Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was requested to withdraw the amendment so that we might move forward.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I did want to propose it and have the debate. I thought it would actually be acceptable. I think it will be in the end. I am happy to work with the House to assure that there will be no blue slip problem. I think, on the merits, this is not a blue slip issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think that is what happened with the original 527 act. That does happen.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respond by saying, I do appreciate that Senator McCain will work with us. Even though certainly a State and local candidate does not pay taxes on the contributions he or she receives, nevertheless, this should not be a report to the IRS when the reporting is covered--a point with which I think the Senator from Arizona agrees. Secondly, I will say right now that I would like to work with the key people in the House and the key people in the Senate to assure--before we put this amendment on the bill, or the amendment as we can work it out--that it will not be blue-slipped because if this is going to be a game that will be played by someone who is not for the bill, I will not be a part of it. My views on the bill might differ--and do differ--with the Senator from Arizona, and I will vote my conscience on the bill. But I am not playing a game here to try to kill the bill with a blue slip on an amendment. So I will have it cleared before we make a final determination because that is not my purpose. My purpose is to give the relief that I think we probably all agree should be given. I think the House and Senate will unanimously want to do it. We will clear the blue slip issue to everyone's satisfaction before that would go on the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator from Arizona by saying, first of all, I hope he will work with me to try to have the purpose of my amendment added to this bill. If there is a specific problem, I would like to work with the Senator because I do not think the amendment we had last year, that affected the 527 organizations, was intended to affect State and local candidates who do not participate, in any way, in Federal elections. I think it is very clear from the amendment. If it isn't clear, I will certainly try to make it clear in the amendment that it would only apply to a State and local candidate who had reporting requirements and whose reporting requirements were covered under State law. Copying the report and sending it to the IRS is, unfortunately, not what happens when you pass a Federal law that affects State and local candidates. What happens is, you have a form that the IRS approves, which may not be the same as is required in some States. So it is a burdensome, added requirement. Furthermore, it isn't necessary because nothing that they do is participating in the Federal campaigns. The second issue is an important one. It is not my purpose to blue- slip the bill or kill the bill. In fact, if the bill were to be blue- slipped, I would withdraw the amendment. I do not think it is subject to being blue-slipped. In fact, the original amendment last year was offered to the Defense authorization bill. It was brought up at the time that this was a revenue measure and, therefore, was unconstitutional to be put on the Defense bill. In fact, we voted on that point of order, and it was determined that this is not a revenue measure. Senator McCain, along with many of the other cosponsors of the bill today--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--agreed that this was not a revenue measure. In fact, Mr. McCain argued on the floor at the time: This amendment in no way raises any revenue, nor does it change in any way the amount of revenue collected by the Treasury pursuant to the Tax Code. It is simply a clarification in what information must be disclosed by entities seeking to claim status under section 527 of the Tax Code. So I believe it certainly would not be considered a revenue measure and therefore would not be subject to a blue slip that would kill the bill. It is not my intention, with this amendment, to harm the bill itself. It is, though, my intention to try to alleviate this burdensome requirement for State and local candidates who would have to have another layer of reporting. I hope the Senator will work with me to make this acceptable to him because I do not think it will in any way damage the bill and certainly will not damage the reporting that is open to the public because State law would cover all of these candidates in their vote disbursements and contribution reporting requirements. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I made the argument. I hope the amendment will be accepted. I understand we will need to clear it through the Finance Committee and make sure they are also not opposed to it. But I believe if anyone looks at the technical nature of this amendment, they will support it. It would take a terrible burden away from our State legislators and local candidates for mayor or city council. I certainly hope we can do that in an expedited way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment to a bill that was passed last year by the Senate to correct a problem, and it has corrected part of a problem, but it has caused a problem for our State and local candidates all over the country. By way of background, this was a bill that was passed in an effort to close a loophole where some stealth PAC organizations that were making contributions and doing advertising did not have to disclose to whom they were contributing or who was contributing to them. In fact, it is called a 527 organization. Almost all political organizations--party committees, candidate committees--are section 527 organizations. As a 527, they enjoy Federal tax-exempt status and thus do not pay taxes on contributions. While most 527 organizations also file with the Federal Election Commission because they are engaged in express advocacy activities, there are a few organizations, so-called stealth PACs, that did not have to file with the FEC because they are engaged solely in issue advocacy and not in candidate advocacy. These groups generally have been sham organizations. So in an attempt to close the loophole so that the groups' donors would have to be disclosed, we passed a law last summer requiring all 527 organizations to file notification of their status with the IRS and to disclose certain expenditures and contributions. The reason these groups must file with the IRS as opposed to the FEC is the new disclosure requirements are imposed as a condition of their tax-exempt status. Thus, those groups that choose not to file with the IRS could lose their tax-exempt status. While this law was intended to target stealth PACs, it has had the unintended consequence of imposing burdensome and duplicative reporting