends meet, ``You have a value and we appreciate you in this country, and you will not have to work to support someone who can work, but chooses not to.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.