Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an important piece of legislation which will guarantee to all Americans an equal opportunity to compete for the nearly $60 billion of Government contracts. The Open Competition Act of 1997 ensures that no single special interest group will have an exclusive claim on Federal contracts, and would accomplish this by amending the National Labor Relations Act to simply prohibit discrimination in bidding for contracts funded by the Federal Government. The Clinton administration, specifically the Vice President, recently announced their intent to issue an Executive order which would, in practice, create a union-only mandate for all Federal projects. Upon closer examination, a disturbing connection exists between contributions made by big labor interests, the announcement of the proposed Executive order, and the individuals who actually drafted the language of this order. For the American people to fully understand what prompted these actions by the Clinton administration, it is essential to understand exactly what big labor did for them during the 1996 election. As widely reported after the November election cycle, labor unions spent between $300-400 million on the 1996 elections--Wall Street Journal, April 11, 1997. This amount is even more astonishing when you consider that it was financed in large part by dues-paying union members who were never asked by the union leadership if this was how they wanted their hard- earned wages spent. I firmly believe in the constitutional right to donate money to the political candidate of your choice. However, the problem here is what is asked for in return for this money, and even worse, what is given. The question must be asked--What did the labor unions get in return for the incredible amount of money they spent in the 1996 election? On February 18 of this year, at the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles, the Vice President pledged the administration's support for organized labor and announced several initiatives the administration would be launching in coming months. ``How you treat your employees and how you treat unions counts with us,'' said the Vice President--White House Press Release, February 18, 1997. He told the executive council of the AFL-CIO that the administration would issue an Executive order which would require Federal agencies to consider using project labor agreements on all Federal contracts--Bureau of National Affairs, February 19, 1997. These project labor agreements require all contracts for a particular job to be awarded only to contractors who agree to recognize designated unions as the representatives of their employees on that job. In addition, these agreements would require all contractors to use only union hiring halls to obtain workers, pay union wages and benefits, and obey the union restrictive rules, job classifications and arbitration procedures. The Open Competition Act would do away with this requirement and restore fairness to the bidding process. Just 3 days ago, on April 14, the Vice President announced that the administration was prepared to offer an Executive order encouraging Federal agencies to use project labor agreements--again, which generally require union representation--on Federal construction projects. His announcement was greeted by thunderous applause by almost 3,000 AFL-CIO trade union officials in Washington, DC. This Executive order becomes very interesting when you consider the parties who had a hand in drafting the language. The language in the draft was jointly developed by the AFL-CIO, the Clinton administration, and the Builders and Construction Trades Department. I believe this is a clear indication that the money spent by big labor during the 1996 elections not only provided the catalyst for this Executive order, but also gave them a seat at the table when it was written. Is this the way to build trust with the American worker? The Clinton administration would have us believe their actions benefit the majority of the American work force. But when you consider the percentage of Americans who belong to labor unions, this is clearly not the case. Of the total work force in America, only 14.5 percent belong to unions. When you consider just those workers in the construction industry, only 18.5 percent of those are union members. The facts clearly show that if this Executive order is implemented, only a minority of American workers will benefit. The 81.5 percent of workers who do not belong to a labor union will be placed at a clear disadvantage to the 18.5 percent who do. Essentially, this means 4 out of every 5 workers would face discrimination. This is clearly not the way to help the American worker. I want to make it very clear to the American people the detrimental effect this action by the administration will have on the American work force. The Open Competition Act which I am introducing today, will assure the vast majority of American workers that their government will not discriminate against them. This proposed Executive order will have the effect of creating a union-only mandate for all Federal construction projects. In addition, it would directly attack the principle of open competition in Federal contracting by excluding from the bidding process four out of every five workers who have chosen not to be represented by unions. The Federal Government should not be ordering discrimination against open shop companies which bid for federally-funded construction contracts. Rather, it should be encouraging competition for these contracts and promoting participation in the process by all companies who wish to bid. The Open Competition Act of 1997 would make sure this occurs. It would simply be unconscionable to institute a federal policy which would allow a special interest group to have an exclusive claim on Federal contracts based on their enormous political contributions to the current occupants of the White House. This distinguished body has the obligation to insure that Federal contracts are awarded through full, open, and competitive procedures. The Open Competition Act which I am introducing today along with Senators Lott, Nickles, Mack, Coverdell, Craig, Thurmond, Jeffords, Coats, Gregg, Frist, Enzi, Collins, Warner, McConnell, Allard, Brownback, Hagel, Kyl, and Roberts, guarantees that our constitutional prerogatives will not be infringed upon. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and guarantee to the American worker that their own Government will not discriminate against them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 3 p.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on tactical aircraft modernization programs in review of S. 450, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on the Government's role in television programming.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on the subject of Census 2000.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reauthorization of Higher Education Act, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 2 p.m. on research and development funding trends.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, to meet on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 2 p.m., in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on ``Fixing a Broken System: The need for more juvenile bedspace and juvenile record- sharing.