requirements on State and local campaign committees that are not involved in Federal election activities. State legislators across the country have been furious about these new requirements because, of course, they are taking in contributions, as a candidate would, and they do not want to have to file with the IRS as well as the FEC and their State and local requirements. So the amendment I have introduced is an attempt to fix this, what I think is an inequity that was not intended, by simply saying that if a candidate committee, or any committee, is subject to State or local contribution and expenditure reporting requirements relating to selections, nominations, elections, and appointments to such office, and they report under those requirements, and those reports are public, they would not also have to file with the IRS. It is a simple amendment. It is a technical correction. I think it will help all of our State and local candidates not to have this burdensome duplication. All of their contributions are reported. Their expenditures are reported. There are State laws governing it. I know this wasn't intended by Congress when we passed this amendment to section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. I hope we can fix this so these State and local candidates will not be subject to losing their ability to run their campaign--hopefully without the burdensome overregulation. Many of them don't even have the capability to hire people to make these kinds of extra disclosures, which are not necessary because they are already public. The bottom line is if someone already publicly discloses their contributions and their expenditures under a law of the State, they should not be required to also file with the IRS. That is the summation of the amendment. I wouldn't think there would be an objection to it by either side. I think there wouldn't be an objection by either House of Congress. I submit for the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Legislators, which is a bipartisan organization, asking that this be fixed and stating that it has become an unreasonable burden, one that certainly does not in any way help public disclosure but, in fact, is just a duplication of public disclosure that is already required. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 111 be reported.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague from Ohio have been working very hard on this amendment. I appreciate everything they are trying to do. I have a separate amendment that has been incorporated into this amendment. It has the same purpose, and I hope when everything is worked out, our purpose will succeed. Our purpose is to level the playing field so that one candidate who has millions, if not billions, of dollars to spend on a campaign will not be at such a significant advantage over another candidate who does not have such means as to create an unlevel playing field. In fact, I think it was Senator Durbin who used these numbers: In the 2000 elections, candidates took out personal loans for their campaigns of $194 million for Federal races. In 1998, it was $107 million. In 1996, it was $106 million. That is a lot of strength. We pride ourselves in our country on trying to have a level playing field to keep our democracy balanced. Under our Constitution, it is very clear that we cannot keep people from spending their own money however they wish to spend it. I will not argue that point ever. That is their constitutional right. They have a constitutional right to try to buy the office, but they do not have a constitutional right to resell it. That is what my part of this amendment attempts to prevent, so a candidate can spend his or her own money but there would be a limit on the amount that candidate could go out and raise to pay himself or herself back. My amendment and the amendment of Senator DeWine and Senator Domenici is $250,000. If a big State should have more, certainly I would look at what is reasonable. I want a level playing field. I want people to be able to spend their own money, but they need to know they are doing it because that is what they want to do, not because when they win they will be able to go out and repay themselves, so it is not a risk they have to take. I have put my own money in campaigns in the past and I have taken the hit for it. A lot of people in this body have. It is a risk. It is a risk I was willing to take. It happened to be a risk I lost. Other people have been able to do that. Some have lost, some have won. I never repaid myself the full amount that I loaned. I think we need to have the level playing field. We have a constitutional right to spend our money. No one argues that. I do believe a retired police officer or retired teacher should be able to run for public office on a level playing field and get the variety of support from his or her constituents and have as level a playing field as we can have protecting the rights of the wealthy candidate to spend that money, but limiting what could be paid back. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine who have worked so hard on their amendment. Their amendment includes other ways of leveling the playing field by letting the other candidates have no limits or bigger limits. I think that is fine, too. The point is, everyone would like to see the most level playing field we can find, the most numbers of contributors who care about this candidate being able to get behind someone and have a fair chance of getting the message out. That is what my part of this amendment does. I thank all colleagues for coming together on an amendment, an amendment I hope will work. If for some reason this amendment goes down, I hope my amendment, which I introduced as a bill 2 years ago, I hope it prevails and we will be able to work something out as we go through the 2 weeks of debating this bill that will be fair and that will give everyone a chance to have the support of the biggest number of people and contributors in a person's home State, to have the ability to get a message out that the people can decide if they like or don't like.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I clarify that our amendment takes place in the future. It does not jeopardize someone who based his or her actions on the law as it is today, but for the future, when everyone is on notice this law would then take effect if the amendment passes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will respond by saying the States set their own limit on personal property.