Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his remarks about the budget. I have had some White House briefings on what would be in the President's budget. It is so refreshing to see a President, who made promises, and tonight is going to unveil his plans to keep the promises he made to the American people. I, as one Member of the Senate, am certainly going to try to help the President keep those promises because I, too, made those promises to the American people because I believe we can treat this budget as any family in America treats their household budget; that is, we can make priorities. We can decide what we want to spend more money to do, what we want to spend less money to do, and where our priorities are going to be for saving our own money. That is the theory behind the President's budget. He is basically saying: We are going to cover our priorities. We are going to increase spending in the priority areas. We are going to flat line the areas that are not priorities or areas where the project is complete. And we are going to have more of our own money back in our pocketbooks. At the same time, the President is going to pay down the debt at the greatest rate that we can pay it down. I think that is a balanced approach. Let's talk about some of the priorities. One that I am very pleased the President is going to put forward is the No. 1 priority, which is education. Public education is the foundation of our country. It is what makes us different from most other countries in the world; and that is we want public education to give every child the chance to reach his or her full potential; that they can go to public schools all their life, and they will have a great education that will allow them to do whatever they want to do in life. That is the American way. We have fallen behind in that dream. The President wants that dream to come back. And Congress is going to support him. We are going to make sure every child can reach his or her full potential in this country with a public education. So we are going to target those funds so that when the local school district wants to do creative things--wants to have teacher incentives, wants to encourage people to come from careers into the classroom, or from military retirement into the classroom--we will allow that alternative certification to bring that person in to give language or math or science that is not able to be offered in that school unless we do some creative recruiting. Those are the kinds of things that we want to foster with the Federal funds. We want the decisions to be made at the local level. We want goals to make sure every child can read by the third grade because we know if a child cannot read in the third grade, they are going to start falling behind. Of course, they are not going to be able to pass algebra if they do not have the basic reading skills. So we take one step at a time. And we start with the basics. That is what the goals will be. Secondly, tonight our President is going to call for prescription drug benefits and options under Medicare. That is very important. Fifteen years ago, people would have had to go in the hospital; they would have to have major surgery to treat an illness. Today, that can be done with drugs. And, yes, those prescription drugs are expensive. So we need to make sure we are covering those drug costs and giving people the options to be able to afford the drugs they need to stay healthy, while at the same time having their other living expenses be covered. So we want to have a prescription drug option in Medicare. We want to have benefits for those who cannot afford it. That is going to be a priority in the President's budget. We are going to keep national defense as our highest priority. We are going to make sure our military is strong and ready. I have visited our troops in the field all over the world. I know morale has been low. We have not focused enough on our national defense and the people who are serving in our military. So we are going to have pay raises, we are going to upgrade the health care for our military personnel and their families, and we are going to make sure they have quality housing. Just last week, in Texas, I was at Fort Sam Houston and I walked through housing where the paint was peeling. That is not acceptable. We are not going to have that for our military personnel. We are going to give them good, quality housing and health care. We are going to make sure their children have quality education, especially on the bases that have school districts within the bases. We are going to step up to the plate to make sure we are doing what is necessary to give our young people, who are the dependents of military personnel, a quality public education. So we are going to do those things to upgrade our military. And we are going to make sure we have the quality equipment and the training to give these people who are pledging their lives for our freedom the chance to do their jobs, and to do it right. We are going to support our military. These are areas where we are going to increase spending. I believe Congress will support President Bush's initiatives in the budget. Also, another priority we have not talked very much about is a rainy day fund. President Bush is going to put in place a rainy day fund. Some people are concerned that maybe our economy will go soft. We do not want to get into a deficit again. So he is going to suggest we have a rainy day fund. And I am going to support him all the way. I will introduce legislation to make sure we have a rainy day fund, just like every home in America will have if they have a quality budget in their homes--a rainy day fund for emergencies. So those are the priorities we will have in our budget. But it is no less of a priority that we also pay down the debt and that we have more money for taxpayers in their own pocketbooks because they are sending too much to Washington in income taxes. It is very important that people be able to keep more of the money they earn because people are paying higher taxes than they have ever paid in peacetime. We need to give them some relief, particularly because the economy is a little soft right now. We want people to have the confidence they can spend their money. But we also want them to be able to save some of their money. So we are going to have a balanced plan that will pay down the debt and will give tax relief for hard-working Americans--for every hard-working American. We are going to have priority spending, and we are going to do what every household in America will do; that is, provide for the priorities in our budget and not spend more in the areas where we do not need to spend more and target those areas where we know we are going to have to do a better job than we have been doing in national defense, in education, in prescription drug options. Those are the things we will focus on in this budget. I am so pleased our President is showing the leadership we have needed in this country to go in the right direction for responsible stewardship of our taxpayer dollars. Mr. President, I thank you and look forward to introducing the legislation and working with others who have already introduced legislation to accomplish the goals that will be outlined tonight by the President of the United States. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on President Bush's Education Proposals during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 11 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 10 a.m. The markup will take place in Dirksen Room 226.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will begin to reform our relationship with Mexico, particularly as it relates to our partnership in fighting drugs. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Pete Domenici, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions, who are cosponsoring the legislation I will introduce today. As you know, President Bush will visit Mexico on February 16th. He will hold a one day summit with Mexico's new President Vicente Fox. Improving cooperation between our two countries in the war on drugs will figure prominently on the President's agenda when he meets with President Fox. Now is the time that we take the right first step in our mutual efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States through Mexico. Last year, the Senate passed a resolution expressing a Sense of the Senate that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the United States must develop and implement a counter-drug program that more effectively addresses illegal drug trafficking. The resolution stated that a one-year waiver of the requirement that the President certify Mexico is warranted to permit both new governments time to implement such strategies and programs. The legislation I am offering today again provides that a waiver is appropriate for this year. It also directs that a long term solution be found to the massive drug problem. As you know, by March 1, after just six weeks in office, President Bush will be required to re-certify to Congress that Mexico is making progress in the war on drugs. Forcing a confrontation so soon on the most important issue that we face with Mexico will serve neither country, and it will not loosen the grip that the drug culture has on both of our societies and economies. Our bill will authorize a one-year waiver for Mexico from the annual certification process. The various reports and assessments prepared by