Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the report of the national commission for the review of the National Reconnaissance Office and the report of the Independent Commission on the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 at 10:00 a.m., in SD226.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 to hear testimony on Medicare and Managed Care: Finding Successful Solutions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 3 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an overnight hearing. The committee will consider national energy policy with respect to impediments to development of domestic oil and natural gas components.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I had 15 minutes, and it is my intention to yield the remainder to Senator Frist.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today on the resolution itself. I am very proud of the budget resolution that has been produced. I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership in making sure we address all the needs of our country in the most responsible way. I want to address the basics of this resolution: debt reduction, tax relief, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and increasing spending in our priority areas. Every household and every business in America increases spending in some areas and decreases spending in some areas because you set your priorities and you decide what you want to spend more money for and what you care less about and would not increase for the following year. That is what has been done in this budget resolution. First, let's talk about debt reduction. This budget resolution provides for the largest and fastest debt reduction in the history of our country. We will pay off $2.3 trillion of our $3.2 trillion in publicly held debt over the next 10 years. Not only is this an aggressive schedule, but it is the maximum debt reduction possible unless we want to pay a penalty, which would not make economic sense. So without penalties, we are paying down this debt to the maximum extent possible. Under this budget resolution, the Government's publicly held debt will decline from 35 percent of the gross domestic product to 7 percent in 2011, the lowest level in 80 years. By comparison, the publicly held debt was 80 percent of the gross domestic product in 1950, following World War II; it was 42 percent of gross domestic product in 1990, following the cold war; and by 2011, under this budget track, it will be 7 percent. That is a healthy debt ratio and most certainly a healthy reduction. Tax relief. We are going to have $5.6 trillion in surplus over the next 10 years. We are proposing to divide that right down the middle and set aside all of the Social Security and Medicare surplus so that those items will only be spent for those two very important programs. But of the other half, which is the income tax withholding surplus, which means that people are sending $2.5 trillion more to Washington than we need to fund the current programs, we want to return $1.6 trillion, leaving approximately $1 trillion for added spending because we are going to add spending in our priority areas. The overall budget increase is 4 percent. There will be more in some areas such as public education--11.5 percent--and there will be less in some areas. There will be dead even expenditures 1 year to the next in some areas. In some cases, projects have already been finished and they do not need more funding. So we are taking the responsible approach of saying $1.6 trillion goes back into the pocketbooks of the people who earned it. What is going to happen with that $1.6 trillion? That money will go back into the economy, either through spending, savings, or investment, all of which is better than having it sit in Washington doing nothing for the economy. In fact, some economists say it is a drag on our economy to have this big a surplus sitting in Washington, doing nothing. It is better to be in the pocketbooks of the people who earned it so it will go back into the economy and create the jobs and the prosperity that will keep the economy strong. We are talking about a $5.6 trillion tax relief package. But Senator Domenici, to his great credit, came up with the idea that we are watching the economy stagnate right now. So why don't we take $60 billion, which is the surplus we have available right now, and give it back to the people right now. So $60 billion is set aside. The Democrats and the Republicans have agreed on that figure. Senator Conrad has agreed on the $60 billion figure. That is in the budget we will pass today. How that $60 billion is returned to taxpayers I do not know. We will talk about that later. We will hammer it out. But now that we have the number in the budget, the people of our country will know they are going to get some relief immediately. No. 3, protecting Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure that Social Security is secure. That is our No. 1 priority. That is exactly what we do in this budget resolution. The Social Security surplus will be used for Social Security, and it will also reduce the debt because we have the surplus that is there for Social Security. The same is true for Medicare. The budget resolution ensures that every dime of Medicare Part A will be used for Medicare, for paying down the debt. It also provides--and this is important; Senator Gramm was talking about this before I spoke--$153 billion over the next 10 years will go for prescription drug benefits and options in Medicare because all of us know that people are having a harder time paying for their prescription drugs. Prescription drugs have taken the place of surgery. They have taken the place of hospital stays. They have lessened the cost of health care in general. But the drugs are expensive so we need to accommodate that added expense