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin that I think the fact that we have a 7-year antifraud lookback certainly assures that someone who is planning a bankruptcy and comes in and makes the 2-year move is still going to be very vulnerable. In fact, that was part of the hard-fought compromise. That 7-year antifraud lookback means it doesn't matter what else is in your favor if you have fraudulently tried to come in and, within 5 years or 6 years--which it would be very hard to plan for--declare a bankruptcy; then you can go back 7 years to make sure you catch someone who would defraud the court or the debtors and lenders of another State. Secondly, I think that to take away what has been a State right for 130 years is against the rest of the States rights that are allowed in the exemptions the Federal courts take into account. We don't put a limit on the value of personal property. Someone could have a fabulous art collection and defraud creditors, perhaps, in one State. We haven't taken on that. They could have a great car collection that would not have a cap. The point is, if someone does this in a fraudulent way, we have steps in the bill that can be taken to keep someone from defrauding their lender. We take care of that in the bill. But we have different property values in different States. We have different valuations in personal property, different valuations of cars, and we in this country have acknowledged that, very wisely, for the last 130 years. It is certainly not unusual but, in fact, oftentimes the Federal courts look to the State laws to be the guiding principle. So that is not an argument not to allow States rights to prevail as they have for 130 years in this country. So I hope we will look at the bigger picture and keep States rights intact. We have amply provided for antifraud provisions in the compromise that was forged between the two Houses last year. I hope the Senate will stick with that compromise and keep the integrity of the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Kohl-Feinstein amendment now before the Senate. I do so because it is unwarranted and unwise--it is an intrusion upon well-established State constitutions and laws--and because it throws out the window a carefully crafted compromise reached last year on this issue that virtually guarantees the elimination of any fraud or abuse of State homestead exemptions. I am pleased to be joined in my opposition to this amendment by my colleagues from Kansas and Florida, as well as the managers of the bill, Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Sessions, as well as our leader and assistant leader, Senators Lott and Nickles. Also on our side is the President of the United States who has singled out this issue in the bankruptcy debate and who supports the existing language in the bill. Finally, my colleagues should know that the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Home Builders strongly oppose this amendment. As my colleagues know, this amendment would impose a one-size-fits- all nationwide cap of $125,000 on all State homestead exemptions in bankruptcy. I must confess that I don't think you could, by any stretch of the imagination, say that property values in Wisconsin are the same as those in Florida or New York the same as those in California or Texas the same as those in Kansas. The arbitrary limit runs roughshod over the constitution and laws of at least nine States that have homestead protection above that amount. In my home State of Texas, we don't even mention amount. We go by acreage. It is in the State constitution. It has been there for over 100 years. Other States that have different caps are Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. It would also immediately threaten the homestead exemptions of two other States, Nevada and California, which are right at the $125,000 figure that is in their amendment. It would threaten two States, and it would, frankly, threaten all States because there is no allowance in the amendment for the rate of real estate inflation which we all know has been on the rise in recent years. This is a States rights issue. We have, for over 130 years, allowed the States to set homestead exemptions because, clearly, property values are different in different States. Bankruptcy is a Federal issue. Homestead exemptions have been allowed to be set by the States because we differ in our approach to homesteads and to bankruptcy itself. It is important that we address this issue in a way that allows States to have the ability to keep their constitutions intact. There is no overriding interest for us to run over a State constitution. It is very important that we curb fraud and abuse. That is why this bill contains the airtight antifraud and antiabuse provisions that it does. Under this bill, you must live in a State for at least 2 years before you can even avail yourself of that State's homestead exemption. Moreover, even if you have lived in a State for more than 2 years, you can only protect up to $100,000 in any new equity you obtain in that home within 2 years of filing for bankruptcy. This eliminates the scenario of someone running to a State, buying a home, putting a lot of equity into it, and then filing for bankruptcy. It is important that we look at this issue in the bigger picture of bankruptcy reform. When we took this amendment up last year, it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. The House was diametrically opposed. The House had a State opt-out. That would have been my position, to keep States rights in the homestead exemption as it has been for 130 years. I would like to have had the House position. I lost on the Senate floor. When this bill went to conference, this amendment was hammered out in a very hard-fought conference negotiation. What was hammered out between the two Houses and agreed to by the House and Senate is what we have in the bill today. Senator Sessions and Senator Grassley were two of those who fought hard for the Kohl amendment last year. This year they are saying: Stay with the bill so we can keep the compromise that was forged last year and so we will have a chance to get in place the other bankruptcy reforms that this bill provides. They are doing something that I think has great integrity because they are saying, we have hammered it out now let's stick to the agreement we made. In fact, I urged my colleagues on the House side not to go back to their original position because I thought the Senate would stick with the bill. I think this goes against what we hammered out last year, and the bill was vetoed by President Clinton, so we are back this year. But President Bush, who has the ability to veto the bill again, has specifically said he hopes the provision that is in the bill that would be altered by the Kohl amendment stays in the bill. If we vote for the Kohl amendment, we are now putting the bill in jeopardy once again, and if we don't prevail in conference with what is in the bill today, we could face another delay or, possibly, a veto of the bankruptcy reform bill. So if you are a Senator who favors bankruptcy reform, you should not vote for the Kohl-Feinstein amendment. Instead, you should stick with the bill, stick with the compromise that was forged in a bipartisan way in Congress last year between the House and the Senate, and let's allow States to have the ability