Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my remaining time to the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for all the work he has done. He is chairman of the Commerce Committee; I am the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee. We have worked very well together and crafted a bipartisan bill that would address the issues of aviation security. As Senator McCain said earlier today, the people of our country are not going back to the airlines. This is causing a rippling effect throughout our economy. We need to stem the flow of job losses by getting the airlines back in business so the hotels will fill up, people will rent cars again and people will be able to go about their business in as normal a way as possible. The last thing on Earth we want is to have the economy be so shaky that we are unable to gear up the national defenses that we know we need. We have men and women putting their lives on the line as we speak for our country, for our freedom. For us not to do the right thing and get our country back on an even keel after this terrible incident of September 11 would be unthinkable. That is why all of us are working to come to an agreement on this bill. We are 95 percent in agreement. There are a few issues on which we disagree. Most people know what these are. But what we cannot afford in this legislation is to put extraneous amendments on it. This is not the kind of bill that should be a Christmas tree where you have this amendment and that amendment and somebody's pet project. This is too important. This is aviation security for our country. It is for the people who are going to airports, people who are flying. People are afraid right now. I don't think they should be, because in all the flying I have done since September 11, and it has been every single weekend and also flying around during the weekend, I have been on a lot of flights that are half full. These flights were very safe. People are going all out to make flying safe. The bottom line is, the people are not coming back. The planes are half full. It is going to take aviation security legislation to get us back on track. We need to stop the process arguments. We need to stop the extraneous arguments. We need to say: I understand Senator Carnahan wanting her bill. I do understand that. It is a very important bill. At some point in the next few weeks, we will take up her bill. We will take up other kinds of legislation also. I want to support Amtrak security, but if it is not going to be agreed to totally, it is not going to go on this bill. I hope it can. But if it can't, then we are going to complete aviation security. That is the bottom line. I am very pleased to work with Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, and many others who have taken the position that we must do aviation security. What this bill is going to do is give us more air marshals. I introduced the bill for air marshals the week of September 11, but we still have not acted on adding air marshals. The President has done it on his own with emergency powers, but that is not an answer. We want a long-term solution. We want people to know there is a stable, seamless aviation security system in our country with air marshals, with screeners who are qualified, with supervisors who are qualified, all of which are law enforcement personnel. And we want to reinforce cockpit doors so that no pilot will have to worry about security in the cabin. The pilot should be focused on flying the airplane safely. We should not ask him to do anything else. Now is the time to act. We need to finish this bill. I hope we can go to cloture right away. If we are going to go to cloture, let's do it tomorrow, or even tonight. Let's stay and finish all of the extraneous things and get on with this bill. We have legitimate disagreements. Let's get on with it and determine how much is going to be federalized. I have one position, and maybe someone else has a different position. Those are legitimate. Let's argue it, debate it, vote and go on. The bottom line is that we are 95 percent in agreement; it is time to have aviation security for our country, for our citizens, and for our economy. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am getting as frustrated as the senior Senator from Arizona. We have been working on aviation security since September 12, 2001. I introduced the bill that would increase the number of sky marshals that very week. I could see the traveling public was going to be stunned. Of course what has happened is even worse than that. The impact on the economy of having people stay out of airplanes and airports is staggering. It was a domino effect. The airlines are flying at half capacity. They are not flying as many flights. Hotels are not full. Rental cars are not being rented. The cancellation of conventions all over the country is being reported. We can do something about this. We have been working on it in a very bipartisan way. There are very few disagreements on the bill--things we can work out or have amendments, vote them up or down, and we can send a decent package to the President. What is holding the legislation up is extraneous amendments. These amendments may have merit, but they are not worked out yet and they are not relevant to aviation security. We are dealing with some very complicated matters. Antiterrorism is complicated. We have tried to keep that clean so that the disagreements are on the bill and disagreements on other issues don't encroach on that bill. We need to do the same thing for aviation security so we are not talking about differences on an unemployment bill in the middle of other differences on the relevant bill and not be able to come to the conclusion on the aviation security bill because of something that does not relate to aviation security. The President wants to deal with unemployment. We want to deal with unemployment. We can do that in the economic stimulus package or in a freestanding bill. That would be the responsible thing to do, particularly when we know if there are going to be other jobs available. Right now we have a huge loss of jobs in the aviation industry. But we are trying to add jobs in aviation security. We are trying to add jobs in the defense industry because we are going to be ratcheting up our defense needs. So let's give our employees a chance to seek other jobs before we pass something when we are not even sure how much we are going to need or if that is relevant by the time we see if these other jobs can