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hold a hearing on Wednesday, April 16, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Senate Hart Building, on Senate Joint Resolution 6, a proposed constitutional amendment for crime victims.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 1003. I want to commend the Senator from Missouri for his outstanding leadership on this issue, his willingness to be proactive about an issue that is very important to the future of our Nation, and also the Senator from North Dakota for his support of this measure as well. H.R. 1003 will prohibit Federal funding and promotion of assisted suicide and euthanasia. It is critically important that the Federal Government not appear to sanction suicide as a form of medical treatment in our varied Federal health care programs. Without this bill, that would be the very message we could be sending as we would potentially find ourselves funding and covering so-called mercy killing with Federal tax dollars. It should be mentioned that this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives by a vote of 398 to 16. It enjoys obvious overwhelming bipartisan support. It involves only a prohibition of funding and does not affect the legality of assisted suicide or euthanasia. The bill simply says that the Federal Government will not be a part of the practice of assisted suicide and will not force all taxpayers to be a part of that practice. The Clinton administration should also be able to support this bill. When asked in the 1992 campaign about legislation to allow assisted suicide, President Clinton said, ``I certainly would do what I could to oppose it.'' On November 12, 1996, the Clinton administration filed a friend-of- the-court brief with the Supreme Court in opposition to physician- assisted suicide. In the brief for the administration, Solicitor General Walter Dellinger wrote: [T]here is an important and commonsense distinction between withdrawing artificial supports so that a disease will progress to its inevitable end, and providing chemicals to be used to kill someone. Given these statements, the President should be able to sign legislation that has the very modest effect of simply not funding assisted suicide. I agree with the statement of Walter Dellinger, Solicitor General. A patient may always decline or discontinue medical treatment even if that may incidentally lead to the patient's death. But that is a far cry from administering a lethal injection or providing lethal drugs to that patient. The former is a longstanding and recognized medical practice; the latter is medicalized killing. The Federal Government must not make all taxpayers be involved in such killing. Some may object that neither suicide nor the attempt at suicide are illegal. If people have a legal right to kill themselves, they continue, then it makes no sense to deny them the help of a physician in doing so, or to cut off the payment for doing that as this bill does. That is the logic. But it is incorrect to say that people have a right to kill themselves simply because we do not throw them in jail if they attempt to do so. Think of the following. We have a first amendment right to protest and denounce the policy choices of our elected officials in, say, a public park. If a supporter of that politician tried to physically restrain such speech, that person would be subject to criminal charges of assault and battery. On the other hand, suppose someone else tries physically to restrain another from committing suicide. As the Minnesota Supreme Court said in a 1975 case: [T]here can be no doubt that a bona fide attempt to prevent a suicide is not a crime in any jurisdiction, even where it involves the detention, against her will, of the person planning to kill herself. In fact, if public authorities detect someone in the act of attempting to commit suicide, they will typically not only interfere, but also place the person in the custody of mental health authorities. And posing a danger to oneself is a basis for involuntary commitment for mental health treatment. In short, it is not accurate to say that at present people have the legal liberty to commit suicide because they can be, and frequently are, legally restrained from doing so. Others may suggest that this is only for suicide attempts by the healthy. Everyone deplores the suicide of young, healthy people. But they contend some suicides are rational, like those of terminally ill patients. Contrary to the assumptions of many in the public, a scientific study of people with terminal illness published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that fewer than one in four with terminal illness expressed a wish to die, and of those who did, every single one suffered from a clinically diagnosable depression. We must remember that it is the depression, not the terminal illness, that prompts a desire to die or to commit suicide. And that depression is treatable in the sick, the terminally ill, as well as in the healthy. Psychologist Joseph Richman, former president of the American Association of Suicidologists, the professional group for experts who treat the suicidal, points out that ``[E]ffective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill, and only irrational prejudices prevent the greater resort to such measures.'' Dr. David C. Clark, a suicidologist, observes that depressive episodes in the seriously ill ``are not less responsive to medication'' than depression in others. So the solution for those among the terminally ill who are suicidal is to treat them for their depression, not pay to send them to Dr. Kevorkian. This bill sends us on the way to just that: not paying for patient killing so that we can focus on real medical treatment for the patients who need it. So I am glad to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1003, and in so doing, to send a very important message to the people of our Nation and to the culture of our country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, every year like clockwork, with the approach of April 15, tax day, millions of Americans are out scrambling to find out how much they owe the Federal Government in taxes and how much they have overpaid the Federal Government in taxes. The IRS requires us to fill out complicated tax forms and, after plugging in numbers to formulas and performing various mathematical calculations, we come up with the magic number of what we owe the Federal Government or sometimes, rarely, what the Federal Government owes to us. To complete these tax forms is sobering. Sometimes it is a frightening experience, especially when you look at the block on your W-2 form that shows the amount of your income that has been consumed for tax purposes. The truth be told, the typical worker toils nearly 3 hours in a typical 8-hour workday just to pay taxes. Many families with two working parents find that one of those working parents is working full time just to pay Uncle Sam. Put another way, May 9 is tax freedom day. In theory, this is the day when an individual who has been working since January 1 will be able to take home his or her first paycheck. Every penny of the income they earn during that first 5 months of the year has gone to pay their annual income taxes. Our Nation's total tax burden is at an alltime high. Federal, State and local receipts remain at a record 31.7 percent of the gross domestic product. That is one-third of our Nation's