to set their own homestead exemptions, except in the case of fraud and abuse and in the case of someone who moves and in 2 years declares bankruptcy. I think the bill provides closure of every loophole that would allow someone to come in, buy a big house, declare bankruptcy, and still have the big house in which to live. The statistics show that the declarations of bankruptcy in the last couple of years have actually gone down. So the purpose of the bankruptcy bill has been alleviated by the fact that people are not declaring as many bankruptcies. What we want to do is provide a fair bill that deals with creditors in a fair way but also requires that people pay their debts, if they possibly can. That is the purpose of the bankruptcy reform bill. Running roughshod over States rights is not a good addition to this bill. And, of course, if we do run roughshod over States rights, I could not possibly support a bill that would violate my State's constitution. It would be unthinkable. So I am urging my colleagues to set this to rest once and for all with the compromise that was hard fought, but forged, last year between the two Houses of Congress, if you believe in real bankruptcy reform. If you do, we should not let this amendment derail the whole bill. If it passes and if it prevails, it will do so. I hope that does not happen. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for talking about taxes because I don't think we can talk about tax relief enough. There is no question but that we have the chance of a lifetime to bring tax relief to every working American and also give increased benefits to earned-income tax credit recipients. It is in everyone's best interest that we do this. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for starting this debate and starting the process of educating everyone about the importance of this tax relief. Let me say that when we talk about the tax relief package, we really are talking about good stewardship of our tax dollars. We have a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. We have a bright red line between the Social Security surplus and income tax withholding surplus. We are taking half of the $5.6 trillion--roughly $3 trillion--that is in Social Security surplus, and we are going to leave it intact in a lockbox so that Social Security will be totally within itself, solid and firm. The other half of the $5.6 trillion--the $2.6 trillion or so--is the income tax withholding surplus. That is very different from people who are paying into Social Security and expect that money to go to Social Security. But people who are sending $2.6 trillion in income taxes above and beyond what government reasonably needs to operate should have some relief. That is money coming right out of the pocket of every American and going to Washington which we know it does not need for legitimate government expenditures. It is our responsibility to be careful how we spend taxpayer dollars. With that $2.6 trillion surplus in income tax withholding, we have a proposal that takes $1.6 trillion and gives it back to the people so they don't even have to send it to Washington. We have $1 trillion remaining. That $1 trillion is going to be for the added expenditures that we know we need in priority areas to do the right thing. So what are the priority areas? We are going to spend more for public education because we know public education is the foundation of our freedom and our democracy. If we allow public education to fail, or not produce, then we are taking away the strength that has been the foundation of our Nation. We are going to spend more on public education. No. 2. We are going to spend more on national defense. Our national security forces have been deteriorating. We do not have a solid plan to upgrade the quality of life for those serving in our military. These are people who are pledging their lives to protect our freedom. We owe them a quality of life that allows them to do their job. We are going to increase their housing quality and health care quality. We are going to increase salaries. We are going to increase education for military children, spouses, and military personnel. All of these will add to the quality of life. We are going to invest in the technological advances that will keep us ahead of any adversary we might have and also make sure that our allies are strong. We are going to increase spending in national defense. No. 3. We must address the prescription drug issue in this country. Ten years ago, you would have to go in the hospital and have surgery for an ailment that today can be treated with prescription drugs. Hospital stays are much shorter. Sometimes it is just an office visit because prescription drugs are so much more effective. They are also more expensive. We need to treat prescription drugs as one of the mainstays of quality health care, just as hospital stays and surgery used to be the avenue for treatment of a major problem. We have to deal with this big expense and this big part of health care that has changed our quality of life in America, but which many people cannot afford or they have to make such tough choices that it just isn't right. People on fixed incomes cannot afford a $400-a-month prescription drug bill. Some people are making other kinds of choices. We are going to have to have more benefits and more options for prescription drug help for people who need it. These are the areas where we want the ability to have added income, to make sure we can do the job we are expected to do. I certainly think $1 trillion should be plenty if we are running the Government efficiently and making sure taxpayer dollars are not being wasted or misused. I think the tax relief plan is much more than tax relief. It is good stewardship of your taxpayer dollars and my taxpayer dollars. It is a balanced approach that pays down the debt, protects Social Security, and adds spending in the priority areas where we must add spending. And it lets people keep more of the money they earn in their own pocketbooks because we believe they can make better decisions for their families than someone in Washington, DC, can do. What is in the marriage penalty relief? What is in the tax bracket lowering? What is in the inheritance tax relief? The biggest part of the tax cut is an across-the-board lowering of each tax bracket, so if you pay in the 15-percent bracket today, you will either pay no taxes at all or you will go to a 10-percent level. The most benefit of this tax relief is at that level. And then you go to a 15-percent bracket, a 25-percent bracket, and a 33-percent bracket. So everyone gets a lowering of their bracket. We believe no one should pay more than 33 percent of their income in Federal taxes. That is a fair tax. It could be lower, but at least that is a fair cap on taxes for any individual. That is the biggest part of the tax cut plan. It will also increase the earned-income tax credit for people who are not paying