be filled. But it is a whole different issue. So why not talk about aviation security? I see the distinguished Commerce Committee chairman, Senator Hollings. He has worked with Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Aviation subcommittee. I am the ranking member of the Aviation subcommittee, and Senator McCain is the ranking member of the full committee. We have worked on this bill. We have worked with the White House trying to come to the agreements on this bill, and we are very close. We are going to strengthen the cockpit doors. You would think that after what happened just yesterday on the airplane where the deranged man fought his way into a cockpit-- just yesterday--there would be an impetus to take up this bill. We are going to add air marshals in the bill that I introduced the week of September 11, because we know people will feel safer if there are air marshals on airplanes. We know the more we can get in, the more likely people are to fly and the less likely we are to have incidents, because we will have on those airplanes trained law enforcement personnel. We are trying to upgrade the screening. Everybody who has been through an airport knows there have been holes in security, in the screening process. Today in many airports there are long lines at the screening stations. We want to regularize that process so people know what to expect and so we can get through on a more expedited basis using trained people with good equipment. Those are the things we are trying to do with this bill. So I support Senator McCain's motion. I think we need to proceed to the bill, and I think we need to keep extraneous amendments off, and that should be a bipartisan agreement. Then we can argue legitimately about the bill itself and how much federalization we have and where it goes and what the dollars are. All of that is legitimate disagreement. Let's get to the bill. Let's do what we must do to get people back into airplanes feeling safe and secure. Let's give them that security, and let's help the economy strengthen. We must do that. We are wasting valuable time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will build upon the historic Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 by accelerating the marriage penalty tax relief in that bill and make it effective beginning next year. I am joined in my effort by Senators Brownback, Miller, Smith of New Hampshire, Hutchinson, Fitzgerald, and Allen. Earlier this year we delivered to the American people long overdue tax relief. Unfortunately, we did not have the ability to give married couples the relief from the marriage penalty as soon as we would have liked. My bill will complete this unfinished business by treating married couples fairly in the tax code beginning next year. Particularly now, as the President and Congress consider additional tax relief to bolster the economy in these difficult times, this legislation would be a smart option. At times like this, what better way to help our Nation than by strengthening the building blocks of society, our families, by adding to their budgets through marriage penalty relief. Every year for the past four years I introduced a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax as I simply could not understand why two single people should be thrown into a higher tax bracket and pay more in taxes simply because they got married. Not because of a promotion, not because of a raise, but because they got married! This year, we finally told all Americans that they do not have to choose between love and money, that they should not be penalized for exchanging wedding vows. I am proud to say that in this year's tax relief plan we corrected this quirk in the tax code. We returned to the commonsense principles that made this country great, and away from the concept that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' The marriage penalty relief that was passed earlier this year will offer critical relief to our married couples, but unfortunately it will not take place immediately. I want to improve this timing because when the situation is as ridiculous as the marriage penalty, that is wrong. There are more than 20 million married couples in America today that pay a penalty just because they got married, a penalty that averages around $1,400. That is a lot of money! Especially when you are just starting out, $1,400 to a young couple could be part of the down payment on the new house or the new car for the expenses associated with having children. However, they choose to spend that money, or for whatever expenses they need it for, we want them to be able to make their own choices with the money they earn. And we want them to have the ability to do so now, not several years from now. What the bill does that I am introducing today is that it takes the relief we finally offered in the tax plan and makes it effective immediately for the 15 percent bracket and the standard deduction. Today, if you take the standard deduction when you do your taxes as an individual, you do not get the same amount of deduction if you get married. That is, the standard deduction does not simply double for couples. Whereas today the standard deduction for a single person is $4,550, and for a married couple is $7,600, our tax relief bill insisted that married couples receive a standard deduction that is exactly double that of the single person, or $9,100. Under my bill today, this doubling of the standard deduction will occur immediately. In addition, we addressed the fact that when most couples marry, the second income bumps them up to a higher tax bracket. Therefore, we decided to widen every tax bracket so that a married couple will not have to pay more in income taxes simply because they go into a higher bracket when they combined incomes. In this way, a combined income will be taxed at the same rate as if it was a single person making two incomes. For example, if each individual in a relationship is in the 15-percent income tax bracket but they get married and their combined incomes now bump them into the 30-percent bracket, our tax relief means that they will effectively remain in the 15 percent bracket. This is critically important, especially to those who are at the lower income rates and for whom jumping from the 15 percent bracket to the next one could make all the difference in their budget. Our earlier legislation widens the 15-percent bracket by $9,000 for married couples. My bill today will accelerate this relief by making this change now, thereby