Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, in response to my friend, I will simply say that the learned Justices may know little about budgeting, they may know little about national defense, they may know little about budget priorities, they may know little about exploding entitlements, but they have not been responsible, as we have been, for 28 successive years of deficits and the accumulation of $5.3 trillion in national debt. They have not been responsible for imposing upon my children and my grandchildren $20,000 of debt per person. They cannot be held accountable for our failings, and I emphasize once again, it will not be the Justices of the Supreme Court who will enforce this provision to the Constitution should it be ratified, and it will not be the President, through the impoundment process, that will enforce this; it will be Congress in obedience to and in fulfillment of their oath of office, an oath that requires us to protect and preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, a Constitution that will, at that time, have enshrined within it a provision requiring us to balance our books. We will do the job. We will do it when we are required by the Constitution. Is it a shame we have to have that? I think it is. Is it unfortunate we have not had the courage, the political will to make the kind of tough decisions that would have allowed us to balance the budget and to have avoided our current situation? It is a shame. But the evidence is clear that short of an amendment to the Constitution, Congress will continue to allow spending to grow out of control, we will continue to have chronic deficits, and we will continue to amass enormous debts that threaten the economic stability and the economic future of our country. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment. And in order to have that amendment, we need to reject Senator Kennedy's I think unnecessary and ill-conceived amendment to the underlying amendment to the Constitution. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask that the following background statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: [From the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Jan. 28, 1997] Background on the Clinton administration's Promotion of Abortion Through the State Department and the Foreign Aid Program for ``Population Assistance'' Abortion should not, and need not, be interjected into the ``population assistance'' program as the Clinton Administration has done. At the end of the Bush Administration, under the pro-life ``Mexico City Policy'' (described below), the U.S. ``population assistance'' program provided 45% of the total pool of ``family planning'' funds contributed by all donor nations. Much of this money went to some 400 private foreign organizations that provided non- abortion services in developing countries. NRLC takes no position on contraception, or on federal funding of contraceptive services, whether in the U.S. or overseas. Throughout the Reagan and Bush Administration, NRLC testified that it had no objection regarding the increases in ``population assistance'' funding that were approved during that era, because the Reagan-Bush ``Mexico City Policy'' governed those funds. The ``Mexico City Policy,'' in effect from 1984 through 1992, provided that U.S. population assistance funds would not support private foreign organizations that perform abortions (except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest) or lobby to legalize abortion in foreign nations. However, President Clinton radically changed the thrust of the program. Upon taking office, he immediately nullified the Mexico City Policy. Subsequently, the Clinton Administration granted massive funding to certain organizations that are heavily involved in promoting the legalization and provision of abortion in foreign nations, chief among these the London- based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). (IPPF-London had refused to accept U.S. funds under the Mexico City Policy. However, about half [57] of IPPF's national affiliates did accept U.S. funds under the ``Mexico City'' conditions.) IPPF-London has often made it clear that the legalization of abortion and the expansion of abortion networks are among its primary goals. The IPPF's 1992 mission statement, Strategic Plan-Vision 2000, repeatedly and unambiguously instructs IPPF's 140 national affiliate organizations to work to legalize abortion as part of a mandate to ``advocate for changes in restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions.'' Precise strategies for accomplishing this end are discussed in the summary of IPPF's Mauritius Conference. (See ``Promotion of Abortion in the Developing World by the IPPF,'' Population Research Institute report, 1996) ``Progress'' toward abortion legalization that IPPF has recently accomplished in specific nations (including Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Uruguay) are described in the IPPF Annual Report Supplement in 1994-95. Donald P. Warwick of the Harvard Institute for International Development has written the IPPF ``has in word and deed been one of the foremost lobbyists for abortion in the developing countries.'' In a 1996 report, the Population Research Institute observed: ``No other organization has done more to spread abortion throughout the world than the International Planned Parenthood Federation . . . the IPPF has forcefully and repeatedly stated its intention to assist in the legalization of abortion in every country of the world . . . and has also voiced its willingness to equip abortion centers and provide the expertise required to perform abortions on a massive scale.'' The Clinton Administration has pressured foreign governments to get in line with its forcefully declared doctrine that legal ``abortion is a fundamental right of all women.'' Indeed, on March 16, 1994, Secretary of State Warren Christopher sent an ``action cable'' to all U.S. diplomats and consular posts. The cable called for ``senior level diplomatic interventions'' to urge host governments to support U.S. priorities for an upcoming U.N. population conference. The cable read: ``The priority issues for the U.S. include assuring . . . access to safe abortion. [. . .] The United States believes that access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women.'' In May, 1993, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth gave a speech on population control in which he proclaimed, ``A government which is violating basic human rights should not hide behind the defense of sovereignty . . . Our position is to support reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.'' At about the same time, Mr. Wirth said that the Administration goal was to make this ``reproductive choice'' available to every woman in the world by 2,000 AD. At the 1994 Cairo conference on population control, sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and at more recent U.N.