taxes at all but get a refund because we want them to have the incentive to work rather than be on welfare. This is a good incentive, and it works. In essence, the earned-income tax credit is a rebate of the payroll tax. For people who do not pay income taxes but they do pay payroll taxes, they are going to get a bigger rebate. So that is the big part. The next part of this tax relief plan is relief from the marriage penalty tax. Why on Earth should two single people, earning the incomes they earn, who get married, be thrown into a higher bracket and pay more in taxes just because they got married--not because they got a pay raise but because they got married? That is wrong. It is a wrong incentive in this country, and it was never meant to be that way. This was a quirk in the Tax Code, and we must fix it. You should not have to pay a marriage penalty. Today--and this is in my legislation I have introduced--if you take the standard deduction, you do not get the standard deduction if you get married. You do not get it doubled. In fact, the standard deduction is $4,550 for a single person. For a married couple, it is $7,600. Under my bill, the standard deduction for married couples will increase by $1,500 to $9,100, which is double the single standard deduction. So if you do not itemize and you take the standard deduction, we want you to have double the single rate when you get married. Secondly, we want to widen every bracket so you will not have to pay more in income taxes because you go into a higher bracket just because you combined incomes. We want to widen the brackets so your combined income will be taxed at the same rate as if you were single making two incomes that added up to that. So we are going to try to widen the brackets. And third, on the earned-income tax credit, we will increase the adjustment on the income levels and make the earned-income tax credit also come in at the same level as if they were two single people rather than penalizing people who get the earned-income tax credit when they get married. It is very important that we relieve the pressure on 21 million American couples who pay the marriage penalty tax. This is not right, and we are going to change it. That is another major part of the tax relief bill that will be before us in the coming weeks. The third area is doing away with the death tax. There is no reason for someone to have to sell a family farm, a ranch, or a small business in order to pay taxes to the Federal Government. We must take the lid off the death tax. The people of America understand the death tax as being unfair. Even if they are not going to have to pay the death tax or their heirs will not have to pay the death tax, they still have a fundamental sense of fairness that it is wrong to tax money that has already been taxed when it was earned and when it was invested. There is a sense of fairness in the American people. There is also a sense of hope. Every parent hopes that his or her child is going to do better than they have done. So they want their children to have that opportunity to be able to keep the family business and to do better. And they most certainly do not want a family business to be sold off to pay taxes because they know that not only affects their own families but the jobs of the people who work for a family-owned business. Fifty percent of the family-owned businesses in this country do not make it to the second generation, largely because of the inheritance tax. Eighty percent do not make it into the third generation. Do we want to be a country that does not have family-owned businesses? Do we want everything to be a big international conglomerate? I do not think so. I think we want the family farm to succeed in this country because we know that family farmers are contributing citizens to the community; they are contributing to the agricultural greatness of this country; and they are a stability for our country to make sure that we control our own resources. I do not want a big international conglomerate to take the place of the family farm in this country. And that is what death taxes produce. It is in our interest that we have small family-owned hardware stores. It is in our interest that we have small family-owned service companies that contribute to a community. I hope we will eliminate the death tax, or at least modify it greatly so that any reasonable description of a family-owned business would be covered, so that there will not have to be a sale of assets that would break up that business, that farm, or that ranch. The fourth major area of our tax relief plan is to double the child tax credit. Whether you have child care or not, we believe you should have more than the $500-per-child tax credit because we know how much it costs to raise a family. So we would double that to $1,000 per child. A $1,000-per-child tax credit isn't nearly enough to offset the costs of raising children. We know that. But we do not have children to get tax credits; we have children because we love them and we want them to be strong, to continue the great heritage that we have in this country. But we should give tax relief that is focused on helping families raise their children in as conducive an environment as we can possibly give them. That is our tax relief plan. It is our stewardship of tax dollars to give more money back to the people who earn it, and to pay down the debt at the most rapid rate that we possibly can. Over 10 years we will have paid down the debt to the absolute minimum. And to help people with prescription drug benefits, to rebuild our national defenses, and to make bigger investments in public education, we are saving $1 trillion back from the surplus. And last, and most important, we are keeping Social Security totally intact. That is good stewardship of our tax dollars. I am proud to support a tax relief plan that saves Social Security, and keeps it secure, that adds spending where we need it, and makes absolutely sure that we give back to the people who earn it more of the tax dollars they deserve to keep in their pocketbooks, rather than sending it to Washington for decisions to be made that they will probably never realize. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am not using that full 30 minutes, so if anyone else wishes the floor, they should come down at this time.