eliminating the marriage penalty for those couples who are in the 15 percent bracket. Earlier this year a bipartisan majority agreed that it is very important that we relieve the pressure on the more than 20 million American couples who pay the marriage penalty tax. We all agreed then that this is wrong, and must be changed. Today, we have the chance to put our money where our mouth is and offer help to struggling couples now. I call upon my colleagues to join in this effort to provide this immediate assistance to the working families of America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will build upon the historic Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 by accelerating the marriage penalty tax relief in that bill and make it effective beginning next year. I am joined in my effort by Senators Brownback, Miller, Smith of New Hampshire, Hutchinson, Fitzgerald, and Allen. Earlier this year we delivered to the American people long overdue tax relief. Unfortunately, we did not have the ability to give married couples the relief from the marriage penalty as soon as we would have liked. My bill will complete this unfinished business by treating married couples fairly in the tax code beginning next year. Particularly now, as the President and Congress consider additional tax relief to bolster the economy in these difficult times, this legislation would be a smart option. At times like this, what better way to help our Nation than by strengthening the building blocks of society, our families, by adding to their budgets through marriage penalty relief. Every year for the past four years I introduced a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax as I simply could not understand why two single people should be thrown into a higher tax bracket and pay more in taxes simply because they got married. Not because of a promotion, not because of a raise, but because they got married! This year, we finally told all Americans that they do not have to choose between love and money, that they should not be penalized for exchanging wedding vows. I am proud to say that in this year's tax relief plan we corrected this quirk in the tax code. We returned to the commonsense principles that made this country great, and away from the concept that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' The marriage penalty relief that was passed earlier this year will offer critical relief to our married couples, but unfortunately it will not take place immediately. I want to improve this timing because when the situation is as ridiculous as the marriage penalty, that is wrong. There are more than 20 million married couples in America today that pay a penalty just because they got married, a penalty that averages around $1,400. That is a lot of money! Especially when you are just starting out, $1,400 to a young couple could be part of the down payment on the new house or the new car for the expenses associated with having children. However, they choose to spend that money, or for whatever expenses they need it for, we want them to be able to make their own choices with the money they earn. And we want them to have the ability to do so now, not several years from now. What the bill does that I am introducing today is that it takes the relief we finally offered in the tax plan and makes it effective immediately for the 15 percent bracket and the standard deduction. Today, if you take the standard deduction when you do your taxes as an individual, you do not get the same amount of deduction if you get married. That is, the standard deduction does not simply double for couples. Whereas today the standard deduction for a single person is $4,550, and for a married couple is $7,600, our tax relief bill insisted that married couples receive a standard deduction that is exactly double that of the single person, or $9,100. Under my bill today, this doubling of the standard deduction will occur immediately. In addition, we addressed the fact that when most couples marry, the second income bumps them up to a higher tax bracket. Therefore, we decided to widen every tax bracket so that a married couple will not have to pay more in income taxes simply because they go into a higher bracket when they combined incomes. In this way, a combined income will be taxed at the same rate as if it was a single person making two incomes. For example, if each individual in a relationship is in the 15-percent income tax bracket but they get married and their combined incomes now bump them into the 30-percent bracket, our tax relief means that they will effectively remain in the 15 percent bracket. This is critically important, especially to those who are at the lower income rates and for whom jumping from the 15 percent bracket to the next one could make all the difference in their budget. Our earlier legislation widens the 15-percent bracket by $9,000 for married couples. My bill today will accelerate this relief by making this change now, thereby eliminating the marriage penalty for those couples who are in the 15 percent bracket. Earlier this year a bipartisan majority agreed that it is very important that we relieve the pressure on the more than 20 million American couples who pay the marriage penalty tax. We all agreed then that this is wrong, and must be changed. Today, we have the chance to put our money where our mouth is and offer help to struggling couples now. I call upon my colleagues to join in this effort to provide this immediate assistance to the working families of America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Mike Mansfield, not from the standpoint of the eloquent eulogy given by the Senator from Montana, who knew Mike Mansfield so well, or the majority leader, who knew him and served with him. I didn't serve with Mike Mansfield, but I did have a wonderful relationship with him in a very different way. The first time I ever saw the stature of Mike Mansfield was through his picture that is in the Mansfield Room. For anyone who has been in the Mansfield Room, which is one of the major meeting rooms in the Capitol, the picture of Mike Mansfield says so much about him because it is a very long, narrow picture with Mike Mansfield standing there alone, nothing behind him, just that solitary figure that is so very powerful. That is exactly the kind of man I came to know. I go to the Senate prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning, where Senators and former Senators meet to talk about our feelings about religion. We have Jewish