total output now consumed in taxes. Even more demonstrative of the magnitude of the American tax burden is the fact that the average American family pays more in taxes, as we have heard over and over again, than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. This, I think, is proof positive that American families are overburdened and in need of tax relief. That is why I introduced, with Senator Grams of Minnesota, who is on the floor this afternoon, the $500-per-child tax credit for all working families, regardless of income. Everyone talks about the importance of family values. It is time that we act to preserve American families by passing that $500-per-child tax credit. I talked to a person in Pine Bluff, AR. He said, ``My children are grown. What do you have for me? I don't need that $500-per-child tax credit.'' I said, ``Sir, if you would just compute the benefit that you had as you had reared your children--they are now grown--you would see that the benefit that you had has been eroded through inflation and no longer exists.'' And he was soon convinced. As we look at that per child dependent exemption, that would be over $8,500 had it been indexed for inflation. The 1997 tax season has been fraught with reports of abusive practices and sloppy management with the IRS--reports of taxpayer money being used to provide tax refunds to prison inmates at the nearby Lorton prison facility, of IRS agents improperly accessing taxpayers' returns, and of other coercive tactics employed by IRS agents to collect taxes. Americans already suffer under an unfair and incomprehensible Tax Code. As they struggle to be honest, taxpaying citizens, they should not have to worry about being harassed by an agency that, according to the General Accounting Office, cannot accurately account for its own $7 billion annual budget. I think millions of Americans feel as I do today, as we look at the Internal Revenue Service. We would say, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding time and for organizing this time to talk about the desperate need for tax relief for American families and businesses. I rise today in very strong support for meaningful and permanent tax relief for American families and businesses. This is, I believe, no time for us as conservatives, no time for us as Republicans, no time for us as Americans to retreat or backtrack or to equivocate on our commitment to the American people that we will fight for them and fight for tax relief. One of the problems--and there are many--with the President's budget is that he matches temporary, very narrowly targeted tax cuts with permanent tax hikes. So while the minimal targeted tax cuts would be sunsetted, the American people will be obliged to continue to pay and pay and pay the tax increases. Not too long ago, Mr. Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, said, ``Ultimately, you cannot solve the long-term deficits from the receipt side. It's got to be from the expenditure side.'' Put very plainly, it seems to me that Mr. Greenspan is saying that the problem we have in our chronic deficits is not that the Federal Government does not have enough money, it is not that our National Government does not have enough revenues; it is that we are, in fact, addicted to spending. So the question is--and the debate continues to exist--Can we balance the budget and provide tax relief simultaneously? I think the answer to that is an emphatic, yes. The problem is not that we don't have enough revenues or that we need to increase taxes. The problem has been and continues to be that we spend too much and that we cannot get a control on our spending habit and that we are unwilling to deal with the very real problem of entitlement spending that consumes more and more of the budget pie. So I suggest that we can cut taxes and that we must cut taxes for the American people. There are three areas, I think, particularly that we need to emphasize. First, as the Senator from Wyoming emphasized, was family tax relief. Families today, working families, hard-working families, are being squeezed more and more by an ever larger tax bite-- almost 40 percent for the average family--at the Federal, State, and local level, which is more than they are spending for housing, for education for their children, for health care, more than they are spending for recreation, all combined together, they are spending to the tax collector. That is too much. That is unfair. I also was listening to my constituents over the recess. We had 12 town meetings in Arkansas. In Fayetteville, AR, after making a speech and taking questions for more than an hour, a gentleman came up to me and said, ``Senator, something is wrong in America.'' He said, ``I was raised in a family of eight of us. There were eight children. Mom stayed home, dad worked. Dad, as a single breadwinner in a single- income family, he could provide for the eight of us. We had a pretty good life. My dad had a high school education. Now I have a college degree, two children. My wife and I both work, and we can barely keep things together. Something is wrong.'' While there may be many, many answers to that question, what is wrong and what has happened--a big part of it--is that Government has gotten larger, and as Government has gotten larger, its demand on the family has increased and the amount that it confiscates from the American family of higher taxes has grown to the point that the American family has a very difficult time paying it. We need family tax relief. We need estate tax relief. There are fewer things I heard more about during my town meetings than the need for estate tax relief. There are fewer taxes in this country I believe that are more un-American than the estate tax. There are fewer taxes that are more of a killer and a destroyer of the American dream than the estate tax. We used to say that part of the American dream is if you work hard, save your money, and if you invest well, that you not only will have a better life, but you will be able to pass that on to your children and grandchildren so that they will have greater opportunities than we have. But today, if you work hard and if you have done well, we will take 55 percent of it in estate taxes. It is killing that American dream, or a big part of that American dream. I think that is wrong. There are five bills in the Senate to reform or to eliminate the estate tax. I am on all of them. I think we need to at least raise the exclusion. But better yet, we need to eliminate it. It is a very ineffective way to fund the Federal Government anyway. We are 65 cents short in collections for every dollar that we receive from the estate tax. It is a very ineffective way of funding Federal programs. Then, finally, I want to mention that we desperately need immediate capital gains tax relief. I heard a great deal about this. This is what they say. They say, yes, the Republicans are for capital gains tax relief, that it is a tax break for the wealthy. Well, we know that the vast majority of tax filers will at some time in their life file capital gains on their tax returns, most of those being middle-income earners. It is not a tax break for the wealthy. Let me tell you how it plays out in Arkansas. A young couple started 30 years ago building a poultry farm in the Ozark Hills. They spent their life paying off that mortgage. They are getting up in age. They are not wealthy. But they