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 to commemorate an important point in our history and that is the 165th anniversary of March 2, 1836, commonly known as Texas Independence Day. Each year, I look forward to March 2. This is a special day for Texans, a day that fills our hearts with pride. On March 2, 165 years ago, a solemn convention of 54 men, including my great, great grandfather Charles S. Taylor, met in the small settlement of Washington-on-the-Brazos. There they signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. The declaration stated: We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare . . . that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic. At the time, Texas was a remote territory of Mexico. It was hospitable only to the bravest and most determined of settlers. After declaring our independence, the founding delegates quickly wrote a constitution and organized an interim government for the newborn republic. As was the case when the American Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, our declaration only pointed the way toward a goal. It would exact a price of enormous effort and great sacrifice. My great, great grandfather was there, signing the Texas Declaration of Independence. As most of the delegates did, he went on eventually to fight in the Battle of San Jacinto, and Texas would finally become an independent nation. He didn't know it at the time, but all four of his children who had been left back at home in Nacogdoches died trying to escape from the Mexican troops who they feared were coming after them. This was known as the ``runaway scrape,'' when the women and children in the Nacogdoches Territory fled toward Louisiana because they feared Indians and Mexican troops, and they were trying to go to safety. But the rigors of the trip were very harsh and all four of their children were dead when he returned. Fortunately, he and his wife, my great, great grandmother, had nine more children. But it is just an example of the sacrifices that were made by people who were willing to fight for something they believed in. That, of course, was freedom. While the convention sat in Washington-on-the-Brazos, 6,000 Mexican troops held the Alamo under siege, challenging this newly created republic. Several days earlier, from the Alamo, Col. William Barrett Travis sent his immortal letter to the people of Texas and to all Americans. He knew the Mexican Army was approaching and he knew that he had only a very few men to help defend the San Antonio fortress. Colonel Travis wrote: Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.--William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander. What Texan or otherwise can fail to be stirred by Colonel Travis' resolve. In fact, Colonel Travis' dire prediction came true, 4,000 to 5,000 Mexican troops did lay siege to the Alamo. In the battle that followed, 184 brave men died in a heroic but vain attempt to fend off Santa Anna's overwhelming army. The Alamo, as we all in Texas know, was crucial to Texas independence because those heroes at the Alamo held out for so long that Santa Anna's forces were battered and diminished. Gen. Sam Houston gained the time he needed to devise a strategy to defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto just a month or so later on April 21, 1836. The Lone Star was visible on the horizon at last. Each year on March 2, there is a ceremony at Washington-on-the-Brazos State Park where there is a replica of the modest cabin where the 54 patriots pledged their lives, honor, and treasure for freedom. Every year, in, on, or around March 2, I read Colonel Travis' letter to my colleagues in the Senate. This is a tradition started by the late Senator John Tower, my friend. This is a reminder to all of us of the pride that Texans share in our history and in being the only State that came into the Union as a republic. I am pleased to continue the tradition started by my friend, Senator Tower, because we do have a unique heritage in Texas where we fought for our freedom. Having grown up in the family and hearing the stories of my great-great-grandfather and my great-great-grandmother and her heroism as well as his, it was something that was ingrained in us: fighting for something we believe is right and for maintaining the vigil for freedom throughout our country to this day. It is very important we remember the people who sacrificed, the 184 men who died at the Alamo, the men who died at Goliad later that same month, and those 54 men who met at Washington-on-the-Brazos putting their lives in danger as well by signing that declaration of independence and becoming traitors for a cause. Their deaths gave birth to Texas independence, and we became a nation, a status we enjoyed for 10 years before we entered the United States as a State. I might add, we entered the Union by a 1-vote margin in the House and a 1-vote margin in the Senate. In fact, we were originally going to come into the United States through a treaty, but the two-thirds vote could not be received in the Senate for ratification. Therefore, President John Tyler, for whom one of our great cities in Texas is named, introduced the resolution into Congress. He said: No, we will pass a law to invite Texas to become a part of our Union. And that law passed by 1 vote in the House and 1 vote in the Senate. I am very pleased Senator Tyler thought enough of us to ask us to join the Union and fight for our ability to do that. We have contributed a lot to the United States, and we are very proud of our heritage and the history of fighting for freedom that has been passed through the generations in my family, as well as in the families of so many Texans. I am pleased to commemorate our great heritage and the history of Texas--Texas the republic and Texas the State. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin of Illinois to offer legislation on a very important issue for those men and women who served during the Persian Gulf War. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Manzullo from Illinois. This bill will amend the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act, title I of Public Law 103-446. That law provides for the payment of compensation to Persian Gulf veterans suffering from a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness or a combination of undiagnosed illnesses. This bill will extend the presumptive period from December 31, 2001 to ``from December 31, 2011 or such a later date as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.'' Additionally, the bill further expands the definition of an undiagnosed illness and gives a comprehensive list of signs or symptoms that may be manifestation of an undiagnosed illness such as fatigue, muscle pain, joint pain, gastrointestinal signs and symptoms to name a few. Today, 10 years after the end of the Persian Gulf War many of our veterans are suffering from undiagnosed illnesses. President Bush in a speech titled ``Our Debt of Honor'' on November 10, 1999, Veterans Day, said of our Persian Gulf War Veterans, ``They should not have to go to elaborate lengths to prove that they are ill, just because their malady has yet to be fully explained. A 1994 law was passed to grant them the presumption of disability. Yet even now they are met with skeptical looks and paper-shuffling excuses for withholding coverage. If I have anything to say about it, all that is going to end. In the military, when you are called to account for a mistake, you are expected to give one simple answer: ``No excuse, sir.'' And that should be