members. We have Catholic members. We have Protestant members. We have even had a member come and talk about agnosticism. It is something we all keep very personal and private. It has been one of the highlights of my service in the Senate to meet every Wednesday morning and talk about religion and the importance of religion in our lives and in the life of our Nation. The special place Mike Mansfield held was in the Senate prayer breakfast. He was coming to the Senate prayer breakfast all the way up until he died. He never missed a week except in the unusual circumstance when Maureen had taken a turn for the worse or immediately following Maureen's death, and then only when he was sick. And I would call him if he missed one or two times and I was concerned about him. I would find there was a reason, but he was going to be OK. Getting to know him was wonderful. It was kind of interesting because no one has assigned seats and it is a small room. Probably 30 of us come in any 1 week. But there are no assigned seats. You just take the seat that is empty--except for Mike Mansfield's seat. He did have a regular seat. No one would sit in Mike Mansfield's seat unless it was clear that he wasn't coming. He was always there on time. So if we started and he wasn't there, someone might sit in his seat, but never before because we revered having him there. He was such a wonderful presence, and his countenance was always so positive. I had the opportunity to talk to him because I generally sat next to him. I started getting to know him when I joked with him. Here was Mike Mansfield when he was 95, 96, 97, and he had a breakfast that was eggs, bacon, biscuits, and if they had gravy, it would have been on there, too. Do you know what. I have to sit by a guy who still eats like a guy because so many people are now into rabbit food, as we call it. This was a guy who still ate like a guy. It gave me great hope that someone who was 97 years old was eating like that. And so we started a friendship that has lasted throughout my 8 years in the Senate. I talked to Mike Mansfield about Japan. As many people know, he was our wonderful Ambassador to Japan immediately--not immediately following his Senate leadership position, but he was appointed by a Democrat, as well as a Republican President, because he was so effective in Japan and he understood that part of the world so well. I would talk to him about the economic situation in Japan. As things would look bad, I would ask him about it. He always had absolutely great insights. I remember a time when Mike Mansfield was telling me that he worked for Goldman Sachs. He worked for Goldman Sachs all the way up until he died. I said: ``Well, tell me what you do.'' He said: ``I advise them on the Far East and Japan.'' That is very important for the economy, of course, and for them. I said: ``When did you start working for them?'' He said: ``Actually, they started calling me, and I thought there must be a mistake, so I didn't return their calls.'' This was years ago. So he said: ``They kept calling,'' and I said, ``I'm 88 years old; are you really serious about wanting me to go to work for you?'' He said only after they said: ``We know how old you are; we think you have very valuable advice.'' So he agreed to go to work for Goldman Sachs and worked for them up until he died at the age of 98. He was so pleased that he could still be helpful. We all knew that his mind never left him. He was so precise and up on issues that it would astound anyone. He read the London Economist and the newspapers in Japan. He was very up to date. I talked to Mike Mansfield once about Maureen, and I told him that I knew of the great love story; it is legendary around here, how committed he was to Maureen. She was bedridden for a long time. He would go to see her regularly. He kept her in their apartment until he just could not take care of her, and then he would visit her daily when she was being taken care of in another place. I asked him about her, and he never forgot that it was Maureen who made him what he was. That is what he said. Just as Senator Baucus related earlier, it was Maureen who saw this miner and saw that he could be something more than a miner. So she encouraged him to get his high school education and then his college education. She saw in him someone who could make a great contribution, and he never forgot that, no matter how high he went. He went to the very highest level as the distinguished majority leader and then as Ambassador to Japan. He never forgot that it was Maureen who made him what he was, and his love for her was so touching and so poignant. I enjoyed having that conversation with him. So my experience with Mike Mansfield was not during his active service, as it was with so many of my colleagues here. My experience with him was in a different way, but it was so rewarding. He would bring me clips from foreign newspapers that he thought would be of interest to me. So I thought he was a great man in a different time of his life. It shows how much you can contribute if you stay active and keep on top of world affairs, and that is what Mike Mansfield did. It was hard to believe that he was 96, 97, 98 years old if you were around him because he was so absolutely vivacious and clear. He wasn't a talkative person, as has been mentioned. He was the strong, silent type--the epitome of what you would think of as the Marlboro Man who didn't feel as if he had to talk a lot. But certainly when he did speak, he had a lot to say, and it was clear and focused; there was no excess. But you knew it was the wisdom of all those years coming through. I pay tribute to Mike Mansfield as a man who was a symbol of decency and humility in the Senate and throughout his public service career. Honesty and integrity will always be words that will be associated with this great man. We have lost a friend and one of the great Members of the Senate. I know that Republicans and Democrats will feel this loss for a long time to come. I know his words and the speeches that were read by the majority leader will be here for us to remember a great leader and give us guidance as we go through the trying times we are facing in our country today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ray Ivie of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor today and throughout consideration of S. 1447.