have worked their whole lives to pay off that farm. Maybe they can no longer tend that big farm, or maybe they want to move into town close to the hospital, or maybe they need to get in close to the grandchildren. They go to sell that farm. They discover that the capital gains taxes would be so high that they can't afford to sell the farm they worked a lifetime to pay for. They are not wealthy. But that is what we have done with the capital gains tax. I will give you one other example. My chief of staff is from Stone County, AR. Stone County has one of the largest per capita incomes in the State of Arkansas. His parents own a little cafe called Cody's Cafe in Fifty-Six, AR, next to the State park. It is a good restaurant. It has good food. I recommend it. I eat there when I am in Fifty-Six, AR. But Todd's parents wanted to sell that little restaurant. It is a mom- and-pop operation. They don't have many employees. It is a very small cafe. They wanted to sell it and put it into another business, in another restaurant in another part of Arkansas. They had a buyer, somebody who was going to buy that cafe-restaurant. Those buyers undoubtedly were going to expand, and they were going to hire additional employees as well. Todd told his parents, ``Before you make that deal, before you sign that contract, be sure to check with your accountant. Find out what the capital gains taxes will be.'' When they checked they found they couldn't afford to make that sale. So they hung onto it. They continued to operate it. But I want you to think with me, my colleagues. What would have been the impact had they been able to make that sale, had we not had the exorbitant capital gains tax we impose? We would have had a new business started with new employees. The economy would have been stimulated with more taxes being paid to the Federal Treasury. We would have had new business owners there in Stone County with the desire to expand that restaurant operation, hire additional employees and, therefore, not only stimulate the economy in Stone County, but pay more taxes to the Federal Treasury. You take that little example from Stone County, AR, and multiply that thousands of times across the United States, and you begin to get the picture of what we could do in stimulating the American economy, and therefore making it easier for us to balance the Federal budget if we would simply cut drastically and dramatically the capital gains tax rate. I believe we need to do that. So I know there are others who are here to speak. I just want to conclude by saying this is no time for us to retreat on our promise made to the American people that we are going to work for tax relief. I believe it is the moral equivalent of what President Bush did in 1990. I admire and love President Bush, but I think he made a terrible mistake when he told the American people ``no new taxes,'' and then violated that pledge in reaching a budget deal. We must not, in our desire to reach some mythical budget deal, forsake, abandon, or equivocate on the promise and the pledge we made to the American people that we have come up here to lessen that ever-increasing tax burden under which they labor. So I, for one, will continue to work for a budget that is going to have family tax relief, estate tax relief, and capital gains tax relief for the American people. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There is a Fifty-Six, AR, and Cody Cafe is the place to eat.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the importance of Mexico's full cooperation with the United States antinarcotics efforts cannot, I believe, be overstated. Drug use among American teenagers has nearly doubled in the last 5 years. More importantly, more than 70 percent of illegal narcotics coming into the United States flow through Mexico. I know that many of those drugs originate in Colombia, incidentally, which we decertified, but 70 percent of those coming into the United States now flow through the nation of Mexico. Mr. President, as we all know, on February 28, the Clinton administration certified that Mexico cooperated fully with United States efforts to combat international narcotics trafficking during 1996. However, on February 27, the day before, the administration received a bipartisan letter from 39 Senators--I signed it, Senator Feinstein signed it, and many of my colleagues signed it--urging our Government to deny certification to Mexico. The facts unequivocally show us that Mexico has not--I say, has not--fully cooperated with us. Not one Mexican national out of the 100 or more that the United States wants for trial here on serious drug charges has been extradited to the United States, despite our Government's numerous requests. Not one has been extradited. Our own DEA Administrator, Tom Constantine, has recently said: There has been little or no effective action taken against the major Mexico-based cartels. . . Then he said: The Mexicans are now the single most powerful trafficking group--worse than the Colombian cartels. So while we are willing to decertify Colombia, our own DEA Administrator says Mexico is now worse, and we are going to certify them. You explain to me the logic in that, explain to me the consistency in that, explain to me how we, in good conscience, can do that. Mexico's counternarcotics effort is plagued by corruption in the government and the national police. Among the evidence are the eight prosecutors and law enforcement officials who have been murdered in Tijuana in recent months. Furthermore, the revelation that General Rebollo, Mexican's top narcotics official and a 42-year veteran of the armed forces, had accepted bribes from the Carrillo-Fuentes cartels casts grave doubts on Mexico's ability to curb corruption at the highest level of its government. Corruption is now, in fact, pervasive in the Mexican Government. Mr. President, we in this body must all be well aware that Mexico continues to be a major transit point for cocaine illegally entering the United States from South America, as well as a major source country for heroin and marijuana. The 1997 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, issued by the United States State Department, explicitly notes that Mexico is the transshipment point for 50 to 60 percent--50 to 60 percent--of the United States-bound cocaine shipments and up to 80 percent of the meth precursors. This report notes that in 1996, Mexico supplied 20 to 30 percent of the heroin and up to 80 percent of the foreign-grown marijuana entering the United States of America. The fact is that four Mexican drug trafficking organizations dominate the narcotics trade between the United States and Mexico. The DEA calls these groups the ``Mexican federation'' and estimates that they gross $10 billion to $30 annually in drug sales. Mr. President, those drug sales are to our children, to our Nation and to our culture, and they threaten the very future of our Nation. On February 28, 7 hours after the President announced his certification of Mexico, again with the full knowledge of congressional disapproval, Mexico's Attorney General's office issued a statement that its own senior officials had released Humberto Garcia Abrego, a reputed money launderer and brother of convicted drug kingpin, Juan Garcia Abrego. We do not know whether he was released earlier--whether it occurred on the 28th or earlier--with the announcement being held until