-sponsored conferences, the Clinton Administration has zealously promoted this doctrine, and has brought pressures to bear on delegates that resist it. Groups that support the Administration's abortion doctrine often insist that ``U.S. law already prohibits the use of population assistance funds for abortion.'' This is a red herring. The ``existing law'' referred to is the 1973 Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, it has been construed very narrowly, as barring the direct use of U.S. funds to pay for abortion procedures overseas. But the real issue is not the direct payment for individual abortion procedures, but the Clinton Administration's perversion of the population assistance program to promote the legalization and expansion of access to abortion as a birth control method in developing nations. It is noteworthy that after less than three months in office, the White House urged Congress to repeal the Helms Amendment, declaring abortion to be ``part of the overall approach to population control'' (White House press security, April 1, 1993). The Clinton Administration's extrapolations regarding how many abortions U.S. funds supposedly ``prevent'' completely ignore the abortion-promoting activities of the Administration and those of its taxpayer-funded surrogates such as IPPF. For example, they completely disregard the vast increases in the number of abortions that result when a nation's laws protecting the unborn are removed. As Stanley Henshaw, deputy director of research for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion advocacy group, acknowledged in a June 16, 1994 document, ``In most countries, it is common after abortion is legalized for abortion rates to rise sharply for several years, then stabilize, just as we have seen in the United States.'' The Clinton Administration's overseas abortion crusade is on a collision course with the laws, and the cultural and religious values, that predominate in most developing nations, including nearly all of Latin America, most of Africa, and many places in Asia. About 95 U.N. member states have laws that permit abortion only in narrowly defined circumstances. These laws cover 37 percent of the world's population, or over two billion (2,000,000,000) persons. (Under Secretary Wirth has been quoted as saying that all except 17 U.N. countries ``permit'' abortion, but this is highly misleading, since he refers only to nations with total bans on abortion. Typical abortion laws in developing nations, permitting abortion only to save the life of the mother or in other narrowly defined circumstances, are far removed from the Administration's ``fundamental right,'' abortion-on-demand doctrine.) action during the 104th congress During 1995, the House of Representatives repeatedly voted in favor of amendments offered by Congressman Chris Smith (R- NJ), the chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, to restore the Reagan-Bush policy. The Smith language would deny U.S. ``population assistance'' funds to foreign private organizations that perform abortions (except life of the mother, rape, or incest), that violate foreign abortion laws, or that lobby to change foreign abortion laws. (Note: neither the Mexico City Policy, nor the Smith amendments, placed any restrictions no counseling regarding legal abortions.) However, the White House threatened to veto any bill that contained Rep. Smith's language, which contributed to the defeat of the House-passed language in the Senate. Finally in January, 1996, in order to disentangle the foreign operations appropriations bill (HR 1868) from this debate, a compromise was reached under which (1) the Smith policy language was dropped, (2) FY 1996 appropriations for population assistance was reduced by 35%, and (3) a formula was adopted to delay USAID's ability to obligate some of the appropriate money, in order to allow Congress further opportunities to curb the Administration's pro-abortion crusade. During 1996, the House offered a compromise in the form of a far weaker pro-life provision, the ``Callahan 50/50 Amendment.'' Under this provision, organizations that violated the ``Mexico City'' conditions would have remained eligible for funding, but at only 50% of the FY 1995 level. (This restriction would have applied only to new, FY 1997 funds--not to the $303 million carried over from FY 1996.) In a September conference committee, appropriators coupled the Callahan provision to additional language that would have allowed obligation of an additional $293 million in population-control funding during FY 1997--for a total of as much as $713 million. But White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta told the appropriators that President Clinton would veto the entire omnibus funding bill rather than accept this proffered compromise. Because of this veto threat, the final September funding bill [now PL 104-208] contained no new policy language to constrain the Administration's pro-abortion activities--but again set a population-control funding level about one-third lower than the 1995 figure, and placed ``metering'' limitations on how soon the Administration can obligate those funds. This episode perfectly illustrated the White House's ideological commitment to keeping abortion as a fundamental component of the program, at all costs--reflecting its close alliance with organizations such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), an organization that has openly proclaimed its operating ``principal'' that ``reproductive freedom is indivisible'' (i.e., that abortion must not be treated differently from other birth control options). Immediately following the episode described above, Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said her side had won ``a moral victory in defeating abortion restrictions,'' but added, ``The cost has been enormous.'' The September law also guaranteed the White House a chance to substantially increase the amount of money that it can obligate during FY 1997. Under the law, President Clinton must file a ``finding'' with Congress no later than February 1, stating his opinion regarding the effects of funding cuts on ``the proper functioning of the population planning program.'' The law further requires that, before the end of February, both the House and the Senate must vote on a joint resolution which, if approved, would release an additional $123 million in population-control funds during the current fiscal year--without any restrictions on the use of these funds for the Administration's pro-abortion activities.