the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or the Office of National Drug Control Policy will still be required. The legislation will simply eliminate the requirement that the President in effect ``grade'' Mexico's performance in this area a scant 12 weeks after a new Mexican President has taken office. Our legislation also takes another important step. It asks the President, no later than June 30, 2001, to develop and submit to Congress, a strategic plan outlining proposed efforts to increase cooperation between our two countries in the fight against drugs. We need proposals on both sides of the border that will combat drug gangs; money laundering; drug smuggling and any other items the President believes should be addressed. It seems to me that we must look for a comprehensive solution to this problem. We must look beyond the certification process--that in many ways is broken. The strategic plan called for in this resolution should serve as the beginning of a new effort in the war against drugs. We have two new leaders who are committed to tackling this problem. This bill is a good first step for building on the new relationship. I submit this to the Senate. I hope that we can consider this measure soon. I want to say about the new leader of Mexico that he is taking a very positive approach and I think an aggressive one. It was reported on February 2 of this year in the Washington Post in a by-line that has the Mexico City date line that the new head of Mexico's customs agency has fired more than 90 people, including virtually every manager, in the first major purge of government officials since President Fox took office in December. Forty-five out of the customs department's 47 supervisors were fired on corruption issues. In addition, in the first month of this year 150 tractor-trailers containing contraband were stopped by the Mexican customs office. Last year, for the entire year, 38 tractor-trailers were stopped for contraband merchandise. That is a good sign. That is a sign that President Fox is going to make good on his promise to purge the corruption out of the system. We applaud him. That is why I think we should give him a chance to sit down with President Bush and work out a cooperative plan, one that is not punitive or unilateral but one that is cooperative. It will be in the best interest of both our countries to stop the cancer of drug trafficking. It is a cancer on both of our societies. The criminal element in Mexico certainly takes away from the productivity of that country. The criminal element that has arisen in the United States that is preying on our children certainly must be stopped. I hope we can have an expedited action on this bill because I think we can do some good. I intend to talk to our majority leader and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to see if we can agree on something that will stop this decertification. Let's sit down and do something that will produce the results that both of our countries want.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will begin to reform our relationship with Mexico, particularly as it relates to our partnership in fighting drugs. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Pete Domenici, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl, and Jeff Sessions, who are cosponsoring the legislation I will introduce today. As you know, President Bush will visit Mexico on February 16th. He will hold a one day summit with Mexico's new President Vicente Fox. Improving cooperation between our two countries in the war on drugs will figure prominently on the President's agenda when he meets with President Fox. Now is the time that we take the right first step in our mutual efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States through Mexico. Last year, the Senate passed a resolution expressing a Sense of the Senate that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the United States must develop and implement a counter-drug program that more effectively addresses illegal drug trafficking. The resolution stated that a one-year waiver of the requirement that the President certify Mexico is warranted to permit both new governments time to implement such strategies and programs. The legislation I am offering today again provides that a waiver is appropriate for this year. It also directs that a long term solution be found to the massive drug problem. As you know, by March 1, after just six weeks in office, President Bush will be required to re-certify to Congress that Mexico is making progress in the war on drugs. Forcing a confrontation so soon on the most important issue that we face with Mexico will serve neither country, and it will not loosen the grip that the drug culture has on both of our societies and economies. Our bill will authorize a one-year waiver for Mexico from the annual certification process. The various reports and assessments prepared by the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or the Office of National Drug Control Policy will still be required. The legislation will simply eliminate the requirement that the President in effect ``grade'' Mexico's performance in this area a scant 12 weeks after a new Mexican President has taken office. Our legislation also takes another important step. It asks the President, no later than June 30, 2001, to develop and submit to Congress, a strategic plan outlining proposed efforts to increase cooperation between our two countries in the fight against drugs. We need proposals on both sides of the border that will combat drug gangs; money laundering; drug smuggling and any other items the President believes should be addressed. It seems to me that we must look for a comprehensive solution to this problem. We must look beyond the certification process--that in many ways is broken. The strategic plan called for in this resolution should serve as the beginning of a new effort in the war against drugs. We have two new leaders who are committed to tackling this problem. This bill is a good first step for building on the new relationship. I submit this to the Senate. I hope that we can consider this measure soon. I want to say about the new leader of Mexico that he is taking a very positive approach and I think an aggressive one. It was reported on February 2 of this year in the Washington Post in a by-line that has the Mexico City date line that the new head of Mexico's customs agency has fired more than 90 people, including virtually every manager, in the first major purge of government officials since President Fox took office in December. Forty-five out of the customs department's 47 supervisors were fired on corruption issues. In addition, in the first month of this year 150 tractor-trailers containing contraband were stopped by the Mexican customs office. Last year, for the entire year, 38 tractor-trailers were stopped for contraband merchandise. That is a good sign. That is a sign that President Fox is going to make good on his promise to purge the corruption out of the system. We applaud him. That is why I think we should give him a chance to sit down with President Bush and work out a cooperative plan, one that is not punitive or unilateral but one that is cooperative. It will be in the best interest of both our countries to stop the cancer of drug trafficking. It is a cancer on both of our societies. The criminal element in Mexico certainly takes away from the productivity of that country. The criminal element that has arisen in the United States that is preying on our children certainly must be stopped. I hope we can have an expedited action on this bill because I think we can do some good. I intend to talk to our majority leader and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to see if we can agree on something that will stop this decertification. Let's sit down and do something that will produce the results that both of our countries want.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the statement that has been made by the Senator from Maine. I also appreciate that she took the time to go and see for herself. She is a new member of the Armed Services Committee and she wanted to see the conditions in which our soldiers are living. I know this is now going to be a priority for her to make these improvements. I talked to the President after that visit he made, and he was so touched by the response he got from our troops. I know he has recommitted himself to making sure our troops have the support they need to do the job we are asking them to do. So I thank the Senator from Maine for going on that very important trip and for making that statement and that commitment. I ask unanimous consent that the time I have used not be counted against the time of the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Joseph Allbaugh to be Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate then immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. Further, I ask that following the vote, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and, finally, the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the nomination of Joseph Allbaugh be changed to occur at 1:40 p.m.