after the President's certification decision was made public. But, again, we see how this country has been treated over a decade of this certification process. Mr. President, I ask you, can we not do better? Tom Constantine said, in short, there is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship. Can we not do better than that, certifying a country that cannot fully cooperate with our counterdrug efforts? What message does this send to our children about the seriousness of the drug war? Our children are the real victims of this policy. I have heard the repeated argument that if the narcotics market in the United States was not so bloated, then there would be no reason for a continual supply of drugs coming across our borders. Supply and demand. Quite frankly, I agree with that assertion. However, let's tackle that issue in the crime bill, not on the certification of a foreign country not being cooperative with our efforts. I am committed to winning the war on drugs, and we can only do that by championing the causes to reduce the amount of drugs in this country, appropriating funds for antinarcotics efforts, and assisting the DEA in the fight. But Mexico has not been helpful, and that is the fact and that is the truth. It is ironic, I think, that while we stand aside and certify Mexico's full cooperation, we pass a resolution that asserts that in fact that has not been the case. I have the joint resolution before me. It says this: There is evidence of significant corruption affecting institutions of the Government of Mexico (including the police and military). . . . It says this: In 1996, the Attorney General of Mexico dismissed more than 1,200 Mexico federal law enforcement officers . . . although some were rehired and none [none] has been successfully prosecuted for corruption. We are going to say, through the certification of Mexico, that they have been fully cooperative when that is not the reality of the resolution that we are passing. We say in the resolution: The Government of Mexico has recently approved, but has yet to implement fully, new and more effective legislation against organized crime and money laundering. That is what we say in the resolution we are going to vote for, which flies absolutely in the face of the certification of Mexico. The resolution says: Drug cartels continue to operate with impunity in Mexico, and effective action needs to be taken. . . . And yet we are going to certify Mexico as being fully cooperative and making progress. We have a resolution that we are going to vote on that says: Cocaine seizures and arrests of drug traffickers in Mexico have dropped since 1992. So while we say that arrests and seizures are down, we are going to say that we are going to certify them as making progress and being fully cooperative. Then on page 6 of the resolution, the sense-of-Congress portion of the resolution, we say: It is the sense of Congress that there has been ineffective and insufficient progress in halting the production in and transit through Mexico of illegal drugs. While we say that, we stand aside and allow certification to take place. I ask Mr. Coverdell, who controls this time, for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So while we say in the resolution it is our sense they have been ineffective and there has been insufficient progress, we allow certification to go forward, which says in fact they have been making progress and that they have been fully cooperative. To my colleagues I simply say, I think that is inconsistent, I think that is intellectually dishonest, and it is unfortunate, and it does a disservice to the citizens and our constituents whom we serve. We pass a resolution asserting that they have failed, that they have not made progress, and then we allow certification to go forward. How can we reconcile our treatment of the nation of Colombia a year ago and decertify and with a straight face now certify Mexico through which 70 percent of the illegal drugs flow into this country? You do it. I cannot. I believe that this certification process has become a sham. It is intellectually dishonest to move forward with that. The entire resolution upon which we will be voting contradicts that certification--two standards--that they have been fully cooperative and they have been making progress. We pass a resolution that says they have not been fully cooperative and they have not been making adequate progress. You reconcile that. I cannot. I yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I commend Senator Coverdell, in particular, for his leadership on this issue, his hard work and, along with him, Senator Feinstein, Senator Helms, the chairman, Senator McCain, Senator Dodd, Senator Hutchison, and the leaders for the hard work they put in. Certainly they put in many, many hours working to resolve a very thorny and very difficult issue. Having said that, it is with regret and some reservation that I say I believe the resolution before us today is totally insufficient. We have now taken a very substantive and meaningful action against a poor decision by the Clinton administration and turned it into a political football and, Mr. President, I believe we have fumbled the football on the goal line. While I realize the outcome of this vote is evident, it is clear I cannot, in good conscience, stay silent and not speak to the deficiencies of the resolution on which we will be casting our votes. As best I can tell, while the resolution says many good things, while it says some very meaningful things, when you boil it all down and when you look at it, the essence of what we get from this resolution is a report that we are asking the administration, we are telling the administration to give us in a few months, and that, after all is said and done, is all there is to it. I hold in my hand several newspaper accounts, recent newspaper articles which raise serious questions as to the efficacy of the Mexican Government's counternarcotics efforts. Let me just give you some of the headlines: ``Another Mexican General is Arrested and Charged with Links to Drug Cartel.'' ``2nd Mexican General Faces Drug Charges.'' ``424 Fail Drug Exams in Mexican Law Enforcement.'' The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I stand here today in full support of House Joint Resolution 58 and Senate Joint Resolution 21, resolutions expressing Congress' disapproval of the President's certification to Congress that Mexico has fully cooperated with United States antinarcotics efforts during the last year. Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act dutifully permits Congress to disapprove Presidential certifications made under this section if it enacts a joint resolution to that effect. The importance of Mexico's full cooperation with United States antinarcotic efforts cannot be overstated. Drug use among American teenagers has nearly doubled in the last 5 years. Most importantly, more than 70 percent of illegal narcotics entering the United States comes from the Nation of Mexico. Mr. President, as we all know, on February 28, the Clinton administration certified that Mexico cooperated fully with United States efforts to combat international narcotics trafficking during 1996. However, on February 27, 1 day before the President issued the certification, the day before the administration received a bipartisan letter from 39 Senators, myself included, urging our Government to deny certification to Mexico, the facts unequivocally show that Mexico has not fully cooperated with the United States. Seventy percent of the illicit drugs that enter the United States still enter through Mexico. There has been no change in those figures or on that front. The DEA says that Mexican drug traffickers are manufacturing massive and unprecedented quantities of high purity meth and supplying it to distribution networks here in the United States which are destroying our youth and creating a new front in the drug war. Not 1 Mexican national out of the 100 or more the United States wants currently for trial here in the United States on serious drug charges has been extradited to the United States, despite the numerous requests that our Government has issued to the Mexican Government. Our own DEA Administrator, Thomas Constantine, has recently said: There has been little or no effective action taken against the major Mexican-based cartels. . . . The Mexicans are now the single most powerful trafficking group--worse [even] than the Colombian cartels. Mexico's counternarcotics effort is plagued by corruption in the Government and in the national police. Among the evidence are that eight Mexican prosecutors and law enforcement officials have been murdered in Tijuana in recent months. The revelation that Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top counternarcotics official and a 42-year veteran of the armed forces, had accepted bribes from the cartels casts grave doubts upon Mexico's ability to curb corruption at the highest levels of its own Government. While there have been increases in the amount of heroin and marijuana seized by Mexican authorities, cocaine seizures remain low. The 1996 levels are half those seized in 1993. And the same holds true on drug- related arrests; they are half the figure of the 1992 level. Lastly, on the eve of full certification to Mexico, the Mexican police released a notorious money launderer linked to a major drug dealer, and the United States was informed of this fact only after certification was announced. The Mexican police officers who released the individual are now under investigation as a result of this early release. In the face of these substantive facts, President Clinton still certified that Mexico was fully cooperating with our antidrug efforts. As a father of three, I cannot in good faith be witness to the corruption of the well-being of America's children. Mr. President, the resolutions before us are simple. Mexico has failed with regard to antidrug cooperation; however, the President has certified giving them a passing grade. I say to Members of the Senate, both of these resolutions contain a waiver provision that would permit the President to continue both bilateral assistance and multinational development assistance for Mexico. By adopting these resolutions we are declaring that Mexico has not fully cooperated and therefore should not receive the United States certification. Mr. President, based on the facts, including the national interest waiver, we must send a message to the Nation of Mexico that the administration made the wrong decision and that these resolutions will set that record straight while preserving stability in our relationship with Mexico. So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of both House Joint Resolution 58 and S.J. Res. 21 for the good of the Nation and for the good of our children. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah. I rise in strong support today of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have three sons. My twin boys, today, are celebrating a birthday. They are 23 years old. I have an 18-year-old. In 1984, when I first ran for political office--the Arkansas State Legislature--I was asked, ``Why would you get into politics?'' I had three reasons: Jeremy, Tim, and Josh. I didn't know whether I could make a difference, but I was gravely concerned about the direction our Nation was going in and, particularly, the way our Nation was growing in deficits, chronic deficits, and a massive national debt. I wanted to be able to look them in the eyes and say, ``I did what I could to give you a nation as good and as prosperous and with as much opportunity as I have had.'' Well, in less than 2 hours from this moment, I will have an opportunity to cast a vote. We may not succeed in this balanced budget amendment, but I will have a clear conscience, and I will be able to look my sons in the eyes and say that I did what I could to bring a fiscal sanity to our Nation again. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I certainly agree--and Congress will, should we pass this amendment, and the States ratify this, and this become a part of the Constitution--Congress will, at long last, fulfill its constitutional oath of office and we will enforce a balanced budget. Congress has not done that. We have not done that because we lack a constitutional hammer, a constitutional discipline requiring us to do so. The courts will not be imposing taxes. The President will not be impounding. But Congress will be doing what will be, then, our constitutional obligation in balancing the books. Senator Kennedy's amendment is directed to the issue of judicial review. I believe it is in fact unnecessary. The relevant limitations on the powers of the courts, which are found in the doctrines such as ripeness, standing, and political question, effectively prevent Federal courts from raising Federal taxes or reallocating Federal budget priorities, which are the purview of Congress. Furthermore, as an additional safeguard pursuant to both article 3 of the Constitution and section 6 of the balanced budget amendment, Congress may limit the jurisdiction of courts and the remedies that courts may provide. No constitutional provision has ever contained a jurisdictional limitation on courts, as this amendment by Senator Kennedy would. Including this amendment in the balanced budget amendment might establish, I believe would establish, a troublesome precedent that courts might use to get involved in other areas of the Constitution that do not have such limitations. I believe that these amendments, one after another, are being proposed by those who would, of course, like to see a balanced budget amendment defeated. This is another scare tactic that is being thrown at the American people. We see that in the issue of impoundment that Senator Kennedy referred to. President Clinton recently said, ``The way I read the amendment, it would almost certainly require, after the budget is passed, if the economic estimates turn out to be wrong, the executive branch, the President, the Treasury Department to impound Social Security checks or turn it over to courts to decide what is to be done.'' That, to my colleagues I say, is a blatant scare tactic to try to defeat a much-needed amendment to the Constitution. If Senator Kennedy's amendment on impoundment is addressed as he indicated, then it is, again, unnecessary. First, the President has, at most, only limited authority to impound funds. The Supreme Court held that in the case involving President Nixon. Since the balanced budget amendment does not even mention the impoundment authority of the President, there is very, very little support for the claim that the balanced budget amendment would give the President such abilities. Second, Congress has plenary enforcement authority