the attitude of any government official who fails to make good on our public responsibilities to veterans. There are no excuses for it. Of the nearly 700,000 U.S. military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991, more than 100,000 have complained of an array of symptoms that have become known as the Gulf War Syndrome. These symptoms include chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss, sleep disorders, depression and concentration problems among others. Approximately 9,000 of those were denied claims under the 1994 law. There are some who question whether or not such a syndrome actually exists and many continue to theorize that these symptoms are largely psychological and brought about by post-traumatic stress. I believe the evidence is increasingly clear that this is not stress related. We have an obligation to ensure Gulf War veterans are properly diagnosed and treated effectively and compensated for any service connected disabilities. What we do know is that our veterans were exposed to a host of pharmaceuticals, chemicals and environmental toxins. Indeed those who served were apparently exposed to some veritable witch's brew of known and potential hazards to health including blowing dust and sand particles, smoke from oil well fires, petroleum fuels and their combustion products, possible exposure to chemical warfare nerve agents and biological warfare agents, pyridostigmine bromide pills to protect against organophosphate nerve agents, insecticides, vaccinations, infectious diseases, depleted uranium, and psychological and physiological stress. This bill will be a step in the right direction and is the way to help repay our debt to these veterans. Not only is it the right thing and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice and commitment. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin of Illinois to offer legislation on a very important issue for those men and women who served during the Persian Gulf War. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Manzullo from Illinois. This bill will amend the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act, title I of Public Law 103-446. That law provides for the payment of compensation to Persian Gulf veterans suffering from a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness or a combination of undiagnosed illnesses. This bill will extend the presumptive period from December 31, 2001 to ``from December 31, 2011 or such a later date as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.'' Additionally, the bill further expands the definition of an undiagnosed illness and gives a comprehensive list of signs or symptoms that may be manifestation of an undiagnosed illness such as fatigue, muscle pain, joint pain, gastrointestinal signs and symptoms to name a few. Today, 10 years after the end of the Persian Gulf War many of our veterans are suffering from undiagnosed illnesses. President Bush in a speech titled ``Our Debt of Honor'' on November 10, 1999, Veterans Day, said of our Persian Gulf War Veterans, ``They should not have to go to elaborate lengths to prove that they are ill, just because their malady has yet to be fully explained. A 1994 law was passed to grant them the presumption of disability. Yet even now they are met with skeptical looks and paper-shuffling excuses for withholding coverage. If I have anything to say about it, all that is going to end. In the military, when you are called to account for a mistake, you are expected to give one simple answer: ``No excuse, sir.'' And that should be the attitude of any government official who fails to make good on our public responsibilities to veterans. There are no excuses for it. Of the nearly 700,000 U.S. military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991, more than 100,000 have complained of an array of symptoms that have become known as the Gulf War Syndrome. These symptoms include chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss, sleep disorders, depression and concentration problems among others. Approximately 9,000 of those were denied claims under the 1994 law. There are some who question whether or not such a syndrome actually exists and many continue to theorize that these symptoms are largely psychological and brought about by post-traumatic stress. I believe the evidence is increasingly clear that this is not stress related. We have an obligation to ensure Gulf War veterans are properly diagnosed and treated effectively and compensated for any service connected disabilities. What we do know is that our veterans were exposed to a host of pharmaceuticals, chemicals and environmental toxins. Indeed those who served were apparently exposed to some veritable witch's brew of known and potential hazards to health including blowing dust and sand particles, smoke from oil well fires, petroleum fuels and their combustion products, possible exposure to chemical warfare nerve agents and biological warfare agents, pyridostigmine bromide pills to protect against organophosphate nerve agents, insecticides, vaccinations, infectious diseases, depleted uranium, and psychological and physiological stress. This bill will be a step in the right direction and is the way to help repay our debt to these veterans. Not only is it the right thing and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice and commitment. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for talking about the President's budget plan. I, too, am very pleased that President Bush is keeping the promises he made to the American people when he was elected President of the United States. Congress is going to work with the President to make sure we have the balanced and responsible approach he has requested of Congress to work with him. Let's talk about the balance that is in this plan. We have a $5.6 trillion surplus. The first and foremost responsibility we have with this surplus is to protect Social Security. That is exactly what we do. We will protect Social Security by keeping all of the Social Security part of the surplus in the Social Security fund. Secondly, we are going to spend more money for high-priority items. The President has outlined the high-priority items he considers are No. 1 issues facing America today--No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3: Public education, national defense, and prescription drug benefits for our senior citizens. There is no question that many people believe they cannot afford the drugs they have to take to stay healthy. That is not a choice people should have to make. We want to make sure they do have the fundamental prescription drugs they need at a price they can afford. So we will have to spend more money in that area. National security is the major responsibility of the U.S. Government. States and individuals cannot protect themselves from wars or from an incoming ballistic missile. We must do that with all of the States contributing to our country