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, another high priority for our Congress is our national security, making sure the men and women in the military have the tools they need to do their job, because their job is protecting our freedom. They are laying their lives on the line every day to do that. I think they deserve the respect, attention and the tools they need to be successful. Ten years ago, President Bush, Secretary Cheney, and General Powell, developed a plan to downsize the military while keeping it strong and ready. Their plan envisioned a leaner force, consisting of fewer troops, ships, and aircraft, but one that was 100-percent manned and supported. This is not the force we have today. Today's military has been cut in half since 1991, but the half is not whole. Our services are struggling to recruit and to retain personnel. We are cannibalizing ships, aircraft, and other weapons systems to support deployed units. The military is completing the missions today on the backs of our overworked and overextended troops. As they have done in the past, they are spending an extraordinary amount of time and effort doing whatever it takes to get by. Congress and the administration must work together to help our men and women in uniform. They deserve it; and America requires it. We could easily throw money at the problems and feel as if we are doing something, but the military requires more than money. It requires a national strategy and leadership from the top. In today's new world, we need to assess what we are doing, why we are doing it, and provide the assets to successfully achieve our mission. In the future, we must ensure that our military is used wisely, not wastefully. This requires an immediate review of overseas deployments and missions. We must focus our military commitments and we must focus our objectives. Before we deploy our forces into harm's way, we must know what it is we expect to accomplish, we must define success, and we must have an exit strategy. We also need to encourage our allies to take a broader role where they can, allowing our forces to contribute in areas where the United States has significant advantages in command and control and logistics. Leadership means convincing our allies to do their share in their own backyards and not simply accepting their threats to leave Bosnia or Kosovo unless we remain with them on the ground. We must be able to convince our allies that if they will step up to the plate, if they will exercise their responsibility, that we will be a backstop for them if an emergency occurs. Today's military requires better pay, better treatment, and better training. In order to recruit and retain military personnel, we must improve their pay. We can no longer allow fast food restaurants to compete with the military for pay and benefits. That is hardly the standard that we should have. Our military deserve pay commensurate with their skills. They demand highly educated recruits to operate the sophisticated weapons systems that are used today and that will be used in the future. We cannot attract our young men and women unless we provide a competitive standard of living and quality of life. The President's initiative to add $1.4 billion in pay and bonuses will help close the gap between military and civilian pay. In addition, we must treat our military personnel and their families better. There is an old saying that we recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. In my years in the Senate, I have focused on improving three areas in the quality of life of our military: improved military housing, including barracks and family housing; access to quality medical care; and increased support for quality schools for military children. On Monday President Bush proposed adding $400 million to upgrade substandard housing and $3.9 billion to improve military health care. This is so important to our military personnel, especially the ones deployed overseas without their families. I have visited with our military people on the ground in places such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I can tell you, the No. 1 item on their agenda is quality health care for their families who are back home. They need to have decent housing, access to quality medical care, and good schools when they are away. Nothing is more frustrating, nothing will drive the soldier out of the Army faster, than to call home and have to contend with medical care problems from a phone booth in Bosnia. Finally, for too long, we have neglected the facilities where our troops work and train. Forcing people to work in 60-year-old frame buildings with little heat and no air-conditioning, and attempting to maintain sophisticated aircraft and systems when hangers are leaking around them, is certainly not conducive to retaining good people. Our current ranges and training facilities are also a national treasure, but they need to be upgraded. Improved training facilities also affect quality of life by allowing troops to effectively and efficiently train and then return home. Taking care of our people also involves taking care of their equipment and buying the weapons they need to win if they are called upon to go. We need to modernize existing weapons. At the same time, we need to look ahead and use America's lead in technology to build our future weapons systems. American technology has been a force multiplier in the past and will be even more important in the future. We cannot allow potential enemies to gain a technology advantage while we spend our time and money on incremental improvements. The President has said he intends to earmark $2.6 billion of the military procurement budget for research and development. We will use technology to reduce the risk to our forces and overwhelm any enemy quickly. The military of the 21st century must be agile, lethal, readily deployable, and require minimal logistical support. Many of our adversaries will not confront our forces directly, therefore we must be prepared for both threats posed by terrorists or blackmail by rogue nations. Our Army and Marine Corps must be light enough to quickly deploy but heavy enough to win. Our Navy must be able to fight at sea as well as affect the fight over land, and our Air Force must have a global reach. Our defense strategy should be prepared to defend rather than react. This is why deploying an anti-ballistic missile system is so important to American security. Missile defense is not a threat against responsible nations. Rather, it is an insurance policy that would provide doubt in the mind of a rogue state, protect our Nation, help our allies, and increase the options available to the President. I applaud the President for sticking by his guns in saying we are going to deploy a missile defense system, and I especially appreciate what Senator Thad Cochran has done year after year after year to move missile defense forward. Taking care of our military includes taking care of our veterans. We must keep the promises we make or why would anyone trust us? We must renew our commitment to our veterans. We must keep our promises to these past defenders of freedom by providing quality medical and educational benefits. I will soon introduce a bill regarding gulf war illness. Thousands of our gulf war veterans are affected by a chronic disability. One in seven have come back from Desert Storm with a disability they did not have when they left. These men and women served our Nation honorably and deserve the care to which they are entitled. Our veterans also deserve educational benefits second to none. Veteran education pays a high yield on our investment. The veterans of World War II became our most educated segment of society upon their return home. These men and women went on to become our leaders in business and government. Veteran education has always provided a big incentive to volunteer for service. We must renew our commitment by improving and increasing these benefits. If we expect to recruit and to retain our best, America must provide them with the best: the best pay, housing, medical care, and other benefits. I applaud the President's commitment to improving our military and strongly support his plans to look before we leap. Our resources are limited and they must be used wisely, but we can set priorities. We can have a budget that meets our strategy, if we have a well-run military with a clear strategy. We should deploy our troops when there is a U.S. security interest, but not over deploy or over demand their deployment. If we remember this, then we will have a military that is well funded, efficient, and will accomplish the goals we have set for them. Of all of the areas for which Congress is responsible, national security is No. 1. It is our highest priority. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure all of those who have died in the past 200 plus years, maintaining the freedom of this country, will never, ever have died in vain. The only way we can repay them is to keep the zeal for freedom alive in our generation and in future generations. We will keep the zeal for freedom alive if we keep our national security a No. 1 priority and we respect the military who have the job to make sure our freedom is intact today and will be for our children and grandchildren. I applaud President Bush's initiatives. He is going to make sure we take every step in a thoughtful way. We are going to rebuild our national defense. We are going to renew our commitment to national security for the families of our country, for the protection of our allies, and for the protection of democracy, wherever there are people in the world who are trying to become free, with the example for freedom being the United States of America. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Arizona has just been discussing; and that is very important tax relief for hard-working American families. That is something that will be a high priority for our Congress. I appreciate his leadership in that effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to the leadership of both parties for making good on their commitment to make high speed rail a priority early in the 107th Congress. The support of both Senator Lott and Senator Daschle and a majority of our colleagues will send a message that Congress is serious about establishing rail as a viable alternative to our crowded roads and skies. This innovative finance bill will provide a dedicated source of capital funding for high-speed rail that will not subtract from the highway or aviation trust funds, or general appropriations. This is not a handout. We will use a modest Federal investment to leverage $12 billion in rail improvements. Amtrak's congressionally mandated requirement to become operationally self sufficient is not affected by this legislation. Air traffic congestion is at an all time high and will only worsen over the next ten years. U.S. airports will have to deal with one billion annual passengers in less than ten years. Already, one in every four flights is delayed or canceled. Meanwhile, highway expansion has become extremely expensive and environmentally sensitive, as our major arteries grow ever more clogged with traffic. We desperately need a third leg to our national transportation strategy. I believe passenger rail can function in that role. High-speed rail is a reliable, efficient alternative to both driving and air travel--particularly over distances of 500 miles or less. Investment in high-speed rail will ease overcrowding and delays at the airports that have the worst problems. Of the 20 airports with the most flight delays in 1999, 18 were located on high-speed rail corridors. And most of the airports projected to have the worst flight delay problems over the next ten years are located on high-speed rail corridors. There has never been so much support at the national, state and local levels for such an innovative rail financing measure. Last year, we had 67 United States Senators, 171 U.S. House Members, the National Governors' Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures, the environmental community, organized labor and the business community--including such notables as Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter--all support the High Speed Rail Investment Act. Today, we enjoy similar support, with more than half of the Senate joining us in sponsoring this landmark legislation. High-speed rail projects are ready to go in more than 20 states across the country. States that have promoted passenger rail for years and those which are just now investing in rail alternatives will benefit from this Federal commitment to partnership in passenger rail funding. The 2001 version of the bill provides sufficient financing to ensure that these new corridors can enjoy the benefits of passenger rail. The United States currently invests less than $600 million on its rail infrastructure, while spending $80 billion per year on highways and $19 billion per year on aviation. We even spend $1 billion every year clearing road kills and $1.4 billion salting icy roads, but only a fraction of that amount on rail. Where adding new highway and aviation capacity is now prohibitively expensive, incremental improvements in rail capacity can provide a viable alternative for intercity travelers who face rising congestion on existing highways. In fact, every dollar invested in new rail capacity can deliver 5 to 10 times as much capacity as a dollar invested in new highway capacity, depending on the location. A comparable mile of new high-speed track is estimated to cost about $8 million per track-mile--the equivalent of about 450 passengers per hour for every $1 million invested. With this Federal investment, we can increase speeds, further reduce trip times and better compete with airlines. In states like Texas, these funds will be used to increase train speeds of existing Amtrak trains, and to establish better, more reliable service along our three corridors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be working with my colleague, Senator Thomas, today, and all of this week, to talk about the tax cuts we have tried to provide for hard-working American families. We have been trying to give tax relief to working Americans for the last 3 years, but we had a President who did not agree with us. Every time we sent him a tax relief bill, it got vetoed. But today we have a President who agrees with us that hard-working Americans deserve to keep more of the money they earn. Because we believe it is their money, not ours, we want them to have the choices. So we do have a proposal that Congress and the President are going to work together, hopefully, on a very bipartisan basis, to produce for the American people something they can realize, not something that is so complicated and minuscule and fractionated that nobody is ever going to know they got a tax cut. What we want is real tax relief for hard- working Americans. It is pretty simple. The basic part of this tax relief plan would replace the current five-rate tax structure--which is 15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 percent--with four lower tax brackets: 10 percent, not 15 percent, would be the lower bracket; then 15 percent; then 25 percent; and then 33 percent. That is the bulk of the tax relief plan that we will send to President Bush if we can get the support of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For a couple with two children, making $35,000 they will have their taxes eliminated. For a couple with two children, making $50,000, their taxes will be cut by 50 percent. For a couple with two children, making $75,000 their taxes will be cut by 25 percent. This is tax relief that people will be able to experience. We also hope that people will feel so good that they will buy the car they have been waiting to buy or that they will know then that they will be able to make the downpayment on the house they have been saving for-- something that will spur the economy because there is no question our economy is not growing right now. It is stagnant. But we think it can be revived if there is consumer confidence. Consumer confidence would come if people feel good about their jobs and their prospects and if they have more money in their pockets. So this is a very important staple of the tax cut plan. The part that I have been working on personally for so many years is the marriage penalty tax cut. Why, in America, would we have to ask people to choose between love and money? The fact is, most couples in America, indeed, have to pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes just because they got married. Who does this hit the hardest? It hits the policeman and the schoolteacher who get married and all of a sudden find they have $1,000 more that they owe to Uncle Sam--$1,000 they could certainly use. So we want to help married couples not have to pay any penalty whatsoever. Why should you pay a penalty just because you got married? It does not make sense. So we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In fact, I am going to be working with others to make the marriage penalty tax cut part of our tax plan significant. We believe we should double the standard deduction, that you should not have to pay more in a standard deduction because you are married than you would if you had two single income-earning people. So we are going to try to change that. We are going to encourage charitable contributions by allowing people who have saved and put money in their IRAs through the years--if they find out they do not need that money because they are doing OK, and their kids are doing OK--to give some of that money to charity if they want. But there is a big bar to doing that today, and that is the tax consequence. You cannot just take the money out and give it to the charity; You have to pay the taxes. So we want to eliminate that tax, if it is going to go straight to charity. This will encourage people to do things that will enhance our communities, and that is to give to the charity of their choice. We want to try to help parents by doubling the child tax credit. President Bush has made this a priority. He wants to make sure that we have a $1,000 per child tax credit rather than the $500 per child tax credit that we are working toward today because we know it costs a lot of money to raise a family. Children grow. They grow out of their clothes; they eat a lot; they need to be healthy; and they need to be well fed and well dressed. The occupant of the Chair is smiling because he has nine children. He knows. He has been there. He has fed and clothed them. He knows this is something that parents need the help to do. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here and be a part of the group that is talking about the Bush tax cuts. We are talking about the Bush tax cuts for hard-working American families. We are talking about Congress working with the President on a bipartisan basis for a lot of reasons to let people keep more of the money they earn. That is the bottom line. We want people to be able to keep the money they earn because we believe it belongs to them, not to us. We believe families, especially, should get the break they so badly need. We are being taxed at a higher rate today than ever in peacetime. I am very pleased that we have this tax relief plan. We know it is going to pass. That is what pleases me. Before, when we had been working on tax cuts, we had a President who would threaten to veto them every time we sent them to him. Today, we have a tax cut plan with a President who says he is going to sign it. So we feel very good about that. We are going to be talking about it and hope the people of this country realize we are going to do something significant for every taxpaying American. Those in the lowest brackets will get the most relief; those in the upper brackets will get the least relief, but they will get some relief. We think it is fair to target it to middle-income and low- income people. We want them to get the most benefit. They are the ones who pay the most per capita, per income dollar. We want to relieve that, but we want every working American who pays taxes to get relief. Mr. President, I am very proud to be here with my colleague, Senator Pete Domenici. Senator Domenici is, of course, the person who heads our Budget Committee. He knows, in the final analysis, it is his committee that is going to give us a budget that is balanced, that pays down the debt, that takes care of the increases in spending that we know we are going to need in places such as education, national defense, Medicare reform, prescription drug benefits and options, and give back to hard- working Americans some of their tax money. I cannot think of anyone that I would trust to be able to do that than my colleague from New Mexico. I will now turn the floor over to him.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about President Bush's tax relief plan and what I hope will be congressional approval of tax relief for hard-working Americans. It is very clear we are going to have a bigger surplus than we ever even dreamed would be possible when we passed the Balanced Budget Act. It is estimated now at $5.6 trillion. The President's plan takes approximately 25 percent of this huge surplus and says the people deserve to keep more of their money. This is an income tax surplus. People are sending more to Washington than Washington needs to do its responsibility to cover the costs of Government, to the tune of $5.6 trillion. Doesn't it make sense to cut back on the amount people have to send to Washington? We think so. The President's plan gives a tax cut to every American who is paying taxes. It replaces the current five-rate tax structure with four lower rates: 10, 15, 25, and 33. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000, reduces the marriage penalty, which we have been trying to do now for 4 years, eliminates the death tax, expands the charitable tax deduction, and makes the research and development tax credit permanent. What happens when this is passed? Who are the biggest winners? One in five taxpaying families with children will no longer pay any income tax at all. One in every five families who pay taxes and have children will pay no income tax. It will remove 6 million American families from the tax rolls. A family of four making $35,000 will get a 100-percent Federal income tax cut. A family of four making $50,000 a year will receive a 50-percent tax cut, receiving at least $1,600 in tax relief. A family of four making $75,000 a year will receive a 25-percent tax cut. The marginal income tax rate on low-income families will fall by more than 40 percent. That is the effect this tax relief will have on American families. The current code is not fair, and it is taking too much. What we need is balance in our system. What this approach will do is pay down the debt, protect Social Security, increase spending for priority needs, and give hard-working Americans more in their pocketbook. Mr. President, you are going to hear a lot more about this in future months because I believe Congress is going to work with the President to give the tax relief he is seeking. I look forward to the discussion because I cannot think of any reason hard-working Americans should not have the money they earn in their pocketbooks rather than sending it to Washington for a program of which they have never heard. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for having this nomination go forward and for giving us the opportunity to talk. I think the debate is very important. I think it is important that we talk about the John Ashcroft we know because when I hear some of the other people talking about John Ashcroft, it is not the same person with whom I served for 6 years. I would like to set the record straight on a couple of points. I have known John and Janet Ashcroft since long before they came to the Senate because he was a leader for his State and our country for many years before he represented his State in the Senate. He has been a Governor. He has been elected chairman of the National Governors' Association. He has been the attorney general for the State of Missouri. And he served as chairman of the Attorneys General Association of the United States. So he has been in a position of leadership for our country many times. I think he is the most qualified person to have been nominated for Attorney General in many years. He has served in the capacity of attorney general as well as Governor and in the U.S. Senate. The people of America saw the true heart of John Ashcroft when his opponent, Mel Carnahan, died near the end of their race for the Senate. I was there for John Ashcroft after that tragic accident. I think John Ashcroft did not know what to do, just like everyone else. He had no intention of campaigning against a man who had just died, a man who had also served the State of Missouri so well. He had no intention of campaigning against his widow when she made the decision that she would take the appointment of the Governor if Mr. Carnahan won the election. John Ashcroft kept his word. He kept his word and has never uttered a word about Mrs. Carnahan. So I think when he was ultimately defeated, his magnanimity in defeat also showed that he is a person of character first--character above public servant, character above partisan, character above everything else. He showed it at a time when he had nothing to gain, when he thought he probably would not be in public office again. But he did what was right from his heart. That is why I am supporting him for Attorney General of the United States. He also brings an impressive academic background to this office. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law. He attended Yale University. I also want to mention, because I think she is very much a part of this team, his wife Janet and their joint commitment to education in our country. When she moved up here with Senator Ashcroft, she decided she wanted to teach. She chose to teach at Howard University, one of our Nation's historically black colleges. Howard University is where she has taught for 5 years. I think she has shown her commitment to education by going the extra mile to share her experiences and her knowledge with the students at Howard University. Janet, by the way, is also a lawyer. I am very proud to support both Janet and John Ashcroft. We have heard a lot of John Ashcroft's record, things which he said which have also been refuted. In my experience with John Ashcroft, he was the cosponsor of my legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, which has the effect of taxing so many couples just because they get married--not because they make higher salaries individually but because they get married--and throwing them into a higher bracket. John did not just cosponsor the bill and walk away; he fought with me on the floor, day after day, week after week. We passed marriage penalty relief. It was because John Ashcroft worked as hard as I did to make that happen. It was vetoed by the President. But eventually we are going to pass marriage penalty relief in this country, and the President is going to sign it, and people will not have to pay the average $1,400 a year just because of their married status. John did this because he believes in family values and he believes marriage is one of the ways people can live a good life. Statistics show that married people are the least likely to be on welfare or to get into any kind of criminal trouble. I think we should be encouraging marriage, not discouraging it. John Ashcroft agrees with that. He worked with me on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. We introduced legislation to amend current stalking laws to make it a crime to stalk someone across State lines. Also, cyberstalking has become a more common crime in recent years, as the use of the Internet has increased. Young people are lured into a situation in which criminal conduct becomes part of an association. That happens when you have Internet chatrooms. Internet chatrooms often cause people to start thinking they want to meet, and that has facilitated criminal acts when it has not been monitored correctly. So to try to discourage it, we made that against the law. John also played a role in allowing hourly wage workers, particularly working mothers, to have flextime in the workplace so they could take off at 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon and make up for it on Monday by working 2 extra hours so they could see their child's football game or soccer game. These are things that are very important in John's background. He also voted to prohibit anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm. This is very important to try to curb domestic violence in