Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a dangerous loophole in our aviation security network. The attacks of September 11 forced us to take a hard look at the way we screen passengers and luggage. Congress responded to the challenge with a comprehensive system to perform these tasks through the new Transportation Security Administration. We have required the TSA to check every passenger and every piece of baggage that is placed onboard a flight. While I am confident that these measures have improved security, Congress has left the back door open to terrorists with plans to disrupt passenger flights. We did not establish a similar regime to ensure the safety of cargo operations. This issue must be addressed. Twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, but only a tiny percentage of this cargo is inspected. There is no point to carefully screening every piece of luggage if the cargo placed aboard the same flight is not inspected. My legislation would also tighten rules for so-called known shippers. Under current procedures, any manufacturer, middleman, or receiver of goods can be classified as a known shipper, which allows the shipment to proceed without inspection. This is not sufficient to protect the public. We must be sure that companies claiming known shipper status are whom they claim to be and we must improve handling protocols to ensure that terrorists cannot tamper with shipments while they are in transit. My bill would accomplish these goals. The Air Cargo Security Act would create a comprehensive security process for shipment of cargo, particularly for shipments traveling on passenger flights. It would require that all cargo onboard passenger flights, including foreign-based flights heading for the U.S., be thoroughly inspected. The bill would also direct TSA to establish a ``chain of custody'' for air cargo that ensures that merchandise is never out of the control of a known shipper. Under these restrictions, cargo could be placed aboard aircraft with confidence that no tampering had occurred in transit. The legislation would direct TSA to formulate a comprehensive system for certifying known shippers and assigning each one a unique encrypted identifier that must be produced to the air carrier before loading the cargo and cannot be counterfeited. All shippers, including haulers and middlemen, must be certified under the new system. If cargo has been handled in any way by an uncertified company, then it will not fly. The TSA would have to regularly inspect shipping facilities. To accomplish these tasks, the bill would provide TSA with additional manpower and equipment as needed. I know that air cargo security presents a challenge nearly as large as passenger security. Forcing shippers and carriers to submit to inspection of all cargo would allow only 4 percent of the current volume to be processed. I want to ensure that these inspections do not harm airline operations. However, if we fail to enact these reforms, we will leave aviation security only half-finished. I fear that we will lose our aviation system if we suffer another successful attack on a passenger flight. I call upon my colleagues to take these concrete, measurable steps to ensuring the safety of air passengers and those on the ground.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a dangerous loophole in our aviation security network. The attacks of September 11 forced us to take a hard look at the way we screen passengers and luggage. Congress responded to the challenge with a comprehensive system to perform these tasks through the new Transportation Security Administration. We have required the TSA to check every passenger and every piece of baggage that is placed onboard a flight. While I am confident that these measures have improved security, Congress has left the back door open to terrorists with plans to disrupt passenger flights. We did not establish a similar regime to ensure the safety of cargo operations. This issue must be addressed. Twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the U.S. is carried on passenger flights, but only a tiny percentage of this cargo is inspected. There is no point to carefully screening every piece of luggage if the cargo placed aboard the same flight is not inspected. My legislation would also tighten rules for so-called known shippers. Under current procedures, any manufacturer, middleman, or receiver of goods can be classified as a known shipper, which allows the shipment to proceed without inspection. This is not sufficient to protect the public. We must be sure that companies claiming known shipper status are whom they claim to be and we must improve handling protocols to ensure that terrorists cannot tamper with shipments while they are in transit. My bill would accomplish these goals. The Air Cargo Security Act would create a comprehensive security process for shipment of cargo, particularly for shipments traveling on passenger flights. It would require that all cargo onboard passenger flights, including foreign-based flights heading for the U.S., be thoroughly inspected. The bill would also direct TSA to establish a ``chain of custody'' for air cargo that ensures that merchandise is never out of the control of a known shipper. Under these restrictions, cargo could be placed aboard aircraft with confidence that no tampering had occurred in transit. The legislation would direct TSA to formulate a comprehensive system for certifying known shippers and assigning each one a unique encrypted identifier that must be produced to the air carrier before loading the cargo and cannot be counterfeited. All shippers, including haulers and middlemen, must be certified under the new system. If cargo has been handled in any way by an uncertified company, then it will not fly. The TSA would have to regularly inspect shipping facilities. To accomplish these tasks, the bill would provide TSA with additional manpower and equipment as needed. I know that air cargo security presents a challenge nearly as large as passenger security. Forcing shippers and carriers to submit to inspection of all cargo would allow only 4 percent of the current volume to be processed. I want to ensure that these inspections do not harm airline operations. However, if we fail to enact these reforms, we will leave aviation security only half-finished. I fear that we will lose our aviation system if we suffer another successful attack on a passenger flight. I call upon my colleagues to take these concrete, measurable steps to ensuring the safety of air passengers and those on the ground.