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, 2 days after his 1993 swearing-in ceremony, President Clinton submitted an Executive order repealing the Mexico City policy. This repeal now allows American taxpayer funds to be given to the United Nations planning agency in support of coercive abortions and involuntary sterilization, commonly practiced in places like China, a position which is completely contrary to the desires of the American people. I sincerely consider these practices of involuntary sterilization and coercive abortion to be well outside the boundaries of what can be legitimately called family planning. Most organizations agreed to the terms of the Mexico City policy, even giving up their pro-abortion activities in some cases, in order to receive U.S. funds. It did not decrease by even 1 penny the amount of funding for international population control assistance programs. Rather, it ensured that family planning dollars were sent to organizations which neither promoted nor performed abortion as a method of family planning. Furthermore, since 1973, when Congress passed the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, Federal law has prohibited direct payment of most abortion procedures with U.S. foreign aid funds. The Helms language was also included in the annual foreign operations appropriations bill last year. For most of the years it has been in effect, the Helms amendment has not been challenged either in the Foreign Assistance Act or in the foreign operations appropriations bill. However, since President Clinton has been in office, he has continually sought to repeal the Helms amendment ban on foreign abortion funding, thereby subverting the will of the vast majority of Americans. The American people overwhelmingly oppose the use of taxpayer funds to perform or promote abortion. And at one time, I might add, so did President Clinton. On September 26, 1986, then Governor Clinton wrote the following letter to the Arkansas Right to Life: I am opposed to abortion and to Government funding of abortions. We should not spend State funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong. And the logic of the President, then Governor Clinton, was exactly right. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the Arkansas Right to Life dated September 26, 1986 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, because of the concerns of the Clinton administration's population assistance policy, this Congress added language that requires any amount that the United Nations population fund spends on family planning programs in China be deducted from its total United States appropriation. Communist China has one of the worst human rights records in the world, promoting forced abortions and sterilizations to limit births. It is a country which has little regard for human life and, in particular, the lives of little baby girls. Press reports are filled with accounts of beautiful female children who are abandoned by their families because under China's one-child-per-family rule, male children are considered more desirable. This policy is and should be offensive to all civilized people. If the administration's resolution is passed by the Senate tomorrow, the American taxpayer will become an unwilling participant in China's outrageous practices because some of the $25 million designated for United Nations population fund will go to China. Without the Mexico City policy, the United States will be giving money to such countries and organizations which blatantly promote and support pro-abortion policies and procedures. This should be unacceptable to all of us. While I believe the United States can provide meaningful assistance to countries attempting to control their population growth, I adamantly oppose American taxpayer funding for abortion both home and abroad. While I will continue to support continued U.S. population assistance programs, I also believe that the United States should encourage the development of market economies which improve the standard of living for growing populations. This resolution came about because of the Clinton administration's refusal to accept pro-life language preventing AID grantees from using foreign aid dollars to promote abortion. Mr. President, please remember at the end of the last Congress, White House negotiator and former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, adamantly rejected a proposal which would have allowed AID to spend as much as $713 million for international family planning by the end of the fiscal year. This takes into account $303 million carried over from fiscal year 1996. The proposal provided $385 million for population control programs, in addition to $25 million for the U.N. Family Planning Agency. If an organization did not agree to the terms of the Mexico City policy, it would only receive up to 50 percent of the population funds it received in fiscal year 1995. All the fiscal year 1997 funds would be available in fiscal year 1997. The administration rejected this proposal because of the nominal pro- life conditions on the fiscal year 1997 funds. Even without the other evidence of the Clinton administration's abortion activities, this stand by the administration is a clear admission that family planning funds are used to establish, sustain, and build up abortion providers and pro-abortion lobbying in developing countries, and the ability of AID grantees to perform and promote abortion in developing countries is the real priority of the administration. It is obvious that this battle will be renewed each year on the foreign operations appropriations bill until the pro-life position prevails, as it has ultimately prevailed on the Hyde amendment, the ban on Federal employees health benefits coverage of abortions, the prohibition on abortions in military hospitals, and all other pro-life amendments which became law over the President's opposition. I cannot stand here today and believe the Clinton administration's claim that it wants to reduce the number of abortions when United States dollars are given to organizations which actually perform abortions and which lobby to legalize abortions in countries like Latin America, Africa, and other regions of the world which recognize the humanity and the value of the lives of unborn children. The Clinton administration continues to emphasize that no U.S. funding goes directly to abortion practices. However U.S. funding is allocated to organizations like International Planned Parenthood Federation, which receives $70 million from the United States. The IPPF makes no secret of their pro-abortion commitment, which is apparent in their ``Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.'' With millions of U.S. dollars each year providing funding for the IPPF's lobbying campaigns, overhead, and