as we are reforming Medicare. This budget provides the means to do that. So what is left? Our funding priorities. We are increasing our priority areas 11.5 percent for education. That is our No. 1 priority area and it is the biggest expenditure in the budget. A 4-percent overall annual increase is going to be higher than the rate of inflation. So I think that is quite responsible. In addition, we are going to double the spending at the National Institutes of Health for the research so we can, hopefully, find the cure for breast cancer and colon cancer and all of the diseases, heart disease--we are pouring the money into the research because we want to try to cure these diseases. We have treatments for these diseases but in many instances we don't have the cure. That is what doubling the NIH budget does. We are going to increase national defense spending. That is our first responsibility. Curing Social Security and providing for the national defense is our first-line responsibility. We are going to make sure that the men and women who give their lives to protect our freedom will have the support they need to do the job. We are going to give them higher pay. We are going to give them education benefits. We are going to give them health care benefits, and we are going to give them better health. We owe them that. They are doing a job for our country that no one else can do. We are going to have the next generation of technology so that we keep our superiority in national security; so that we keep the air superiority we have seen just in the last year absolutely perform in the way we had hoped it would. We are going to keep the superiority of our defenses because we know that the best defense is a good defense. We know that peace will come through strength. Knowing that we have the best is the best deterrent that we can have for any country that might choose to fool around with America. I am proud of this budget resolution. I am proud of the President of the United States. There is a new era in Washington. I hope we can keep the promises we made to the American people and pass a responsible budget resolution with responsible spending and responsible tax relief for every hard- working American. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Frist.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for weekly party conferences to meet and the time be counted equally with respect to the budget resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is not my intention. My intention is to take time off the resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Off the resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator intends to take 10 more minutes; is that correct? May I ask, then, that following the Senator from Florida, I be able to speak for 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to clarify that the $100,000 threshold is not on State and local candidate committees but on State and local PACs.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I spoke about this amendment last week that I had introduced to try to correct an inequity in the law we passed last year that required State and local candidates to file with the IRS as a 527 political organization. I think the purpose of this was not to affect State and local candidates who have no involvement in a Federal election. I think we did intend to include any PAC that might have an influence on a Federal election. I worked with Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and others who were interested in trying to fix this problem. But I did give the commitment that we would not allow the bill to be blue-slipped in the House because of this amendment. The fact is, we came to an agreement among all the parties who worked together on the Senate side that would correct the problem. Senator Lieberman, Senator McConnell, Senator Dodd, Senator McCain, and I, all agreed that the language would do the job, but I could not get the commitment from the Ways and Means Committee on the House side not to blue-slip the bill even though I think a blue slip was not warranted. I made the commitment on the floor I would not do anything to jeopardize the bill procedurally with a blue-slip question. This is my question to my colleague from Arizona. I will not pursue the amendment, but I think since everyone has agreed this needs to be fixed and we have the language to fix it, I ask the Senator from Arizona if he would agree to work with me to get this fixed in another bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement and engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator McCain.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Rockefeller, to introduce legislation that will bring real relief to the hundreds of millions of passengers that have been suffering through the dramatic increase in the number of flight delays and cancellations in our passenger aviation system. I know that most of my colleagues are, by necessity, frequent fliers. So you know how bad it is out there and you have heard the statistics. More than twenty-five percent of the scheduled flights last year were delayed or canceled. The length of the average delay has also increased, despite the extra ``fudge time'' built into eighty-three percent of flights by the airlines to compensate for delays they know are going to occur. Not coincidentally, the number of annual air travelers is also rising. Between 1995 and 1999, the number of air travelers increased nearly sixteen percent, from about 582 million to 674 million. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that this number will increase to more than 1 billion by the end of this decade. To meet this increased demand, the number of scheduled flights has also increased. However, there has not been a commensurate increase in the number of new aviation facilities. Only one major airport has opened in the last decade, in Denver, and only a handful of new runways and terminals have been completed to deal with the new demand. Unfortunately, the process for making capital improvements to existing airports is often painfully slow and easily derailed by well-organized groups who use every possible impediment to delay a new runway until it becomes impossibly expensive and difficult to build. Unless we significantly expand the capacity of our aviation system, we will not be able to meet the growing demand for air travel. Air fares will skyrocket and delays will continue to spread across the system. The loss of American productivity, from millions of hours lost while sitting on an airport tarmac, will be incalculable. Fixing the problem will call for more infrastructure and better air traffic control facilities. But we must meet the challenge now so these new runways and terminals can be ready before we have a real crisis on our hands. Until now, most of the focus here in Congress has been on passenger service. The Commerce Committee recently reported a bill, which I cosponsored, to force airlines to live up to their promises to provide improved customer service, especially during delays and cancellations. Passenger service is critical, but the real cause of consumers' frustration is the explosive growth in the number and length of flight delays. This bill gets to the heart of that issue. The bill instructs the Secretary to develop a procedure to ensure that the approval process for runways, terminals and airports is streamlined. Federal, state, regional and local reviews would take place simultaneously, not one after the other. In no way would this mean that environmental laws would be ignored or broken. The bill does not limit the grounds on which a lawsuit may be filed. It simply provides the community with a reasonable time line to get an answer. If that answer is ``no,'' then the community is free to explore other transportation options. The bill also addresses the unfortunate practice of the airlines to overschedule at peak hours. At many airports, these schedules are so densely packed that, even in perfect weather conditions throughout the country, there is no way the airlines could possibly meet them. The result is chronically late flights. The legislation directs the Secretary to study the options to ease congestion at crowded airports. The legislation also grants the airlines a limited antitrust exemption, so that they may consult with one another, subject to the Secretary's approval, to re-schedule flights from the most congested hours to off-peak times. We have all experienced flights that push away from the gate only to languish for hours on the tarmac waiting to take off. The current system logs these flights as on-time departures. This legislation would change the definition of ``on-time departure'' to mean that the flight is airborne within 20 minutes of its scheduled departure time. Our national economic health depends upon the reliability of our aviation system. If we fail to act now, that reliability will be placed in serious jeopardy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire to introduce the Workplace Flexibility Act to give America's families the kinds of choices and options they demand and deserve. When I speak with hourly wage workers in my home state of Texas, and I ask them how they are coping with the growing and competing demands of work and family, I hear many different answers. I hear stories of parents working days and nights to pay the bills and maybe even get a little bit ahead. Today we introduce legislation to deal with some of the workplace problems of Americans who are paid by the hour. Every day, millions of people in this country must punch a time clock, and they never seem to have enough time they need to get things done, much less the time they would like to have to spend on home and family. Despite the fact that hourly wage earners have the greatest time and money pressures on them, the federal government gives them the least amount of flexibility in scheduling their work week. While salaried, or so-called ``exempt'' workers can bargain with their employers to work additional hours in one week in order to take time off later, hourly or ``non-exempt'' workers do not have that privilege. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits them from benefitting from the additional scheduling options that salaried workers enjoy and that Congress gave to all federal employees back in 1978. It is time to end this inequity in our nation's labor laws. It is time to give all American workers the ability to choose work schedules to fit their own home and family needs. The Workplace Flexibility Act will do just that. The bill restores fairness in workplace scheduling by giving hourly wage earners three new scheduling and overtime options. First, where an employer requires an employee to work overtime, any hours in excess of 40 in a week, the bill would give that employee the option of choosing paid time-and-a-half off in lieu of time and a half pay. So, for example, an employee who works 10 hours of overtime would have earned 15 hours of paid time off for later use. This is called ``comp time.'' Second, for those employees who do not typically work overtime, which, by the way, encompasses over 90 percent of the women who are now paid by the hour, the bill would allow employees to choose to work more than 40 hours in one week in exchange for the same amount of paid time off in another week. This is called ``flex time.'' Finally, the bill will give employees and employers the option of establishing regular two week schedules to allow an employee to work additional hours in week one in order to take paid time off in week two. For example, many federal employees enjoy working 9-hour days and taking every alternate Friday off, with pay, for a total at the end of two weeks of 80 hours. I think it is only right to give private sector workers the flexibility that these federal employees now enjoy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support being given these added options. Three fourths of federal employees say comp time and flextime have given them more time to spend with their families and have improved their morale and even their productivity. President Clinton's own polling firm found recently that the same proportion of Americans, 75 percent, favor expanding these options to all private sector employees. It is easy to understand why. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, both mother and father work outside the home in almost two thirds of American households. Moreover, 75 percent of mothers with school age children are now in the workforce, up dramatically in recent years. While the causes for this are many, including expanded work opportunities for women and a heavy tax burden on working families, the results are clear: fewer hours are spent by mothers and fathers with their children and with each other. This shrinking window of family time is weakening the essential family bond that is the bedrock of our strength as a nation. Not only will our bill make it easier for parents to spend more quality time at home or engaged in personal or community activities, it will do so without a hit to the monthly bottom line. Since comp time and flex time are paid, workers will receive the same amount of money as they would if they did not have these options. The only difference is that this legislation will allow workers the flexibility of taking a day, a week, or even a month off once they have accumulated time in their bank. Let me make one point very clear: the Workplace Flexibility Act expands, but does not replace the existing law requiring overtime pay for overtime work. For those employees required to work overtime, they will always have the option of receiving overtime pay at the standard time-and-a-half rate. This bill simply affords the employee additional options, upon the mutual agreement of the employee and employer. An employer who violates this or any other provision of our labor laws would be subject to severe civil fines and possibly even prison. In fact, this bill heightens those protections by providing for quadruple damages against an employer who violates the law. But rather than foster antagonism between labor and management, these added scheduling options have been proven both in this country and abroad to encourage greater cooperation between employees and their employers. Flexible scheduling has created win-win situations for millions of salaried and federal workers and their employers. For the first time in 50 years, America's blue collar working men and women will be empowered to help determine the course of their work week. And thereby, workers will be given greater control over the most precious asset in their lives and in the lives of their families: time. I urge my colleagues to respond to the growing need for workplace flexibility by supporting the Workplace Flexibility Act.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Rockefeller, to introduce legislation that will bring real relief to the hundreds of millions of passengers that have been suffering through the dramatic increase in the number of flight delays and cancellations in our passenger aviation system. I know that most of my colleagues are, by necessity, frequent fliers. So you know how bad it is out there and you have heard the statistics. More than twenty-five percent of the scheduled flights last year were delayed or canceled. The length of the average delay has also increased, despite the extra ``fudge time'' built into eighty-three percent of flights by the airlines to compensate for delays they know are going to occur. Not coincidentally, the number of annual air travelers is also rising. Between 1995 and 1999, the number of air travelers increased nearly sixteen percent, from about 582 million to 674 million. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that this number will increase to more than 1 billion by the end of this decade. To meet this increased demand, the number of scheduled flights has also increased. However, there has not been a commensurate increase in the number of new aviation facilities. Only one major airport has opened in the last decade, in Denver, and only a handful of new runways and terminals have been completed to deal with the new demand. Unfortunately, the process for making capital improvements to existing airports is often painfully slow and easily derailed by well-organized groups who use every possible impediment to delay a new runway until it becomes impossibly expensive and difficult to build. Unless we significantly expand the capacity of our aviation system, we will not be able to meet the growing demand for air travel. Air fares will skyrocket and delays will continue to spread across the system. The loss of American productivity, from millions of hours lost while sitting on an airport tarmac, will be incalculable. Fixing the problem will call for more infrastructure and better air traffic control facilities. But we must meet the challenge now so these new runways and terminals can be ready before we have a real crisis on our hands. Until now, most of the focus here in Congress has been on passenger service. The Commerce Committee recently reported a bill, which I cosponsored, to force airlines to live up to their promises to provide improved customer service, especially during delays and cancellations. Passenger service is critical, but the real cause of consumers' frustration is the explosive growth in the number and length of flight delays. This bill gets to the heart of that issue. The bill instructs the Secretary to