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk about an amendment I am intending to propose to the armed services bill, although I understand there may be an agreement that everyone will oppose amendments that are not considered germane. I want to talk about the amendment because I think it is very important. We now have the House making permanent the marriage tax penalty relief. We passed marriage tax penalty relief last year in our Tax Relief Act, and it was signed by the President. It would begin the process of giving marriage tax penalty relief to the 40 million couples in our country who now suffer from a marriage penalty. In fact, it is 21 million couples across the country--over 40 million people--who are taxed simply because they are married. The Treasury Department estimates that 48 percent of married couples pay this additional tax. According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the average penalty paid is $1,400. Fortunately, last year we took a step in the right direction. We are in the process of a repeal of the marriage tax penalty, with a full repeal to occur in 2009. It does this by equalizing the size of the standard deduction. So if you are single and you have the standard deduction and you get married, that will just be double rather than about two-thirds of the total, as it is today. We also increase the width of the 15-percent bracket, so that if two people in the 15-percent bracket get married or if two people in the 28-percent bracket get married, the 15-percent tax bracket will be doubled, so that you will at least have an equalization in the first tax bracket. Unfortunately, that will sunset in 2011. Last week, the House passed a permanent repeal of the marriage tax penalty. Now it is the Senate's turn. Senator Brownback, Senator Gramm, and I would like to make the marriage tax penalty repeal permanent, just so that married couples will know what to expect not only from now until 2009 or 2011 but beyond, to eliminate forever this kind of penalty, with the standard deduction--at least in the 15-percent bracket. Now I want to talk about how this affects military families. There are more than 725,000 members of the military who are married. That represents more than half of the Armed Forces. Of these, 79,000 are married to another member of the military. So these 40,000 ``military couples'' represent almost 6 percent of the Armed Forces. Consider the effect of the marriage tax penalty on two people who risk their lives every day to protect us. I will show this chart because I think it is very important. A lance corporal and a private first class in the Marine Corps will pay $218 more in taxes if they marry today. An important provision of the authorization bill we are debating is military pay raises. The same lance corporal and private first class will receive a 4-percent pay raise, according to the authorization bill we are debating today. But the marriage penalty would take back 16 percent of that increase. So of the $218, 16 percent is going to go in marriage penalty taxes. If a technical sergeant and a master sergeant in the Air Force get married, they will pay a penalty of $604. That eats up 17 percent of the pay raise we are debating today. Two Army warrant officers would pay $852 more to Uncle Sam, or 25 percent of their pay raise. Two Navy lieutenants who marry would pay more than $1,500 in additional taxes annually, giving up 34 percent of their pay raise. We are trying to make life better for those in our military. To give them a pay raise with this hand and on the other hand penalize 79,000 of the people who are already sacrificing to be married to someone else in the military, possibly having to be in a separate part of the world from that spouse, to ask them to endure a marriage tax penalty that would take away as much as 34 percent of the pay raise we are giving them to make their lives better because they are out there in the field protecting our freedom, which does not make sense to me. That is why I had hoped I would be able to offer this amendment. However, it is my understanding there are now talks about taking away any nongermane amendments from this bill. I do not disagree that we want to pass the armed services bill, that we want to make sure the bill goes through. I certainly applaud that. I do, however, think that eliminating the marriage tax penalty would be a huge help for our military, particularly since we are giving them the pay raises with this bill that we hope will make life better for them. I know there are a lot of negotiations ongoing. I hope at some point we will be able to eliminate the marriage tax penalty not only for the 40 million people who are now paying, but for our military personnel especially. We are trying to give them this better quality of life to tell them how much we respect and appreciate the job they are doing for our country. I would like to offer this amendment. I think I am going to be kept from doing that, but I want an up-or-down vote on making the marriage tax penalty permanent so that people will not have to wonder if the year 2011 is going to give them another big marriage tax penalty. We have spoken in Congress; the President has signed the tax relief bill. It is essential we go forward and make these tax cuts permanent so people can make plans. Whether it is the death tax, whether it is the bracket tax cuts, whether it is the adoption tax credit, whether it is marriage tax penalty relief--we had a balanced package of tax relief for all the people who pay taxes in our country. At a time such as this, with our economy teetering--and certainly if anyone is watching the stock market and corporations and the whole skittishness of our economy, they should see that we need some stability--we need the ability to free up consumer spending by taking the money out of the Government coffers, where hard-working people are putting it, and let them keep more of the money they earn in their pocketbooks. I hope very much I can offer this amendment--if not on this bill, certainly on a bill we will be able to pass this year. There is no reason not to make the tax cuts we have already made permanent so people know how much they are going to have to pay the Government from their hard-earned dollars. So many people are losing their jobs; so many people are having a hard time making ends meet today. I certainly want to make sure our armed services bill passes. I do not want to load it with extraneous amendments. I do not think this is extraneous. I think being able to give them pay raises they can keep is certainly something we should do for our military, but to take away 34 percent of the pay raise we are giving them in a marriage tax penalty does not make sense to me. I certainly hope I will be able to offer this at the appropriate time. I want to make sure we are doing everything we can for the Armed Forces of our country. I hope the distinguished majority leader will allow making permanent the marriage tax penalty bill a priority for this session of Congress. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If we are going to eliminate these family-owned businesses, it does not affect only the family, it also affects the people who work at places such as Afton Pumps because if they have to sell to pay for death taxes or they have to sell the property, there is a good chance those jobs are going to be eliminated, assuming they can sell it at all. In fact, one of the really sad things is the death tax is really a tax on asset-heavy, low-producing properties because many times these heavy assets have to be sold. They have to be sold at fire sale prices so the true value is not gained from the property, and then one has to come up with the money to pay the inheritance tax. It really is not a fair tax. It affects a lot of regular people, people in a situation where something was purchased at very low cost, but they have built it or their families have built it. They have a right to keep it. It was earned with the hard labor of their family, and they should be able to pass it to their children. I think this tax really came into being as extra income in time of war, but it was never repealed because the Government got hungry for more and more social programs. This is not a fair tax and we need to eliminate it so the people of our country can plan for their children's futures, so they will not have to do crazy things to try to protect property or businesses or assets that have been in their families for generations. This is not the American way. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Texas for sponsoring this amendment. The Senate has passed the death tax repeal. We are trying to make it permanent. In fact, it was a year ago this month that we passed the bill that would provide urgently needed tax relief for Americans, but now we want to finish this job and make it permanent so people can plan for their futures. Why is it important to permanently repeal this tax? Because it punishes people for saving. Everyone pays taxes on the money they earn, but then we all have a choice: We can spend the money or we can save it. Some may choose to take a vacation or buy a new car. There is nothing wrong with that. That is their choice. It is their money. But others will invest it for retirement, plow it into their family farm or ranch, or invest it in the family business, creating new jobs and keeping our economy going. All of these people want to pass their savings to their children. In the end, they have put off enjoying the money they worked hard to earn in order to build a more secure future for their children. There is an old saying that the key to wealth is not how much you earn but how much you do not spend. These people chose savings over consumption. This is something we should encourage and support, but with the death tax, when they die, the Government takes up to 55 percent of what they saved. This is wrong, and Americans know it. Three out of four voters would like to see the estate tax eliminated. This overwhelming support exists because the American people understand this tax is unfair, inefficient, and bad policy. More important, the people of our country seek the American dream of improving their lives and the lives of their children, and they know this tax works against that. People who want to keep the death tax argue that it only affects a small percentage of the population, but they miss the point. It is not a matter of how many are affected but whether it is right or wrong, and the death tax is clearly wrong. I told a story a few years ago about the family of David Langford of San Antonio. It is not a story; it is true. Mr. Langford's mother passed away in 1993 and, as a result, he faced a tax liability of more than $400,000 because two of the ranches that had been in their family for over five generations had, of course, increased in value. They had been in the family for over 100 years. One happens to be in the hill country of Texas, which Texans know is one of the most beautiful parts of our State and the prices have gone out of sight. In order to pay the taxes and keep the ranches for his family, Mr. Langford had to sell his mother's house, his own house, and many personal assets, as well as move into a small condominium and borrow $190,000. But that was not the end. The Langfords spent 5 years trying to reach an agreement with the IRS that would bring down the fair market value of the properties. They settled with the IRS for $415,000. The Langfords had spent $70,000 in attorney's fees associated with dealing with the IRS. So in 2001, to cover the costs, Mr. Langford had to sell the condo and one of the farms in McMullen County, a ranch that had been in his family for five generations. Now the Langfords wonder if they will be able to pass the Kendall County property, the other farm which has been in the family for seven generations, to his children. He jokes that if he dies in 2010 his family can keep the ranch, but they will not be able to keep it if he lives past 2010. This is not a joke. This is a situation families across America will face. We must eliminate the death tax so that regular people, such as David Langford, can pass on their treasures from their families to their children. I think his family has more than paid their fair share to the U.S. Government, having to sell a farm that had been in the family for over 100 years. Then there is Debbie Gillan, who struggled to keep her family's ranch after her uncle and father passed away, and now she wants to try to keep it for her two sons. Afton Pumps employs 60 people in Houston, TX. It is a small family- owned business, but it does not generate enough cash to cover the potential death tax liability to make it to the next generation. In fact, it is said that less than 50 percent of family businesses can survive the second generation, and less than 20 percent the third generation. I ask the Senator from Texas if I could have an additional 2 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the achievement of Maverick Lezar, a fourth grade student at the Hockaday School in Dallas, TX. Maverick wrote a wonderful poem that earned first place in the 2002 Poetry Society of Texas contest. Annually, the Poetry Society sponsors a Poetry in Schools contest which is open to any Texas student from first grade through college. This contest recognizes and encourages talented students and fosters their creativity as aspiring writers and poets. Maverick Lezar's award winning poem, ``God Bless Me,'' speaks to the strength and spirit of America. It serves as a striking reminder of the beauty in our Nation's physical landscape as well as the ideals for which America stands. I am as powerful as the burning sun. I am as brave as the cobra standing tall. I am as brilliant as a gold carriage glinting in the sun. God bless me, I am the thing that makes you free. I am as strong as a bald eagle soaring high. I am as gentle as the lovebird's song. I am as beautiful as the weeping willow's sway. God bless me, I am the thing that makes you free. Call me and I'll listen. Listen and I'll call. I echo through the mountains. I whisper through the fields. I sing through the river. I yell across the hills. Wherever you go Whatever you see There will always be at least A little bit of me. I am America The proudest of them all.