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from Wyoming, who has also been working on this issue, coming forward. I see the Senator from Montana in the Chamber; he is a very important part of the negotiations on this issue. The bottom line is, we want to go to the bill. The American people expect us to pass a bill to securitize the airplanes and the airports in this country. What is holding us up is people who want to offer extraneous amendments. Some of them I agree with; some of them I do not. But the point is, we cannot put every amendment, on any different subject, on the security bill and pass it. We have legitimate disagreements on how to best securitize our aviation system. Let us go to the bill and start talking about those differences because I think we can work them out. I believe we are 90 percent there. There are a few things on which we are going to continue to negotiate, but we need to be on the bill. We cannot go to the bill if we are worried about having extraneous amendments, whether it is on employee problems and benefits or whether it is on Amtrak security--all of which I think are very legitimate issues. I want to add security to Amtrak, as long as we add security for the entire system and not just one part of the system. But the bottom line is, we have an aviation security package that is a very good first step forward, where we would put sky marshals in the air, where we would secure the cockpit, where we would have better trained and equipped screeners, where we would have better equipment. All of these things must be done. And we can do it this week if we can get to the bill. I urge my colleagues not to have process drag us down. The Senate has a bill before it that is good, solid legislation. We are working with Democrats and Republicans and with the administration to make sure we do what we do well, correctly, and give the flying public the confidence that when they get on an airplane, they are going to be safe. If we can do that, it will be the beginning of rebuilding our economy. If we can secure the airlines so people will come back and fly, then more of those people who have been laid off by the airline industry will be called back to work. The travel industry will be uplifted. We will have people staying in hotels. We will have people renting cars, employed in the airports, and in the shops. These are the things that will stimulate our economy. We are talking about a stimulus package, which I hope we will look at next week. That is very important. We can stimulate the economy with an aviation security package. We can put people back to work in the aviation industry and stop the domino effect to our economy caused by layoffs in the airline industry because people are not coming back to fly. I appreciate the cooperation we are getting. Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, Senator McCain, and I have worked well together to try to get a consensus. We are very close. If we can go to the bill and if people will agree not to offer amendments that delay the ability for us to consider relevant amendments, we can work it out this week and send something to the House and hopefully go to the President and do the very important part of the stimulus package, and that is to beef up the aviation industry. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I certainly thank my colleague from Montana, who has been a very important part of the aviation subcommittee, working to put something together that all of us will be able to support.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize with pleasure Texas A&M University on its 125th anniversary. Texas A&M, one of our Nation's finest institutions of higher education, was opened on October 4, 1876 as the Agriculture and Mechanical College of Texas. From its roots of agriculture and engineering, A&M has grown into a world class university that is a leader in university research and development. It also offers an amazing 383 degree-granting programs. Although the university is justifiably proud of its academic reputation, A&M is especially proud of its famous Corps of Cadets. For 125 years, A&M's Corps of Cadets have provided our State and country with leaders in the military, government and business. Texas A&M has the largest cadet corps outside the U.S. military academies and commissions more officers in all four branches of service than any other university military program. Former cadets have served in every military conflict, from the Indian Wars to Desert Storm. During World War II, 54,000 Aggies served as officers, more than any other school, including the service academies. They have always answered our Nation's call, and they have always met the challenge. Although only a small percentage of Texas A&M's student population, members of the Corps of Cadets are the keepers of the many famous traditions at A&M that contribute to the unique culture and spirit that is ``Aggieland.'' Today, former cadets serve in leadership and frontline forces throughout our military services and will help lead our Nation to success in this 21st century war against terrorism. Although the military has seen technology move from horse and rifle to spacecraft and lasers, the foundations of our military, leadership and teamwork, remain the same. These traits are the bedrock of the Corps and of Texas A&M University and explain the success of the University and its graduates. During this most difficult time in our Nation's history, we are all learning the value and strength of A&M's Corps of Cadets motto, Per Unitatem Vis--Through Unity, Strength. On behalf of my colleagues in the United States Senate, and with just and lasting pride, I offer heartfelt appreciation and respect to all the current and former members of the illustrious Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets. I also wish all Aggies around the world a Happy 125th Anniversary.