develop a procedure to ensure that the approval process for runways, terminals and airports is streamlined. Federal, state, regional and local reviews would take place simultaneously, not one after the other. In no way would this mean that environmental laws would be ignored or broken. The bill does not limit the grounds on which a lawsuit may be filed. It simply provides the community with a reasonable time line to get an answer. If that answer is ``no,'' then the community is free to explore other transportation options. The bill also addresses the unfortunate practice of the airlines to overschedule at peak hours. At many airports, these schedules are so densely packed that, even in perfect weather conditions throughout the country, there is no way the airlines could possibly meet them. The result is chronically late flights. The legislation directs the Secretary to study the options to ease congestion at crowded airports. The legislation also grants the airlines a limited antitrust exemption, so that they may consult with one another, subject to the Secretary's approval, to re-schedule flights from the most congested hours to off-peak times. We have all experienced flights that push away from the gate only to languish for hours on the tarmac waiting to take off. The current system logs these flights as on-time departures. This legislation would change the definition of ``on-time departure'' to mean that the flight is airborne within 20 minutes of its scheduled departure time. Our national economic health depends upon the reliability of our aviation system. If we fail to act now, that reliability will be placed in serious jeopardy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire to introduce the Workplace Flexibility Act to give America's families the kinds of choices and options they demand and deserve. When I speak with hourly wage workers in my home state of Texas, and I ask them how they are coping with the growing and competing demands of work and family, I hear many different answers. I hear stories of parents working days and nights to pay the bills and maybe even get a little bit ahead. Today we introduce legislation to deal with some of the workplace problems of Americans who are paid by the hour. Every day, millions of people in this country must punch a time clock, and they never seem to have enough time they need to get things done, much less the time they would like to have to spend on home and family. Despite the fact that hourly wage earners have the greatest time and money pressures on them, the federal government gives them the least amount of flexibility in scheduling their work week. While salaried, or so-called ``exempt'' workers can bargain with their employers to work additional hours in one week in order to take time off later, hourly or ``non-exempt'' workers do not have that privilege. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits them from benefitting from the additional scheduling options that salaried workers enjoy and that Congress gave to all federal employees back in 1978. It is time to end this inequity in our nation's labor laws. It is time to give all American workers the ability to choose work schedules to fit their own home and family needs. The Workplace Flexibility Act will do just that. The bill restores fairness in workplace scheduling by giving hourly wage earners three new scheduling and overtime options. First, where an employer requires an employee to work overtime, any hours in excess of 40 in a week, the bill would give that employee the option of choosing paid time-and-a-half off in lieu of time and a half pay. So, for example, an employee who works 10 hours of overtime would have earned 15 hours of paid time off for later use. This is called ``comp time.'' Second, for those employees who do not typically work overtime, which, by the way, encompasses over 90 percent of the women who are now paid by the hour, the bill would allow employees to choose to work more than 40 hours in one week in exchange for the same amount of paid time off in another week. This is called ``flex time.'' Finally, the bill will give employees and employers the option of establishing regular two week schedules to allow an employee to work additional hours in week one in order to take paid time off in week two. For example, many federal employees enjoy working 9-hour days and taking every alternate Friday off, with pay, for a total at the end of two weeks of 80 hours. I think it is only right to give private sector workers the flexibility that these federal employees now enjoy. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support being given these added options. Three fourths of federal employees say comp time and flextime have given them more time to spend with their families and have improved their morale and even their productivity. President Clinton's own polling firm found recently that the same proportion of Americans, 75 percent, favor expanding these options to all private sector employees. It is easy to understand why. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, both mother and father work outside the home in almost two thirds of American households. Moreover, 75 percent of mothers with school age children are now in the workforce, up dramatically in recent years. While the causes for this are many, including expanded work opportunities for women and a heavy tax burden on working families, the results are clear: fewer hours are spent by mothers and fathers with their children and with each other. This shrinking window of family time is weakening the essential family bond that is the bedrock of our strength as a nation. Not only will our bill make it easier for parents to spend more quality time at home or engaged in personal or community activities, it will do so without a hit to the monthly bottom line. Since comp time and flex time are paid, workers will receive the same amount of money as they would if they did not have these options. The only difference is that this legislation will allow workers the flexibility of taking a day, a week, or even a month off once they have accumulated time in their bank. Let me make one point very clear: the Workplace Flexibility Act expands, but does not replace the existing law requiring overtime pay for overtime work. For those employees required to work overtime, they will always have the option of receiving overtime pay at the standard time-and-a-half rate. This bill simply affords the employee additional options, upon the mutual agreement of the employee and employer. An employer who violates this or any other provision of our labor laws would be subject to severe civil fines and possibly even prison. In fact, this bill heightens those protections by providing for quadruple damages against an employer who violates the law. But rather than foster antagonism between labor and management, these added scheduling options have been proven both in this country and abroad to encourage greater cooperation between employees and their employers. Flexible scheduling has created win-win situations for millions of salaried and federal workers and their employers. For the first time in 50 years, America's blue collar working men and women will be empowered to help determine the course of their work week. And thereby, workers will be given greater control over the most precious asset in their lives and in the lives of their families: time. I urge my colleagues to respond to the growing need for workplace flexibility by supporting the Workplace Flexibility Act.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a few moments as if in morning business to talk about the budget and what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is proposing. I was privileged to be in a briefing to learn what the committee is looking at. It was discussed earlier on the floor that the bill is going to come straight out of committee. I am pleased that is going to happen because I would like to have just as much say in the budget as would any Member of the Senate. We will have 30 or 50 hours of debate. We will have plenty of time to discuss our priorities. But with this evenly divided Senate, more and more, all of us are going to have the opportunity on the floor to have our input rather than not have it come to the floor and bog down the process. I am very pleased with what we are hearing. I am very pleased that we are bringing the budget up on an expedited basis because I think we need to move swiftly. Our country is looking at an economic downturn. Many people think it is a recession. I hope it isn't. But, nevertheless, I think action is needed. I think action on behalf of the American people is warranted at this time. I think setting the budget and determining what our priority expenditures are going to be and looking at giving tax relief to American workers at this time is even more important than it was when we first introduced the idea because many of us believe that having this huge budget surplus sitting in Washington, DC, is certainly not good economic policy and it isn't good fiscal policy. It is time for us to make sure the money that is sitting in Washington, DC, in excess of what is needed for the running of our Government be put back in the pocketbooks of the people of this country. I am very pleased we are working on an expedited basis. I am pleased we are going to take up a budget. I am pleased Senator Domenici, the leader of the Budget Committee, is pushing right now, right this minute, for an immediate tax relief plan--something that people will see is going to come. They will know for sure that is going to come, and that it will come, hopefully, on an expedited basis. I am very proud the Budget Committee is moving forward in this fashion. I am so proud of our leadership. I hope we can work with the other side of the aisle so all of us will have equal input in the 30 to 50 hours of debate that we have on the budget resolution so we can establish our priorities; so we can preserve Medicare; so we can have real Medicare reform to include prescription drugs; so we can have the new added expenditures that we know we are going to need to upgrade the quality of life for those serving in our military; and so we can increase spending on public education to make sure every child has a quality public education, which is the foundation for democracy. I think we will have those added expenditures and we will have tax relief for the American people. If we can take up this budget resolution a week from Monday, we will do it on an expedited basis. I am proud of Senator Domenici and the leadership of the Budget Committee. I am proud of our leadership and their working with our President to make sure we have tax relief for hard-working Americans. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, based on the assertions of the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Connecticut and what the Senator from Kentucky has said, that we will be a drawing up a list of amendments early next week, I will withdraw the amendment and rely on the good faith of everyone to work on this amendment to try to relieve the inequity without getting into the bill itself or damaging the bill itself.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could make a parliamentary inquiry, if I withdraw the amendment--I don't know if there has been a unanimous consent that has limited amendments--I just want to make sure I don't lose any ability to consider the amendment. I don't want to be in line and cause one person to hold the bill up. Again, I am not in the game. I am just trying to have this amendment be agreed to. I think it will be.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.