our country. I think we need to bring John's full record to the forefront in order to make the decision on whether he would be fit to serve as Attorney General. Almost everyone in this body supported every Clinton appointee to the Cabinet. That has been the tradition in the Senate. Very few times do we deny the right of the President to have his own Cabinet and the people he trusts and wants to work with around him. I think it would be a major step in the wrong direction to not affirm the appointment of John Ashcroft. I also think it will be a major setback if John Ashcroft is the victim of scurrilous statements that will keep him from having the ability to do his job and the mantle to do his job. So I hope my colleagues will show discretion. I hope they will understand that John Ashcroft is likely to be confirmed. So if they have something to say against him, it is their absolute right to do it, but I hope they stick to the facts and give their views in a way that will not hurt John Ashcroft's ability to do the important job of enforcing the laws of this country. When John Ashcroft becomes Attorney General, he will no longer be an advocate for laws; he will be the enforcer of laws. He has said on many occasions that he will enforce those laws to the letter because he sees that as his job. Furthermore, he has shown by his record as attorney general of Missouri that he will do that. He deserves not only our support now but also our support after he gets the job to make sure the laws of our country are fairly and reasonably enforced and targeted to people who break those laws. The rhetoric, if it gets too hot, is going to auger against his ability to do the job that all of us need for him to do and want him to do. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Durbin. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will enhance and encourage charitable contributions in the United States. As many know, this week, the President is set to unveil a number of initiatives to promote charitable giving and to expand the role that charities and faith-based institutions play in attacking social problems in the United States. Government alone is incapable of solving society's most vexing problems. In fact, government programs often fail in their missions. The old welfare system is a perfect example of what often goes wrong. Under the old system, we encouraged people to stay on welfare. We encouraged out-of-wedlock births. We encouraged fathers to live out of the home. We ended this with our welfare reform bill. Welfare rolls have now dropped by half across the United States. The track record of charitable organizations have been far superior than the government's in tackling social ills. America's top charities cover a broad range of problems, from the Salvation Army to the YMCA, and the American Cancer Society to the Red Cross. Each is playing a role in improving America's health, education and welfare. How successful can they be? It has been known that mentors in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program can cut drug abuse by 50 percent. Americans appreciate the role of these groups. They are actively involved in charitable causes. Nearly half of all Americans volunteer in some capacity on a regular basis. Nearly 25 percent of all Americans are active in their religion on a volunteer basis. This is why it is so logical to use faith-based organizations as means of accomplishing objectives at which the government has failed. The Chicago Tribune recently noted that ``churches, temples and prayer halls cannot replace the mammoth task of helping the needy. But, they do a better and more efficient job of understanding their communities and meeting the need of their citizens.'' The legislation I am introducing today will make it easier for charitable contributions to the made and for charitable organizations to pursue their missions. Under this bill, individuals age 59\1/2\ and older will be able to move assets penalty-free from an IRA directly to a charity or into a qualifying deferred charitable gift plan, such as a charitable remainder trust, pooled income fund or gift annuity. Current law requires taxpayers to first withdraw the IRA proceeds, pay the taxes due and then contribute the funds to a charity. Taxes can be offset by the current charitable deduction, but only to an extent. Americans currently hold well over $1 trillion in assets in IRAs, and nearly half of America's families have IRAs. This bill will allow senior citizens who have provided for their retirement--but find that they do not need their entire IRA for living expenses--to transfer IRA funds to charity without dilution. This will cut bureaucratic obstacles to charitable giving and unlock a substantial amount of new funds that could flow to America's charitable organizations. I first introduced this legislation in 1998, and it was folded into our tax bill in 1999. Regrettably, it was vetoed by the President. But, given our new leadership in the White House, this is an idea whose times has come. In fact, President Bush made this part of his tax plan when it was unveiled in 1999. This is also not a partisan proposal. Senator Durbin was an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with him, and the White House on this bill. It also has the support of numerous universities and charitable groups, including the Charitable Accord and the Council of Foundations, two umbrella organizations representing more than 2,000 organizations and associations.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will enhance and encourage charitable contributions in the United States. As many know, this week, the President is set to unveil a number of initiatives to promote charitable giving and to expand the role that charities and faith-based institutions play in attacking social problems in the United States. Government alone is incapable of solving society's most vexing problems. In fact, government programs often fail in their missions. The old welfare system is a perfect example of what often goes wrong. Under the old system, we encouraged people to stay on welfare. We encouraged out-of-wedlock births. We encouraged fathers to live out of the home. We ended this with our welfare reform bill. Welfare rolls have now dropped by half across the United States. The track record of charitable organizations have been far superior than the government's in tackling social ills. America's top charities cover a broad range of problems, from the Salvation Army to the YMCA, and the American Cancer Society to the Red Cross. Each is playing a role in improving America's health, education and welfare. How successful can they be? It has been known that mentors in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program can cut drug abuse by 50 percent. Americans appreciate the role of these groups. They are actively involved in charitable causes. Nearly half of all Americans volunteer in some capacity on a regular basis. Nearly 25 percent of all Americans are active in their religion on a volunteer basis. This is why it is so logical to use faith-based organizations as means of accomplishing objectives at which the government has failed. The Chicago Tribune recently noted that ``churches, temples and prayer halls cannot replace the mammoth task of helping the needy. But, they do a better and more efficient job of understanding their communities and meeting the need of their citizens.'' The legislation I am introducing today will make it easier for charitable contributions to the made and for charitable organizations to pursue their missions. Under this bill, individuals age 59\1/2\ and older will be able to move assets penalty-free from an IRA directly to a charity or into a qualifying deferred charitable gift plan, such as a charitable remainder trust, pooled income fund or gift annuity. Current law requires taxpayers to first withdraw the IRA proceeds, pay the taxes due and then contribute the funds to a charity. Taxes can be offset by the current charitable deduction, but only to an extent. Americans currently hold well over $1 trillion in assets in IRAs, and nearly half of America's families have IRAs. This bill will allow senior citizens who have provided for their retirement--but find that they do not need their entire IRA for living expenses--to transfer IRA funds to charity without dilution. This will cut bureaucratic obstacles to charitable giving and unlock a substantial amount of new funds that could flow to America's charitable organizations. I first introduced this legislation in 1998, and it was folded into our tax bill in 1999. Regrettably, it was vetoed by the President. But, given our new leadership in the White House, this is an idea whose times has come. In fact, President Bush made this part of his tax plan when it was unveiled in 1999. This is also not a partisan proposal. Senator Durbin was an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with him, and the White House on this bill. It also has the support of numerous universities and charitable groups, including the Charitable Accord and the Council of Foundations, two umbrella organizations representing more than 2,000 organizations and associations.