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are trying to move to the bill that will upgrade aviation security in our country. I hope we can work out an agreement that will allow us to start debating the aviation security bill. What we are all trying to do is get a bill that is just on aviation security. There are a lot of other issues people want to bring up that are quite legitimate issues, but I do not think we should put them on a bill dealing with aviation security because this issue is the one we need to address right now. It is a separate issue, and it should be kept separate. If we can assure the flying public that everything that can be done is being done to upgrade aviation security, that will mitigate the damage we are seeing to our economy as a result of a smaller number of flights and smaller number of people traveling. We want to bring back the aviation industry. We want people to go on vacations, to travel for business, just as they did before September 11. We want people to stay in the hotels and rent the cars so the economy does not experience a domino effect from airlines not flying and people being afraid to get on with their daily lives. We understand why people are concerned. I have been flying every weekend since September 11. I know their concerns. We need to address the security issue so people will know they can fly and this, in effect, will begin to rebuild our economy. What we are trying to put forward in a bipartisan bill is sky marshals so that we can begin the recruitment and training to beef up the Sky Marshal Program. We want to make our cockpits more secure. We want to make sure our pilots are protected and they are able to give their full attention to flying the airplane. We are trying to upgrade the screening of carry-on baggage. We have only had 3 weeks to determine the changes that need to be made. I know the administration and Members of Congress are looking at all options for closing the loopholes in aviation security, but we can take some major steps forward, even as we are studying other ways in which we can do better, by upgrading the training and the education requirements for the screeners, to make sure they have enough training to recognize an illegal item. We want to make sure there is armed supervision of those screeners, Federal marshals. Right now we have Guardsmen from the States and we have detailees from other agencies that are overseeing screeners in many airports. We want to make that more permanent so that people will know it is not business as usual at the airports and that is why it is safer to fly. I hope we will be able to move to this bill today. It is important that we finish the bill this week. We will have differences on some of the details of the bill. We can have amendments and up-or-down votes. If you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. The basic agreement we have on the key components of the bill is solid and bipartisan, and the components are also, I believe, agreed to by the administration. There are a couple of sticking points. We need to work those out, but we do not need to hold the bill up to work out the differences. We need to go to the bill. If we can get an aviation security bill passed in the Senate, send it to the House, and send it to the President, the American people will begin to see that there is a heightened awareness of the need for security, and they will see the beginning of the implementation of the plans to do more at our airports. I want to thank all of those who are working on it, Senator McCain and I on our side, Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller on the Democratic side. We are working very well together. We had a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation, talking about the areas where we agree, which is 90 percent of the bill we would have before us. I think we need to go to the bill. Let Congress work its will. Other Members have some very good ideas. We need to start talking about them. I do not think we should waste this valuable time. The President has said, and Congress has agreed, there are certain things we must do quickly. We certainly took quick action for trying to shore up and stabilize the airlines. We have done that. We now need to give our law enforcement agencies the ability to gather intelligence. Our FBI is doing an incredible job of finding all of the tentacles of these terrorist cells, but we need to give them the tools they need to continue that investigation and to find out where these people are in our country or in other countries that would affect our own security. We need to act quickly on that antiterrorism bill. We need to act quickly on the aviation security bill. These are the priorities the President has set, and we need to go forward and address those. We are wasting time by not going to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to work out the differences. Do not require us to have extraneous amendments. Let us get on the bill. Let us have amendments that are germane to the bill and go forward in the way we have always done, having our votes, getting the final passage. Let us do the important business that will increase our capability to keep our country going, to keep our economy strong, to keep our people safe. That is our responsibility, and that is what we should be doing right now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. It has been cleared.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I move to reconsider that vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to clarify that my amendment was added to the managers' amendment and the managers' amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be added to the managers' amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, too, thank the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee. Senator Feinstein and I have a long-time friendship. We have been able to work in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of our military, and I appreciate so much the working relationship we have. Congress addresses the needs of our military in two separate appropriations bills: Defense and military construction. The bill we will pass today is military construction. I could not fail to begin without saying none of us anticipated that in September of 2001 our country would be in a war on terrorism, a war that we did not expect but which we are committed to win. We are reminded once again, as we have been in every century of our country's existence, that freedom is not free. As our forefathers and mothers did before us, we will make all the sacrifices required to protect the freedom they delivered to us, and we will pass the torch to our children. America will remain the strongest nation in the history of the world. I am pleased to recommend the military construction bill to the Senate. We have sought a balanced bill that addresses military construction requirements for readiness, family housing, barracks, and quality of life for the Active and Reserve components. I would like to make a couple of comments about overseas military construction. We took a close look at the overseas construction priorities of the Department of Defense to ensure the projects are consistent with the long-range policies and plans of the Department of