and, therefore, can, through new legislation, prevent the President from impounding appropriated funds. The Constitution does not mention impoundment. The power of the President in this area is merely implied by the President's general Executive power. This is very important because the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the authority to limit the President's implied powers, so long as it does not prevent the President from discharging his specific duties. Third, even in the absence of new legislation, the Line-Item Veto Act already regulates this area, thereby indicating how the Congress has allocated power to the President. In that law, Congress established a specific procedure for the President to follow. By so doing, Congress has occupied the field, to borrow a term from the law of Federal preemption, thereby precluding the President from exercising a general Executive power, like impoundment, in a different manner. So, I say again, this amendment, though I have no doubt it is well intended and addresses what are perceived to be legitimate concerns, is, in fact, unnecessary, plays upon the fears of the American people, and should be rejected. While we carry on this somewhat detailed debate, during this hour in which I have been on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the national debt will increase another $29 million. It is time, it is far past time, as these 28 years of budget books bear testimony, for this Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment, send it to the States for quick ratification and to begin to put ourselves under the same discipline that most of our States exist under and that every family in this country exists under: A requirement that we live within our means. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will respond briefly to my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, regarding the political will and courage for the Senate, House--the Congress--to simply balance the budget. We heard that in the State of the Union Address: ``Pass a balanced budget and the President will sign it.'' We have heard that referred to repeatedly from the other side of the aisle. I stand next to 28 years of budget books, over 50 volumes that I think bears mute evidence to the lack of political will and courage in Congress and the evidence that we simply won't do it without constitutional discipline. In 1986, my brother, who now serves in the House of Representatives, was running for this body, the U.S. Senate. The balanced budget amendment the previous year had been defeated in this body by one vote. So that was a very big political issue in the campaign that year. Over and over again it was said, ``We don't need the balanced budget amendment. We simply need the courage to do it.'' So now, 11 years later, with over $1 trillion in additional debt, we hear those same recycled arguments brought before the U.S. Senate again. I want to comment a bit on the contention that the balanced budget amendment is both unenforceable and that the courts will impermissibly interfere with the budget process, or that a President may simply just impound things to resolve a budget shortfall. I agree with Senator Hatch's long-held position that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution ought to be silent as to judicial review. The long- existing and well-recognized precepts of the standing separation of powers, as well as the political question doctrine, restrains courts from interfering with the budgetary process. After all, courts are loathe to intrude into areas that properly belong to other branches of Government. And the Constitution, in article I, solely delegates to Congress, not the courts, the power to raise taxes, borrow money, and increase or reduce spending programs. Courts simply do not have the authority to order Congress to raise taxes. Furthermore, courts will not grant standing to litigants who claim a generalized grievance similar to the complaints of all citizens, such as the raising of taxes, so as not to impose broad-based relief that interferes with congressional prerogatives. Federal courts simply do not have the authority to usurp Congress' role of the budgetary process. This is made clear by the time-honored precept of standing and the political question in separation-of-powers doctrines. These jurisprudential doctrines, together, stand as impenetrable barriers to the courts' commandeering of the democratic process. Additionally, I wish to respond to the impoundment argument. I want to emphasize that there is nothing in the balanced budget amendment that allows for impoundment. It is not the intent of the amendment to grant the President any impoundment authority. In fact, there is a ripeness problem to any attempted impoundment. Indeed, up to the end of the fiscal year, the President has nothing to impound because Congress, in the amendment, has the power to ameliorate any budget shortfalls or ratify or specify the amount of deficit spending that may occur in that fiscal year. Moreover, under section 6 of the amendment, Congress must--and I emphasize must--mandate exactly what type of enforcement mechanism it wants, whether it be sequestration, rescission, or the establishment of a contingency fund. The President, as Chief Executive, is dutybound to enforce a congressionally crafted scheme to the exclusion of impoundment. The position that section 6 implementing legislation would preclude Presidential impoundment was seconded by Attorney General Barr in 1995. Finally, let me address the rock and a hard place argument that opponents of the balanced budget always dredge up. That is, they contend, on the one hand, that there may be too much enforcement because of the courts, while, on the other hand, that the balanced budget amendment is unenforceable because no one can force the President and Congress to abide by the amendment's terms. Well, you can't have it both ways. The truth is that the President and Congress must abide by their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. I seriously doubt that the basic terms of any constitutional provision will be flouted. Also, each branch will keep a close eye on the other, and the reality of political pressure and the electoral wrath of the American people will assure compliance. Remember, the budget must be in balance at the end of the fiscal year, and I expect that a budget agreement will be worked out well before that time. Instead, the contention against the balanced budget amendment actually argues in favor of a balanced budget amendment. It is clear that, without a constitutional hammer, the political process lacks the discipline to agree to the terms. Again, as we enter the final days of this debate on the balanced budget amendment, I think we need to step back on occasion from the very technical arguments and some of the very arcane amendments that have been proposed generally by those who oppose the underlying constitutional amendment and look at the reason we have come to this impasse, this situation. If, in fact, there are questions that cannot be answered about all of the consequences of a balanced budget amendment, and the one that is before this Senate, I believe, when you weigh those unanswered questions with the very clear evidence and the very clear and present danger to the future, the economic future, of the Republic that exists with massive debt and chronic