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, later today I plan to introduce legislation that will be a very important part of our tax bill and also part of the effort to encourage people to give more to charitable institutions. This bill was passed by Congress last session, and it was vetoed by the President. Senator Durbin and I are going to reintroduce it. It is the IRA charity rollover bill. It will allow simply anyone 59\1/2\ or older to take money from their IRA that they find they do not need for the lifestyle in which they wish to live in retirement and give it directly to charity without having to pay taxes on it. This will give more money to the charity, it will allow that person to choose where his or her money will go, and it will certainly continue to encourage people to save for their retirement security. It will also give them flexibility, an option, if they have saved in good faith and find they now can be more generous and would like to help the charity of their choice. The charity IRA rollover bill will be introduced by Senator Durbin and myself this afternoon. I am very pleased it also is going to be part of President Bush's tax package. Now I know that when we pass this bill, it will be signed by the President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my friend Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior. I have watched Gale as the attorney general of Colorado. I worked with her very closely on the lawsuit that the attorneys general of our States filed against the tobacco companies. Gale was one of the key leaders of the States' attorneys general in that effort and successfully negotiated the lawsuit against the tobacco companies. We worked very hard to make sure that that money stayed in the States, that the Federal Government was not able to take part of the tobacco settlement money away from the States. That has certainly helped all of our States use that money mostly for the purpose of better health care for the indigent people in their States and for all citizens who need help with health care. In my State of Texas, we added it to the CHIP program for children's health insurance. I know this has added to the quality of health care coverage in our country, and Gale Norton was one of those most responsible for it. As a former State official, she has also shown that she wants to protect the environment, and she also wants balance in our environmental laws. She believes the Federal Government should have the same requirements to keep environmental standards high that our private industries do. As Colorado attorney general, she was able to get involved in negotiations to make sure the Federal Government cleaned up hazardous waste in the Rocky Mountain arsenal. She is going to be the person who will improve public health and the environment in an evenhanded and thoughtful way. I can think of no person who would be better for this job as Secretary of the Interior than Gale Norton. Mr. President, we will also be voting on the nomination of Gov. Christine Todd Whitman to be EPA Administrator, a Cabinet post. I cannot think of a better person for EPA Administrator than this wonderful Governor of New Jersey who has a very strong environmental record and who also believes in balance to make sure that our economy stays strong and we keep the environment clean for future generations. I am proud to speak for Governor Whitman and for my friend Gale Norton to join the Cabinet of President Bush, hopefully this afternoon, because I think they will add immense experience, quality, intelligence, and integrity to that Cabinet. I am pleased to support them. I thank Senator Murkowski for giving me this time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will make much needed changes to our Presidential election system. If there was one message to come from the thirty-six day ordeal over counting the votes in this Presidential election--it was that reforms are needed in the manner of national elections. My bill would first establish a uniform poll closing time for the nation. I believe that 9 p.m. central standard time is the most appropriate time we can choose. The polls in California would close at seven. The polls in the east would close at ten. A uniform poll closing time is preferable to any kind of news blackout over election results. We live in a free society--we cannot withhold election results. But, in this time of instant communication, we cannot let news reporting affect our voting patterns. We all recall the 1980 election, when President Carter's early concession demoralized West Coast voters who thought their vote no longer counted. In this last election, we watched the state of Florida get called, when a significant part of the state had not even closed its polls. A uniform poll closing time, in my view, is the only way to avoid a repeat of this problem. A second difficulty that surfaced during this election cycle is the counting of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. Some states have moved to vote by mail. But I don't believe that in a national election, we can wait on the outcome of an election through such means. A major industrial nation, in the twenty-first century, shouldn't have to wait days or weeks to determine who won an election. Literally, the fate of the Presidency and the Senate depended on the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots days after the election was held. My legislation would require that, for Presidential elections, all ballots would have to be processed and recorded by election day. States can reserve the right to have mail-in voting. But it must be done in a manner that is respectful of the nation's right to know who the next President will be. Finally, and most importantly, I want to improve the treatment that overseas military absentee ballots are granted. We ask a lot of our men and women serving overseas. They put their lives on the line to protect our democratic values. And I was stunned to see their ballots cast aside like rubbish, purely for political opportunism, and secondly, because of so called ``technicalities.'' It was an insult to our armed forces. Never again should this happen. I will make sure that the 107th Congress acts to make sure it never happens again. In the past Congress has worked on this problem, but apparently we did not go far enough. We created a uniform absentee ballot for our military, if they couldn't get a ballot from their home state in a timely manner. We directed the Secretary of Defense to serve as the primary executive branch official charged with enforcing this Federal law. My legislation would broaden the Secretary's authority--and give him the power to develop, in consultation with the states, a standard, uniform method of treating ballots in Federal elections that come from our military serving overseas. This way, no soldier or sailor or airman serving overseas will have his or her vote disenfranchised because of a patchwork of fifty state laws with respect to absentee ballots. They protect our democracy. We have to protect their right to participate in it. Election reform will be an important issue for this Congress. There will be many proposals. I know that Senator McConnell, Chairman of the Rules Committee, will have a proposal to modernize voting procedures and machinery across our nation. I am certain that some of the reforms I am offering today will become part of the debate. Today, I am also introducing the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001, legislation that I believe addresses the most significant problems in our present system of Federal campaign finance laws. The bill will help level the playing field between challengers and incumbents and will target those areas of the law that have been subject to abuse and excess, without imposing a new, untested system of taxpayer funded campaign subsidies and regulations. I am today proposing a set of relatively simple and workable reforms that will curb the abuses undermining public confidence in the present system, that will make congressional races more competitive, and that will help return control of federal campaigns and elections to their rightful owners--the individual voters in our respective states. First, the bill requires that at least 60 percent of a Senate or House candidate's campaign funds come from individual residents of his or her state or congressional district. This will put the emphasis of fund-raising back home where it belongs, and will assist challengers, who rely more heavily on individual contributors. In addition, the bill will end the powerful incumbent advantage of the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which they are seeking re-election. Next, the bill increases the individual contribution limit from $1000 to $3000, per candidate, per election, while addressing the precipitous rise in the role of PACs in our existing system. PAC contributions to congressional candidates grew from $12.5 million in 1974 to almost $200 million in 1996, a constant dollar increase of over 400 percent. Moreover, almost 70 percent of that $200 million went to incumbents, further serving to tilt the system against challengers. While PACs can and should continue to provide a vehicle for groups of like minded individuals to leverage their support of particular candidates, this should not be allowed to undermine the candidate/voter relationship. The bill will help control this growing PAC influence by also limiting PAC contributions to $3000, the same limit as individuals under my bill. To help encourage candidates of average means to run for office against their wealthier opponents, the bill limits to $250,000 the amount a Senate campaign may reimburse a candidate, including immediate family, for loans the candidate makes