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the city of Houston on its recent designation as a ``Digital Television Zone.'' Viewers in Houston are fortunate to be served by local television stations that are broadcasting in digital. These stations are: KPRC, the NBC affiliate; KHOU, the CBS affiliate; KRIV, the local FOX station; KTRK, the local ABC owned and operated station; KTXH, a FOX owned UPN affiliate; and KUHT, the local PBS station. I would like to especially note KPRC, a Post-Newsweek owned NBC affiliate, where I had the privilege to work in a former life as a journalist. As the broadcast industry undertakes its transition to digital television, I am proud to say all these local Houston stations are already fully on the air in digital. For those not familiar with digital television, it is the next step in the evolution of television. Just as other communication mediums are moving from an analog to a digital format, television is too. This year, coverage of the Olympics' opening ceremonies and the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship was broadcast in High-definition digital television. Today, Houston viewers can watch popular programs like ``Drew Carey,'' ``NYPD Blue,'' and ``the Tonight Show'' in High Definition TV. Programming like this will propel the transition forward and encourage consumers to invest in digital technology--like their local broadcasters have done already. In January, as one of only three cities in the country with all affiliates on the air in digital, Houston earned the distinction of being designated a ``Digital TV Zone.'' Houston broadcasters pooled their resources over the past year to educate Houston consumers about digital TV technology and its benefits. The local stations cooperated with electronics manufacturers and retailers to post digital sets in high traffic areas throughout the city. Houston broadcasters are doing their part to launch the digital television future. As with other technological advances, there will be challenges before consumers can fully benefit from everything digital TV offers. There are issues about making digital television sets capable of communicating with digital VCRs and DVD players. There are questions about the availability of digital tuners in new TV sets. Importantly, American consumers will need to embrace digital television. Despite these remaining questions, I am proud to say that Houston broadcasters are ready for the digital future.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. I had the same amendment already drafted. I am the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. I was alarmed when I heard what had happened with regard to the fund that we set aside to stabilize the aviation industry. So I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for making this accommodation, for offering this amendment. And I certainly want to be made a cosponsor of the amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, our aviation industry lost thousands of jobs right after September 11, but it could have been hundreds of thousands if we had not come in and stabilized that industry. Because of repercussions in other parts of the tourism industry--in the hotel industry, the rental car industry--so many other parts of our economy that are dependent on tourism would also have fallen. So we did the right thing. It is essential that Congress keep its commitment. The deadline is June 28. And there can be applications. US Airways is said to be looking at perhaps making an application. America West already has a loan. There may be other airlines. They need to know that when Congress passes a law, they have the right to believe that law is going to be carried out and deadlines will be met. If we revoked that deadline and said, if you have not come in now, we are going to take the money away, I think it would be a tragedy. So I think this is definitely the right approach. It is also essential that the traveling public and the banking community know that the airline industry is going to be secured. Today, most airports are reporting about 90 percent of the traffic they had at this time last year. That is phenomenal after what happened on September 11: the cataclysmic event and the impact on our economy. That we are back to 90 percent I believe is the result of the airlines, the airports, the people of our country supporting our economy, and also Congress stabilizing the airlines, and then, secondly, coming in with the aviation security that assured the traveling public that everything was going to be done to secure these airlines. We are well on the way to securing airports and airlines. We have a way to go; there is no doubt about that. Those two factors have stabilized the industry. We are not out of the woods. June 28 is 3 weeks away. We need to allow that time for companies already in the process of making their applications. It is a pretty arduous process. We are not just guaranteeing loans that don't have any substantiation or any reason to believe that they would be able to be repaid, but we are guaranteeing loans, as we said we would, for a company that meets the very stringent criteria. I hope this amendment passes overwhelmingly. I believe it will. I certainly appreciate that we have gone forward to put this amendment in place. I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for immediately acting when it became known that this was actually going to cut off companies that were in the process that could then go into bankruptcy and cause a rippling effect throughout the economy. We want to support US Air and any other airlines that might want to come in that meet the criteria. We want to try to keep our aviation industry stable as we go into vacation time, the summer months, so that hopefully by September 11, 2002, we will have a good report for the people of America that our economy has been stabilized and that the aviation and tourism industry are a part of that. This amendment will be one more step in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for pursuing this bill. I certainly support it. As part of the fight against terrorism, we must dedicate the resources to the growing threat of bioterrorism. This legislation enhances the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments to coordinate emergency preparedness efforts, to stockpile vaccines and medical supplies, to modernize biosecurity facilities, and try to ensure the safety of America's health and food supply. I worked with my colleague, Senator Pat Roberts, to address the concerns about our food supply and vital agricultural economies. The agricultural bioterrorism provisions in this legislation will authorize the Department of Agriculture to strengthen its capacities to identify, prepare for, and respond to the bioterrorist threats to our farms, ranches, and food processing, packaging, and distribution facilities and systems. We have a clear priority to ensure the safety of our food and to maintain public confidence. To do so we must identify and quickly control the threat to our food supply, currently the world's safest, most abundant, and affordable. During the cold war, we knew the Soviet Union had bioweapons that included bioagents aimed at agriculture. Following the gulf war, we know our soldiers showed evidence of possible exposure to chemical and biological weapons. From the terrorist attacks on Japan's subway system with sarin gas to the recent anthrax attacks here in the United States, the public is now acutely aware of bioterrorist threats. This bill is critical, both for the results it will achieve and the reassurance it will provide. The Department of Agriculture will be expanded to enhance inspection capability, implement new information technology, and develop methods for rapid detection and identification of plants and animal disease. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Veterinarian Services will also be authorized to establish cooperative agreements with State animal health commissions and private veterinarian practitioners to enhance their ability to respond to outbreaks of any animal disease. This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to establish a long- term program of research to enhance biosecurity of U.S. agriculture. America's universities that have demonstrated expertise in animal and plant disease research in coordination with State cooperative extension programs will provide the resources and expertise that will prove invaluable in the war on agricultural bioterrorism. The front lines of this war on terrorism lie on our own shores, farms and fields, and the States where food is produced. However our States are vulnerable, they will meet the challenge, and they will help us in this war on bioterrorism because they will be able to detect the first evidence of an attack to protect our citizens, our economy, and our food supply. I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today. I appreciate the hard work that went into making it come to the floor and making it the priority that it should be for our country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3441 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I asked for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I introduce this amendment to the trade package. I strongly support the bill on the floor, including the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences. These programs seek to help the Andean countries of Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru, and other developing nations, by applying preferential treatment for their exports. We want to reduce and eliminate tariffs on imports from these countries to help them develop stronger economies. These programs benefit both countries. They improve the lives of the citizens of the exporting countries through improved economic conditions. These programs give open access to the U.S. market, the best market in the world. For example, since the Andean Trade Preference Act went into effect in 1991, the Andean nations have experienced $3.2 billion in new output and $1.7 billion in new exports. This has led to the creation of more than 140,000 legitimate jobs in the region. These programs help the United States by developing better markets for our exports. If we can help developing countries increase economic growth and prosperity, they, then, will demand more imports, which will, of course, provide U.S. manufacturers with more consumers for their products. Another important benefit of the Andean Trade Preference Act is that by providing for the people of these regions employment opportunities in legitimate businesses, we hope to keep them from needing or wanting or in any way being drawn to narcotics businesses. This contributes greatly to promoting stability in the area and to our efforts to reduce the flow of illegal drugs across our borders. It is clear that the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences help both sides. Since we are giving a benefit to these countries, however, we do have the right to expect something in return to ensure that we do not help countries that may work against our interests in other ways. For this reason, we have established conditions that a country must meet in order to qualify as a beneficiary. Conditions we have required in the past include that a beneficiary not be a Communist-controlled country; that it has not nationalized or expropriated property of U.S. citizens; that it enforce the protection of intellectual property of U.S. citizens; certainly we want it to recognize binding arbitration awards in favor of U.S. citizens; we want to make sure they give preferential treatment to the United States if they give it to other developed nations; we want to make sure that any country with which we have these preferences is a signatory to an extradition treaty with the United States; and we want to make sure they recognize workers' rights. In the bill before the Senate today we add seven more criteria that the President must consider before designating a country a beneficiary, including whether the country has demonstrated a commitment to the WTO and to negotiating a Free Trade Area of the Americas; that the protection of intellectual property rights is consistent with the Uruguay Round agreement; that the country provides specific workers rights; demonstrates a commitment to eliminating the worst forms of child labor; that the country has met counter-narcotics certification criteria; that the country has taken steps to implement an anti-corruption convention; and that government procurement procedures are transparent and nondiscriminatory. As I have looked at this list of criteria, I noticed a glaring omission. We are in the middle of a war on terrorism; yet there is no requirement that a country with which we would have fair trade and give preferences would support us in that war. It is clear we are fighting a war for freedom itself. We can't win this war alone. We need the help of our friends and allies around the world, for example, to track down terrorist cells or to cut off funds. More than $100 million in assets of terrorists and their supporters have been frozen around the world. Of that $100 million, the United States has frozen about $30 million. The other $70 million has been cut off by various allies. We must have the cooperation of allies and friends if we are going to defeat the enemy of freedom. I am introducing an amendment today that establishes a requirement in addition to the seven new requirements that we have included in the bill before the Senate that the country support our efforts in the war on terrorism in order to receive beneficiary status under the Andean Trade Preference Act or Generalized System of Preferences. The kind of help that each country can give will vary and it may depend on the circumstances a particular country faces, the opportunity presented to it. Some will help us militarily, some will cut off funds, while others will share intelligence which can be very helpful, very important. Some may do so publicly, some privately. It is even possible a country may not have an opportunity to provide anything but moral support, but we want that moral support. We want the country to be on the record helping us in the fight for freedom and making sure that a terrorist network cannot gain a foothold in any country with whom we have trade preferences. I don't think it would be appropriate to try to specify the kind of help that a country must give. But I believe we must make it clear that we expect the country receiving preferences from the United States with whom we will start trade, we will have commerce, we will send goods in, and we will hopefully export goods from that country to the United States--there will be a lot of commerce. We need to make sure that the people with whom we are trading will respect this war on terrorism and be helpful to our country in rooting out terrorism wherever it may be. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. I certainly think it is going to be very important for us to have the help of every nation on Earth. Every nation that is freedom loving is also a nation that is at risk, if we don't win this war on terrorism. If these terrorists can defeat the United States of America, they will try to take over the world and wipe out freedom wherever it may be. We are in this together. We must have the full cooperation of every country with whom we are trading. The bill before us today is going to put America, I hope, in a much better position to have better trade relations with countries around the world. The Andean Trade Preference Act has been in place but has lapsed. These poor countries are certainly good partners. We want to continue to have good trade relations with these countries and help them build democracies and stable governments. There are 130 free trade agreements in the world. The United States is party to only three. The Andean Trade Preference Act has lapsed. We will hopefully renew it with passage of this legislation. But there are 130 agreements in the world, and the United States is party to only three. That is not a tenable situation. We need to open our markets. We need to provide more jobs in America by exporting products. We need to help other countries have access to the great market of the United States of America which has the greatest consumer capacity in the world. We need to be open to these countries that need this kind of help to stabilize their own governments. It is in everyone's best interest that we have free and fair trade. It promotes freedom and democracy. If we are going to have free and fair trade to promote freedom and democracy, we should certainly require that people help us in the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is the war to protect freedom in the world. It goes hand in hand with free and fair trade, democracy, free enterprise, and open government. But we must also win the war on terrorism and protect freedom for ourselves, our allies, and our trading partners throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to add the eighth criteria to the seven that the President would use to select countries that would receive the preferences of our country. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I inform the Senator from Montana that if there is no one on the other side, I am prepared to yield back the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time. I think we are not ready to do this, but I certainly am not against expansion of NATO.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Virginia. It is very important for the United States and Europe to have the kind of alliance that NATO has been. It has been the greatest defensive alliance in the history of the world, but I feel as if I am experiencing deja vu all over again. The Senate is once again considering a measure to endorse the expansion of NATO without having satisfactorily addressed any of the same questions that loomed over the alliance 4 years ago when we made the first recent expansion. In April of 1998, this body voted to expand NATO without articulating a rationale for NATO in the post-cold-war era, without calculating a reliable estimate of the cost of the expansion, without establishing an interalliance dispute resolution process, without evaluating the militaries of the respective candidates to see what they offered and where their problems were, and without determining how the alliance can effectively coordinate military action amongst an even larger and more unwieldy membership. Here we are in 2002 with the same questions unanswered, and yet we are on the cusp of enlarging again. I have never thought that any of my concerns about the structure and purpose of NATO should be directed at any one country. I do intend to vote for this resolution because I think we should expand the Partnership for Peace, we should get countries ready, we should try to bring their militaries up to speed, and the President wants this ability before he goes to Europe. I understand that, and I support the concept of an alliance with Europe. What is the alliance's purpose? This is a defensive alliance to protect the democracies of Western Europe from the Communist threat of the East. That threat has evaporated. Our President is going to make an agreement with Russia in the next week that will have a mutual disarmament pact that will bring down our stash of nuclear weapons and their stash of nuclear weapons. We are friends with the Russians. Today the threat for which NATO was first put in place is gone. We should have a strategic military alliance, but we need to talk about what functions it will have. If we are going to go offensive, as we did in Kosovo, how are we going to do it? Everyone knows the problems we had in trying to get unanimity when we were bombing Serbia. Everybody knows that was an almost impossible task. Yet here we are talking about adding new members without talking about what kinds of offensive alliances we are going to have. In fact, as we are looking now at the hotspots around the world, some of the NATO allies agree with what we are doing in certain places; some have been less helpful. We need to have a purpose for NATO, or are we going to set our alliances according to the operations and interests of different parties involved so that we should stretch our dollars in a way that allows us the flexibility to determine which alliances we will have for any particular operation? The cost of NATO is a big one for the United States. One-half of our permanent foreign forces are in Europe. We have a commitment to provide 25 percent of the NATO budget. We spend $170 million to $180 million in military construction for NATO, and we have a $500 million commitment for U.S. military construction in NATO countries. So we are talking about almost $1 billion, about three-quarters of a billion dollars in construction costs in European countries and/or NATO. That is a big part of our budget when we also have major commitments in the Middle East, major commitments in Korea in the DMZ, and major commitments, of course, ongoing in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and places regarding the war on terrorism. We need to assess the costs before we go forward with this kind of process.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment to the trade package that is currently before us. I strongly support the intent of both the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences. These programs seek to help the Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and other developing nations, by applying preferential treatment to their exports. We agree to reduce or eliminate tariffs on imports from these countries in order to help them develop a stronger economy. These programs benefit both sides. They improve the lives of the exporting countries' citizens through improved economic opportunities that result from open access to the U.S. market--the best market in the world. For example, since the Andean Trade Preference Act went into effect in 1991, the Andean nations have experienced $3.2 billion in new output and $1.7 billion in new exports. This has led to the creation of more than 140,000 legitimate jobs in the region. But this act expires, and we must renew it. These programs help the United States by developing better markets for our exports. If we can help developing countries increase economic growth and prosperity, they, inevitably, will demand more imports, which provide U.S. manufacturers with more consumers for our products. This, of course, is good for the U.S. economy. Another important benefit from the Andean Trade Preference Act is that by providing people of these regions with employment