and our Federal Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. So we have to make sure our men and women in the military have the health care, the educational benefits for themselves and their children, and the pay they deserve. These are the people on the front line. These are the people stepping up to the plate to protect our freedom--our freedom to talk on the floor today, our freedom to go to a playground and have safety on that playground. These are the people on the front line doing it. We are going to treat them well. Of course, we must have a public education system that allows every child to reach his or her full potential with a public education. We want no child in our country to be left behind. If we can get the resources to these children at the earliest levels, where they have basic reading skills in the third grade, where they have the ability to do simple basic math in the fourth grade, then we will give them the tools they need to be able to learn algebra and calculus and the more complicated math and science and reading opportunities they must be able to address. So we are going to fund those priorities at a higher level. We are going to pay down the debt at the greatest rate we can. We cannot pay down the debt fully because people would not be able to invest in Treasurys. We want that very safe investment for our people. And we want to invest for the United States. We want our Government money to earn interest. We don't want it to sit there. We will have some debt, but all of the outside-owned debt is going to be paid down, $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Last, but certainly not least, we are going to give tax relief to every American. Every American who is working will get tax relief under the plan put forward last night by President Bush. We are going to simplify the tax system. We have a five-rate structure today: a 15- percent bracket, a 28-percent bracket, a 31-percent bracket, a 36- percent bracket, and a 39.6-percent bracket. We want to lower all of those rates and only have four: a 10, 15, 25, and a 33. I thought the President said it very well last night. He thinks anyone in the 15-percent bracket should pay no more than 10 percent of his or her income to the Federal Government. As well, we don't think any American should pay more than one-third of what they make to the Federal Government, so the top bracket would be 33 percent. What does that mean in real terms? It means that one in five taxpaying families with children will no longer pay any income tax at all. It will completely remove 6 million American families from the tax rolls. A family of four making $35,000 would get a 100-percent Federal income tax cut--off the rolls. A family of four that makes $50,000 would receive a 50-percent tax cut, receiving approximately $1,600 in relief. A family of four making $75,000 will receive a 25-percent tax cut. We are going to give real relief to every working American. We are also going to increase the earned-income tax credit to make sure people who are coming off welfare know that it is better to work and there is a reward for working rather than being on welfare. These are the effects that tax relief can make for every American. We will also double the child tax credit to make sure every family with children will have a $1,000-per-child tax credit rather than the $500-per-child tax credit they now have. We want to make sure that you can deduct your charitable contributions, even if you don't itemize deductions. We want to eliminate the death tax because we don't think someone in America should have to sell their family-owned business or their farm just to pay taxes to the Federal Government. This is not money that has never been taxed. It is money that was taxed when it was earned and taxed when it was invested. There is no need to tax it again. We have a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and we do not think people should have to pay taxes and sell a small business and take away all the jobs in that small business just to pay taxes to the Federal Government. We do want to lower the Federal tax burden on the families of our country at the same time that we are paying down the debt so it will be the very minimum amount of debt required to have Government securities. We do want to prioritize spending so we are covering the costs that we know are a priority--public education, a strong national defense, prescription drug options under Medicare. These are the things where we will increase money, and we will flat line expenses that we don't need to increase. Some people say: You mean you are actually going to not spend more in a Government program? Well, doesn't every family budget that way? Does a family spend the same amount every year on the same items? No. Maybe your children need more in clothes this year or maybe they don't need more in clothes. Maybe they are OK on clothes, and so you can buy the new computer. You make choices in a family. That is what we need to do in the Federal Government as well. It is time we had a balanced approach. Every time I hear somebody criticizing the tax cut plan, it is because they want to spend more money. We are making Social Security secure. We are going to give more benefits under Medicare. My goodness, why would we want to spend more and more money when we have a surplus and when we are prioritizing the needs of the Government and when the taxpayer dollars don't belong to Government. That is the real difference. A lot of people around here think tax dollars belong to them. Tax dollars belong to the people who earn it, and they should have the choices to spend it the way they see fit for their families. This is not money I worked to earn, and I shouldn't make the decisions on how to spend it except for the overall national good. The overall national good should not take more than 33 percent of anyone's salary, and it should take the lowest amount that is absolutely necessary because this is money people work very hard to bring home for their families. I applaud the President for a balanced approach, for giving tax relief to every American who is working, for paying down the debt at the greatest rate that we have ever seen, for prioritizing our spending to increase national defense, public education, and Medicare prescription drug benefits, and to make sure all of our programs are sound and solid. We can do these things if we are responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars and if we remember that the taxpayer dollars do not belong to the Federal Government except to the extent absolutely necessary. They belong to the people who earned them. We are going to make sure we are responsible stewards of those dollars that people have worked so hard to support their family. I will work with the President of the United States to be a responsible leader with the very important duty we have to the people who elected us to the Senate. I yield the floor.