deficits, that it is time we take whatever risk--and I think that risk would be minor--there might be in the passage of that constitutional amendment and submitting that to the States for ratification. We have a $5.3 trillion national debt. We have heard the figures over and over-- $20,000 per every man, woman, and child in America. The average child reared today, if he or she lives an average lifespan, makes an average income, will spend over $200,000 of their income in Federal income taxes to pay their portion of the interest on this ever-growing national debt. Let us view this massive debt in another way. In 1960, after the first 140 years of the Republic, John D. Rockefeller, who at that time was the wealthiest man in America, could have singlehandedly paid off the national debt. In 1997, if we combine the wealth of our richest families--say, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or from my home State, the Walton family--and we combine all of their net worth, all of their family wealth, they, together, could not even pay the interest on this massive debt for a few short months. Such is the difference, and such is the massiveness of the debt that we have accumulated and that we are imparting to generations in the future. Viewed from another perspective, if you laid out the debt in silver dollars, one right after another, it would be 120 million miles long. The word ``trillion'' becomes meaningless, I think, to the average American, as we hear millions, billions and trillions. But the national debt--$5.3 trillion--in silver dollars would be 120 million miles long. That is from the Earth to the Sun and well beyond--millions of miles beyond. If you could wrap it around the Earth you would wrap it around the Earth 5,000 times. Adam Smith in ``Wealth of Nations,'' published in the very year we became a Republic, said, ``What is prudence in the conduct of a private family can scarcely be followed in that of a great kingdom.'' I have heard opponents of the balanced budget amendment say, ``Well, families go into debt. Families routinely go into debt. Therefore, deficit spending on the part of the National Government should not be anything that we should greatly worry about or be greatly concerned about.'' Yes. Families go into debt. They have a home mortgage. They have car loans. They have the college loan. But if they are to survive as a family economically the deficits must never be chronic. They should always be short-termed. They should always be temporary. The debt must be manageable. There must be a schedule to pay it off and pay it down, all of which contrasts vividly with the practice of this Congress over the last 60 years. For in the last 60 years we have not paid down one dime on the growing national debt. No family could survive the habitual mismanagement that has characterized Congress for the past 28 years. Opponents say, ``We don't need an amendment. We have the ability to balance the budget.'' I say that we don't have the ability. We have the authority but we obviously don't have the ability, as these 28 years of budget books testify. In 1963 the amount of the debt held by the public was $254 billion. In 1996, it was $3.87 trillion, 15 times greater than in 1963. But since 1963 the promises have not changed. Let me just give you a sample. President Kennedy in the State of the Union Address in 1963 said, ``My program is the surest and soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget.'' Or, the budget message of 1964 from President Johnson, ``My budget cuts the deficit in half and carries us a giant step toward the achievement of a balanced budget.'' Or, President Nixon in 1971 in his State of the Union Address, ``I shall recommend a balanced budget.'' Or, President Ford in 1976, ``The combination of tax and spending changes I propose will set us on a course that not only will lead us to a balanced budget in 3 years but also improves the prospects for the economy to stay on a growth path that we can sustain.'' Or, President Carter in his message to Congress accompanying the Economic Report of 1977, ``We have moved on the path necessary for achieving a balanced budget in the very near future.'' Or, President Bush in 1992 in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, ``I will fight to reduce spending and spur growth so we can get this budget in balance.'' And, President Clinton's address to the Nation in 1995, ``I present the American people a plan for a balanced Federal budget.'' In fact, it is not balanced. Three-fourths of the cuts, savings, and spending occur after this President will leave office. And the Congressional Budget Office tells us that even with all of that it is still very much out of balance. But the opponents continue to mock the idea of amending the Constitution. The statutory solutions that Congress have proposed simply have failed over and over and over again. They have failed from the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, and on and on. We found a way to circumvent or undermine and some way to continue our spending habit. And our opponents say, ``Well, we are treating the Constitution as if it were a rough draft; that we have a raft full of amendments, a pocketful of constitutional changes.'' Wrong. Our Founding Fathers I believe knew very, very well that changing circumstances in the life of our Nation would make it necessary to have a process for change and, therefore, they included an amendment process that is both deliberate and very, very difficult, as we are learning once again this year. But our Founding Fathers never envisioned that there would be a Congress, or a series of Congresses that would go 28 years without balancing its budget. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned that we would amass more than $5 trillion in public debt. But they left us a procedure whereby we can address even that kind of calamitous situation, a procedure of amending the Constitution. This isn't frivolous. This isn't like what we are about in attempting to amend the Constitution. It is as our Founding Fathers intended, a deliberate process by which we can address those circumstances that would threaten the very future of the Nation. And this massive debt does threaten. How much does the debt and the growth of the debt and the chronic deficits affect the average American? We have heard much talk about declining interest rates and how that will benefit the average American family. How things have changed. My mom and dad had only high school educations. They raised a family of six children. My father worked in a chicken plant, and my mother stayed at home. She didn't even go out and get a job. We lived in a nice home, a brick home. I thought we were poor. But we thought we were middle class. But all in all, we had a great quality of life. And I wonder how many times that could happen today? How many times today could you have parents without a college education with one spouse working and one spouse at home, and providing their children a college education? I say that, even as we look at the average middle-class family today, we see the erosion of our standard of living. And part of that is because the wealth of this Nation is consumed more and more by the massive spending of the Federal Government and the absorption of that wealth by paying interest on an evergrowing national debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.