Defense. There are a few areas that are troubling that I want to bring to everyone's attention. The United States maintains over 74 installations outside the United States. These installations subsume funding that in some cases could have been better used to maintain or improve our critical domestic base infrastructure and training capabilities. It is important that we continue to closely monitor the overseas funding plans of the Department of Defense. In the fiscal year 2002 military construction bill, we did not fund three of the overseas projects in the budget submission that either could not be executed next year or are not mission essential. In a resource-constrained environment, these are the types of projects I cannot support. During conference, I expect to continue to closely scrutinize overseas construction. I also note that this bill includes $192 million for military construction in Korea. United States forces have now served in Korea for over 50 years. The funding in this bill represents a continuing American commitment to our Korean allies. I hope that in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America, our Korean allies will demonstrate a similar commitment as our Nation responds to that attack. Finally, our close scrutiny and review of the overseas funding priorities will obviously continue next year based on the results of the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as any necessary future military construction resulting from the attack on America on September 11, 2001. This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the overseas basing requirements as a result of the Quadrennial Defense Review to the Congress no later than April 1, 2002. All the Members of Congress who have visited the men and women of the Armed Forces at our domestic and overseas installations are aware of the critical shortfalls in our defense infrastructure. This bill begins to address those shortfalls. It improves our national security infrastructure and our ability to support the needs of our military families. This is especially vital at this important time as America comes together to fight terrorism. We will ask more of the men and women of our Armed Forces, and we cannot ask them at the same time to live, train, and deploy from installations that cannot support their readiness and requirements. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Our civilian and military leaders and our warriors must go to battle knowing the Senate is committed to ensuring that our defense and military infrastructure requirements are met. America is united in our cause, and Congress will provide the support to win. Again, I thank Senator Feinstein for working in such a great bipartisan way to fund the requirements for military construction. I also thank her staff, Tina Evans, and B.G. Wright, for working with my staff. I want to especially point out the extraordinary experience and knowledge of Sid Ashworth, who has been on the Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Construction and who, with all due respect, probably knows more than all of us put together. I thank her for her help in getting this bill done, with able help from my staff, Michael Ralsky. As I yield the floor, I am thankful for the resolve of our country and the unity we are showing in the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that John Kem, an Appropriations Committee detailee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the military construction appropriations bill and conference report.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Bunning amendment because I don't think we are ready to make the decisions about which bases we are going to need. We didn't know before September 11 exactly what our troop strength was going to be in the future because we didn't have the reviews in place yet from the new administration. Today we know even less about the troop strength, and we certainly need to know how many we are going to have in our component organizations--the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--before we make the decision on which bases we will need for the future. Also we need to know how we are going to do our training. What is the best place to do the training? I have visited bases overseas where we have training facilities, but we have limited airspace in some of those. We have limited missile range in some of those places. Is it better to do the training there or is it better perhaps to do it at a U.S. base where we have better facilities and more control over the airspace and the ground space? I don't know the answer to those questions. I know we should have the answer before we make a decision on whether we start closing bases. I have seen us do two things in previous base closings. I have seen us close bases that we then needed in the future. The Air Force has said that we should have kept some of the training bases in the United States opened, but they were already closed. It was too late to do anything about it. Secondly, I have not seen us estimate anywhere close to the true cost of closing a base. If I could get real numbers that showed that closing a base really saves money, I would consider having another round of base closings. But until we know what the environmental cleanup is, what the hazards are in each of these bases and what it is going to cost for that cleanup to put it in order for the base to either be sold or given back to the community, depending on what the arrangement is, there is no way I would support a base-closing commission. I think we are spending more closing these bases than we have keeping them open. I am the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee. We have $150 million in that bill that is going to come to the floor in the next few weeks, $150 million for environmental cleanup that was not anticipated in base closings. That is not the way we ought to do business. I don't think we ought to say that environmental cleanup is going to be $15 million and then all of a sudden have a bill for $150 million and say that is an efficient use of our assets. We have not done our homework yet. I am not saying I am never going to be for a base closing. I will be for a base closing, if I see what our troop strength is projected to be for the next 25 years or even 10 years, if I see that training is going to be done either in America or overseas, but we have studied where that training ought to be. In fact, I would support a study that would prepare us for a base-closing round. But