opportunities in legitimate businesses, they will, hopefully, not participate in the narcotic business that is rampant in parts of those areas. This will contribute to the stability of their region and the stability of our hemisphere. It is clear that the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences help both sides. Since we are giving a benefit to these countries, we are also asking something in return, to ensure that we do not help any country that works against our interests in other ways. For this reason, we have established, in the underlying bill, conditions that a country must meet in order to qualify as a beneficiary. Conditions we have required in the past include that a beneficiary not be a Communist-controlled country. We have insisted that a country not be one that has or will expropriate the property of U.S. citizens. There must be a rule of law so that if an investment is made in that country, they will be safe from having it expropriated. In the Andean trade bill before us, we add several new conditions. For example, we require that the President consider the extent to which countries are committed to the World Trade Organization and are participating in negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas. This will ensure their commitment to free trade. The President also must consider the extent to which they have helped us in our counter-narcotics efforts and anti-corruption efforts before providing these trade benefits. These and other conditions play an important role in ensuring we do not help countries that may turn around and work against us or our citizens in the future. As I reviewed the list of criteria we have established, I noticed a glaring omission. We are in the middle of a war on terrorism, yet there is no requirement that a country support our efforts in this battle for freedom. It is clear we cannot win this war alone. We need the help of our friends around the world to track down terrorists and cut off funds. More than $100 million in assets of terrorists and their supporters have been frozen around the world. The United States has frozen about $30 million of this money. The rest has been cut off by various allies. We need cooperation like this to defeat this enemy. Therefore, I am offering an amendment to the trade package that establishes a requirement that a country support our efforts in the war on terrorism in order to receive beneficiary status under the Andean Trade Preference Agreement or Generalized System of Preferences. The kind of help each country can give to us will vary, and it may depend on the circumstances a particular country faces and the opportunities presented to that country. Some will help us militarily. Some will help cut off funds. Others will share intelligence. Some may do so publicly, others privately. It is even possible that a country might not have the opportunity to provide us with anything but moral support. So I do not think it is appropriate to specify the kind of help a country must give. But I do believe we must make it clear that we expect any country receiving these preferences to do what they can, and what they are requested to do, and that the President take that into consideration when determining these preferences. I hope my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that we are able to prosecute this critical war effectively with the help of nations that will benefit from our preferential treatment. Also, as we increase commerce with these countries--which we surely will because of these good trade agreements--we want to make sure they are cooperating so that they will help us keep any contraband product out of America, as we would also expect not to take contraband into their country. So I think these are good additions to this bill. We have certain conditions already. We are in the fight for our life for the freedom of our country, and we want every country with whom we have commerce, and where there is an ingress and an egress, to work with us to make sure we do not have any kind of terrorist activity in our country or in our hemisphere. We have already suffered enough. September 11 has changed our way of life. It has changed our attitude. It has changed so much about what is necessary to protect our country. So we must ask every country-- especially countries in this hemisphere, but every country--that we will have trade with, and commerce with, countries where we will go in and out, and work with them on a basis of trust, to help us in whatever way we request. I think it is little to ask, and certainly it will be in their best interest, as well as ours, for terrorists not to come in and be active in their countries. That will hurt them in their efforts to represent their people and have free markets in their countries. So I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment at the appropriate time. I will certainly speak later as we move on with this bill. I certainly hope we are going to pass this bill. The Andean Trade Preferences and the General System of Preferences are so important to our country. There are 130 free trade agreements in the world. The United States is party to only 3. That hurts our exporters. It hurts our jobs market. And it hurts countries that we could do more trade with if we did not have the tariffs that would keep prices from being as low as possible for all of our consumers. So we need this bill. We need to give the President the ability to promote trade and to make trade agreements. I hope we will move on toward finishing this bill next week and giving the President another tool to open markets and strengthen our economy and help other countries strengthen theirs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside so that we can have other amendments offered through the day.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of introducing an amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Missouri to introduce the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002. The passage of this legislation is urgently needed to stop the marketing of child pornography and its destructive impact on our society. This bill is similar to the House version, which has the strong support of the Department of Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft has asked for this legislation so that he will have the tools to prosecute child pornographers. In this Internet age, it is becoming more difficult to ascertain whether child pornography is produced by exploiting real minors or whether it is made with computer imagery. I understand the Supreme Court's concerns about First Amendment rights. The bill we are introducing today does not violate the First Amendment. Our bill goes after the marketing of child pornography, regardless of whether it is produced using a real minor. Legal precedent is clear that Congress may outlaw the solicitation and attempt to commit a crime, even if the core crime does not transpire. I have been a strong advocate against marketing violence to children, and similarly, I am strongly against the marketing of child pornography. The bottom line is that sexual images of children, even if produced by computer-imagery, only increase the chances of sexual crimes occurring against our children. In addition, our bill outlaws the production of ``obscene'' child pornography, regardless of whether a real child or a computer-image is used. The Supreme Court has been clear that obscenity deserves no protection under the first amendment, much less obscenity related to child pornography. Without a new law, the Supreme Court's ruling several weeks ago could mean a pornographer might use the defense that the child pornography does not involve a real minor and thus constitutes protected speech. That is a terrible outcome and we must remedy it. I am pleased to be cosponsor of this important legislation, and I urge the Senate to address this issue expeditiously.