to the campaign. The Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001 will also prohibit, once and for all, several abuses of the law that now plague our system: campaign contributions by non-citizens will be banned; the use of campaign funds for purposes that are inherently personal in nature will be denied; political parties will be prohibited from accepting contributions earmarked for specific candidates; and union members will be entitled to be made aware of, and to decline to contribute to, the rapidly growing political activities of their unions. Finally, the bill will encourage, not restrict, the volunteer-staffed political party building, ``get-out-the-vote,'' and other candidate support activities of state and local political parties that constitute the core of grassroots politics in America. These critical activities will be given greater latitude under the law by excluding them from the definition of campaign contributions. I realize that campaign finance reform is a contentious issue. However, if we are to restore the American people's confidence in the political process and make it more responsive to voters and accessible to candidates, we must take a hard look at those rules and attempt to fix what is broken. The Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act does just that, and in a way that I believe can garner the support of a decisive majority of Congress. Mr. President, both of these bills address issues that were raised during the campaign. I wanted to put these ideas forward today so that they can become part of the debate when we consider these issues.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will make much needed changes to our Presidential election system. If there was one message to come from the thirty-six day ordeal over counting the votes in this Presidential election--it was that reforms are needed in the manner of national elections. My bill would first establish a uniform poll closing time for the nation. I believe that 9 p.m. central standard time is the most appropriate time we can choose. The polls in California would close at seven. The polls in the east would close at ten. A uniform poll closing time is preferable to any kind of news blackout over election results. We live in a free society--we cannot withhold election results. But, in this time of instant communication, we cannot let news reporting affect our voting patterns. We all recall the 1980 election, when President Carter's early concession demoralized West Coast voters who thought their vote no longer counted. In this last election, we watched the state of Florida get called, when a significant part of the state had not even closed its polls. A uniform poll closing time, in my view, is the only way to avoid a repeat of this problem. A second difficulty that surfaced during this election cycle is the counting of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. Some states have moved to vote by mail. But I don't believe that in a national election, we can wait on the outcome of an election through such means. A major industrial nation, in the twenty-first century, shouldn't have to wait days or weeks to determine who won an election. Literally, the fate of the Presidency and the Senate depended on the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots days after the election was held. My legislation would require that, for Presidential elections, all ballots would have to be processed and recorded by election day. States can reserve the right to have mail-in voting. But it must be done in a manner that is respectful of the nation's right to know who the next President will be. Finally, and most importantly, I want to improve the treatment that overseas military absentee ballots are granted. We ask a lot of our men and women serving overseas. They put their lives on the line to protect our democratic values. And I was stunned to see their ballots cast aside like rubbish, purely for political opportunism, and secondly, because of so called ``technicalities.'' It was an insult to our armed forces. Never again should this happen. I will make sure that the 107th Congress acts to make sure it never happens again. In the past Congress has worked on this problem, but apparently we did not go far enough. We created a uniform absentee ballot for our military, if they couldn't get a ballot from their home state in a timely manner. We directed the Secretary of Defense to serve as the primary executive branch official charged with enforcing this Federal law. My legislation would broaden the Secretary's authority--and give him the power to develop, in consultation with the states, a standard, uniform method of treating ballots in Federal elections that come from our military serving overseas. This way, no soldier or sailor or airman serving overseas will have his or her vote disenfranchised because of a patchwork of fifty state laws with respect to absentee ballots. They protect our democracy. We have to protect their right to participate in it. Election reform will be an important issue for this Congress. There will be many proposals. I know that Senator McConnell, Chairman of the Rules Committee, will have a proposal to modernize voting procedures and machinery across our nation. I am certain that some of the reforms I am offering today will become part of the debate. Today, I am also introducing the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001, legislation that I believe addresses the most significant problems in our present system of Federal campaign finance laws. The bill will help level the playing field between challengers and incumbents and will target those areas of the law that have been subject to abuse and excess, without imposing a new, untested system of taxpayer funded campaign subsidies and regulations. I am today proposing a set of relatively simple and workable reforms that will curb the abuses undermining public confidence in the present system, that will make congressional races more competitive, and that will help return control of federal campaigns and elections to their rightful owners--the individual voters in our respective states. First, the bill requires that at least 60 percent of a Senate or House candidate's campaign funds come from individual residents of his or her state or congressional district. This will put the emphasis of fund-raising back home where it belongs, and will assist challengers, who rely more heavily on individual contributors. In addition, the bill will end the powerful incumbent advantage of the mass mail franking privilege for Senators during the year in which they are seeking re-election. Next, the bill increases the individual contribution limit from $1000 to $3000, per candidate, per election, while addressing the precipitous rise in the role of PACs in our existing system. PAC contributions to congressional candidates grew from $12.5 million in 1974 to almost $200 million in 1996, a constant dollar increase of over 400 percent. Moreover, almost 70 percent of that $200 million went to incumbents, further serving to tilt the system against challengers. While PACs can and should continue to provide a vehicle for groups of like minded individuals to leverage their support of particular candidates, this should not be allowed to undermine the candidate/voter relationship. The bill will help control this growing PAC influence by also limiting PAC contributions to $3000, the same limit as individuals under my bill. To help encourage candidates of average means to run for office against their wealthier opponents, the bill limits to $250,000 the amount a Senate campaign may reimburse a candidate, including immediate family, for loans the candidate makes to the campaign. The Campaign Finance and Disclosure Act of 2001 will also prohibit, once and for all, several abuses of the law that now plague our system: campaign contributions by non-citizens will be banned; the use of campaign funds for purposes that are inherently personal in nature will be denied; political parties will be prohibited from accepting contributions earmarked for specific candidates; and union members will be entitled to be made aware of, and to decline to contribute to, the rapidly growing political activities of their unions. Finally, the bill will encourage, not restrict, the volunteer-staffed political party building, ``get-out-the-vote,'' and other candidate support activities of state and local political parties that constitute the core of grassroots politics in America. These critical activities will be given greater latitude under the law by excluding them from the definition of campaign contributions. I realize that campaign finance reform is a contentious issue. However, if we are to restore the American people's confidence in the political process and make it more responsive to voters and accessible to candidates, we must take a hard look at those rules and attempt to fix what is broken. The Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act does just that, and in a way that I believe can garner the support of a decisive majority of Congress. Mr. President, both of these bills address issues that were raised during the campaign. I wanted to put these ideas forward today so that they can become part of the debate when we consider these issues.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, point of clarification: Senator Bingaman was not suggesting that he would speak immediately after Senator Lott; is that correct?