I will not support another round of base closings until we have done our homework, until we have a study, until we know how this new war that we have just determined we must wage for the freedom of our country is going to be waged and how long it is going to take and where the bases might be needed. We probably will have more overseas bases. But are they going to be in the same places that they are now? Maybe not. Maybe we will have to build new bases in other sites. So I don't think we ought to be talking about closing things until we know what we are going to need in the future. I am not against base closings; I am just against doing it too soon, because I think we are throwing good money after bad if we don't have our ducks in a row and know exactly what our needs will be from the military construction standpoint. On the Military Construction Subcommittee, I did not like having to spend money on environmental cleanup, when I would have liked to have spent that money building better housing for our people, building more facilities to do the job that we know we must do. Yet we are still cleaning up bases that were closed 10 years ago. I don't think that is the way we ought to operate. We ought to operate with good business sense. We ought to decide what our troop strength is going to be, where we can best do the training, what our needs are going to be with this new war that we now know we must fight--and we know it is going to be tough. We are going to support the President and give him the resources he needs to make sure we win because freedom is at stake. The idea that we would have a premature round of base closings is a bad idea whose time has not come. So I appreciate the work of everyone here. I know we have legitimate disagreements on this issue. But I am going to support the Bunning amendment. I hope we can set it aside for this year. I have an amendment, which I have already offered, which I hope we can consider. It does have a study that would ask just the questions I have asked tonight. If we can answer those questions, then we can have base closings based on what we are going to need in the future, based on facts, based on studies, and knowing exactly what we are going to do before we take these steps. Most of all, we will know what the costs are going to be and how much could be saved and how much must be spent for those savings. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and I hope we can pass the Bunning amendment. I also hope we can pass the Hutchison amendment that will provide studies for the future, and that we can do this in the right way and in a thoughtful way, in a way that will make sure we do right by our men and women in the services and protect them wherever they may be in the world. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, my time is taken. I apologize, but my time is taken.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am going to finish our 30 minutes of time by saying this is not a perfect bill. There are areas we have not addressed but that we will address in the future. Since September 11, 2001, a lot of things have been thrown at us, and we are going to handle every one of them as they come. We will keep the airlines flying. We will try to minimize the damage to the economy of layoffs from the airline industry and all the other people who are laid off from their jobs. We will take it one step at a time. Senator Rockefeller and I have worked hand-in-hand on this issue and on the security issue that we will have on the floor next week or the week after, because security is what will make the flying public feel safe in our skies. So we are going to address this issue and keep the airlines financially secure in the interim period while we are getting that security bill passed so America will not be in any way hampered in our freedom and our ability to have commerce and business as usual in our country. That is what we are all trying to accomplish. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the Air Transportation System Stabilization Act is the effort of the U.S. Congress, working with the President, to shore up the aviation industry in our country. Already we have seen announced almost 100,000 layoffs in the aviation industry in our country. That will have a rippling effect throughout the economy. What we are doing today is trying to stabilize this industry to keep it on its feet in very tough times so we can minimize the layoffs. Hopefully, they will not be as bad as the airlines announced they will be and we can get this country back on track so our economy will stay strong. What this bill does is have $5 billion in immediate assistance to the carriers based on their actual losses for the grounded airplane time they have had. As we know, there is still one airport that does not have service. We still have airlines losing business because of the September 11 tragedy that was not any fault of theirs. We have in addition $10 billion of loan guarantees subject to terms and conditions set by the President. There will be a board created to review and decide on the applications for these Federal credit instruments. The board will be the Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Comptroller General. These loans will be based on sound, solid, hopefully, financial integrity. We are also going to put limits on executive compensation of any carrier that gets a part of this airline cash assistance package. We also have provisions for the Secretary of Transportation to provide help for airlines that are the only airline serving a community, and if the airline wants to pull out, we are going to try to encourage that airline to stay in the community. We are dealing with the liability issues, trying to take from the airlines any liability beyond what their insurers will carry. We also have liability provisions for the war risk insurance for all other industries that might be affected in the future with an act of terrorism that is beyond their control so that they will not be liable beyond their means and be put out of business. These are the basic parts of this legislation that we are hoping to pass tonight and send to the President. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes from my time to the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, following the Senator from New York, to yield time to the Senator from Alabama, who has been waiting for 5 hours.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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