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that addresses an issue of great concern to our Nation's current and future security as well as to hundreds of communities across our country. We have endeavored to reduce the excess infrastructure of our armed forces four times in the past 15 years through the appointment of a BRAC commission whose charter was to recommended the elimination or realignment of unneeded bases. Four times these commissions have made recommendations to the President resulting in the closure of 106 major bases. I would like to agree that in each instance, the best decision was made and the military is now better off without these facilities; however, this is not the case. Mistakes have been made. While most of these selections were proper, some have resulted in significant, unintended consequences. Staggering costs to clean up the environmental liabilities left behind is one such example. At the former Navy Station Long Beach, CA, post-closure clean up costs have consumed hundreds of millions of dollars more than had been anticipated. The final cost of closing that base remains unknown. How can the savings of closing this base be cited when even seven years later the costs continue to grow? The lack of facilities now available to properly train our remaining forces is another. When justifying the closure of Reese Air Force Base in 1995, the commission's report stated that ``the Air Force has a surplus of undergraduate pilot training facilities.'' However, only five years later, this service had a shortage of over 1,200 pilots. To make up for that shortfall, the Air Force was compelled to hastily establish another training base, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. The severe economic impact that small, rural communities have endured is yet another unintended consequence. The '95 commission's decision to convey Fort Chafee to the local community was scandalous. How was a small, rural community like Barling, AR supposed to turn a post like Chaffee, pockmarked with over 700 World War II-era buildings, each contaminated with lead paint and Asbestos, into an economic asset to the community? They couldn't. While the closure of Chaffee may have saved the Pentagon money, it saddled a small town with an expensive, environmentally hazardous burden. I am convinced the root cause of these regrettable selections was vague and inefficient criteria which the commissions used in their efforts to select candidates for closure or realignment. To ensure we do not repeat these mistakes, I have worked closely with a number of my colleagues, particularly Senator Bingaman, to develop legislation that would refine the minimum criteria the commission must consider. Among the new criteria are: the impact on homeland security; the effects on co-located Federal agencies; and lessons learned in the previous rounds of closures. This measure also promotes greater transparency by requiring the weighting of these criteria be published well before a commission recommends any base for closure. I know the outcome of the 2005 BRAC is of utmost importance to both the military and the communities outside the fence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that the proper decisions are made, and that they are made for the proper reasons. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that addresses an issue of great concern to our Nation's current and future security as well as to hundreds of communities across our country. We have endeavored to reduce the excess infrastructure of our armed forces four times in the past 15 years through the appointment of a BRAC commission whose charter was to recommended the elimination or realignment of unneeded bases. Four times these commissions have made recommendations to the President resulting in the closure of 106 major bases. I would like to agree that in each instance, the best decision was made and the military is now better off without these facilities; however, this is not the case. Mistakes have been made. While most of these selections were proper, some have resulted in significant, unintended consequences. Staggering costs to clean up the environmental liabilities left behind is one such example. At the former Navy Station Long Beach, CA, post-closure clean up costs have consumed hundreds of millions of dollars more than had been anticipated. The final cost of closing that base remains unknown. How can the savings of closing this base be cited when even seven years later the costs continue to grow? The lack of facilities now available to properly train our remaining forces is another. When justifying the closure of Reese Air Force Base in 1995, the commission's report stated that ``the Air Force has a surplus of undergraduate pilot training facilities.'' However, only five years later, this service had a shortage of over 1,200 pilots. To make up for that shortfall, the Air Force was compelled to hastily establish another training base, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. The severe economic impact that small, rural communities have endured is yet another unintended consequence. The '95 commission's decision to convey Fort Chafee to the local community was scandalous. How was a small, rural community like Barling, AR supposed to turn a post like Chaffee, pockmarked with over 700 World War II-era buildings, each contaminated with lead paint and Asbestos, into an economic asset to the community? They couldn't. While the closure of Chaffee may have saved the Pentagon money, it saddled a small town with an expensive, environmentally hazardous burden. I am convinced the root cause of these regrettable selections was vague and inefficient criteria which the commissions used in their efforts to select candidates for closure or realignment. To ensure we do not repeat these mistakes, I have worked closely with a number of my colleagues, particularly Senator Bingaman, to develop legislation that would refine the minimum criteria the commission must consider. Among the new criteria are: the impact on homeland security; the effects on co-located Federal agencies; and lessons learned in the previous rounds of closures. This measure also promotes greater transparency by requiring the weighting of these criteria be published well before a commission recommends any base for closure. I know the outcome of the 2005 BRAC is of utmost importance to both the military and the communities outside the fence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that the proper decisions are made, and that they are made for the proper reasons. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.