utilities, how can we then say that American taxpayer dollars are not being used to fund abortions? I believe they certainly obviously are. Mr. President, we must end this practice of the IPPF and similar groups exploiting the hard-earned dollars of every taxpaying citizen across this great Nation. The will of the American people is being subverted by this policy. Americans do not want Federal tax dollars being used for abortions. This applies to our foreign aid policies as well as our domestic agenda. Mr. President, I will leave you today with a quote from Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Mother Teresa made this comment on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast. Many of us were in attendance that day. I was there and so was the President. I believe that this statement speaks volumes. She said: But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child. The issues in this debate are not just family planning, whether millions of pro-life American taxpayers will be required to help foot the bill for a practice they find morally reprehensible; but also ceding control of taxpayer dollars to foreign governments over which we have no control. I believe that is unacceptable. I think it is wrong to ask pro-life American taxpayers to foot the bill for that which they find morally offensive and morally wrong. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding. Mr. President, I rise today in total support of sound policies which advance and uphold the sanctity of life and family, but in opposition to House Resolution 36. The issue, I believe, in fact, is not one of family planning but is, in fact, one of funding for abortion, organizations which promote and provide for abortions and lobby to change pro-life laws in countries where our foreign aid money goes. First and foremost, allow me to recognize the importance of the two votes that took place in the House of Representatives on February 13. The Clinton resolution, which we will be voting on tomorrow--which unwisely, I believe, fails to include a ban on American taxpayer funding of organizations which provide and promote abortion--was successful by a vote of 220 to 209. But there was a second vote that occurred that day. The second vote, on H.R. 581, legislation of Congressman Chris Smith, of New Jersey, reinstituting the successful Mexico City policy and requiring foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. funds to agree not to violate the laws, or lobby to change the laws, of other countries with respect to abortion, or to perform abortions in those countries except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger, that resolution by Congressman Smith was passed by an even larger majority of 231 to 194. So I remind Senators that the Smith pro-life resolution passed by a far greater margin than did the Clinton resolution. This vote certainly illustrates the simple fact that one can be for family planning programs while standing for life. As the Members of this body might recall, I am the only legislator in Congress to have served in the Arkansas House of Representatives when President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. In October 1990, in response to written questions submitted by the Associated Press, the President, then Governor of Arkansas, said: Under the present Arkansas law, abortion is illegal when the unborn child can live outside its mother's womb, I support that . . . I have supported restrictions on public funding and a parental notification requirement for minors. I believe the President was absolutely correct when he took that position about funding for abortion, and that is the issue before us today. Despite President Clinton's repeated sentiments in wanting to lower the number of abortions performed, his actions, since he took office 4 years ago, has spoken louder than his words. In fact, President Clinton has actively fought to lift any and all restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions, not with congressional approval but by the broad use of the Executive order. Besides refusing to reinstate the Mexico City policy, which had been working very successfully for a decade before he repealed it, he has also attempted to delete the ban on taxpayer funding of abortions and the ban on the use of funds to counsel persons on the practice of abortion. Similarly, his annual budgets have also proposed striking this pro-life language from the foreign operations appropriations bill. We all know that congressional appropriations for U.S. population assistance have been delayed by the debate over the issue of U.S. funding for abortion and coercive birth control measures practiced by foreign countries. Mr. President, at the second annual U.N. International Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984, the Reagan administration announced that it would discontinue U.S. population aid to those nongovernmental organizations that were directly involved in voluntary abortion activities. The Mexico City policy went a step beyond previous legislation that had been passed in the 1970's that specifically banned direct funding of abortions and involuntary sterilizations. The Mexico City policy banned funding to nongovernmental organizations that were indirectly involved in abortion-related activities. Furthermore, the Reagan administration established a requirement that the U.N. Family Planning Agency provide ``concrete assurances that it is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for abortion or coercive family planning assistance programs.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the original Mexico City policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an important piece of legislation which will enable thousands of businesses in my home State of Arkansas, and across the Nation, to avoid an unscrupulous practice which is literally crippling business. The Truth in Employment Act will protect these businesses and curtail the destructive union tactic known as salting. It may not be in the same magnitude of issues as the balanced budget amendment, which I am deeply concerned about and in which we have had prolonged debate, but it is nonetheless a very, very significant issue that is affecting the economic well-being of thousands of businesses across America. So I am glad to be able to introduce this today with 14 cosponsors joining me on S. 328. Salting is the calculated practice of placing trained union professional organizers and agents in a nonunion workplace whose sole purpose is to harass or disrupt company operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately the purpose of putting that company out of business. The objectives of these union agents are accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair labor practice complaints or discrimination charges against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. Salting campaigns have been used successfully to cause economic harm to construction companies and are quickly expanding into other industries across the country as well. To my colleagues I would say, Mr. President, the average cost to the employer to defend himself or defend herself against this practice runs upwards of $5,000 per case. Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an instrument of economic destruction aimed at nonunion companies. This is what happens. Unions send their agents into nonunion workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, these salts use its provisions offensively to bring hardship on their employers. They deliberately increase the operating costs of their employers through actions such as sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints. In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that paid union organizers are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of this act, employers who refuse to hire paid union employees or their agents violate the act if they are shown to have discriminated against the union salts. This leaves employers in a precarious and vulnerable situation. If employers refuse to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges and accuse the employer of discrimination. Yet if salts are employed, they will create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension and harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. For many small businesses this means that whenever hiring decisions are made, the future of the company may actually be at stake. A wrong decision can mean frivolous charges, legal fees, and lost time, which may threaten the very existence of their business. I have received many accounts from across the Nation of how salting is affecting small businesses. In Carmel, IN, John Gaylor, of Gaylor Electric, is a favorite target of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Mr. Gaylor has to budget almost $200,000 annually to defend himself against frivolous charges. In fact, Gaylor has been forced to defend himself against at least 80 unfair labor practice complaints. However, in each case the charges against him were dismissed as frivolous. Nonetheless, he is bound to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to attorneys to defend himself. In a classic example of salting tactics, Gaylor had to fire one employee after his refusal to wear his hardhat on his head. This employee would strap the hardhat to his knee and then dare Gaylor, his boss, to fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that he had to wear the hardhat, it did not state where he had to wear it. Another common salting practice is for salts to actually create Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] violations and then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practice violations against the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as bad publicity for the company. These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating this practice can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to the group, ``Workplaces against Salting Abuse,'' the labor unions are even advocating this practice in their manuals. The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to gather information that will * * * shape the strategy the organizer will use later in the campaign to threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to * * * raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, * * * The International Vice President of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union has been quoted as saying that: If we can't organize them, the best thing to do is erode their business as much as possible. That is what we are facing. The balance of rights must be restored between employers, employees, and labor organizations. The Truth in Employment Act seeks to do this by inserting a provision in the National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not required to employ a person seeking employment for the primary purpose of furthering the objectives of an organization other than that employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to allow employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act. This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or protections that employees have had. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive practice of salting. Salting abuses must be curtailed if we are to protect the small business owners of this Nation. This legislation will ensure these protections are possible. I am glad that Senator Nickles, Senator Warner, Senator Mack, Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, Senator Cochran, Senator Roberts, Senator Hatch, Senator Gorton, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Allard, Senator Sessions, Senator Faircloth, and the majority leader, Senator Lott, have joined as original cosponsors of this legislation. It is for these reasons I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. I ask more of my colleagues to support this bill and restore fairness to the American workplace. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my support of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of which I am a cosponsor. This bill would ensure that no Federal tax dollars are used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. In addition, it identifies those Federal programs which may not be sued to pay for assisted suicide. These programs include Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Benefits plans, medical services for Federal prisoners, and the military health care system. This bill also makes clear that Federal law will not require health care facilities, in States where assisted suicide has been legalized, to advise patients at the time of admission about their ``right'' to get lethal drugs for suicide. This legislation is needed due to recent Federal court rulings which have declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases on January 8 of this year to determine the constitutionality of those rulings. In addition, some States, such as Oregon, have legalized assisted suicide by referendum. These States may be tempted to consider using Federal funds and facilities to pay for these procedures. For this reason, we must send a clear message. The American people do not want their tax dollars used to pay for assisted suicides. In fact, a majority of Americans are strongly opposed to the very notion of assisted suicide. Counted among those in opposition are the American Medical Association whose physician members would be asked to play the role of moral arbitrator in the decision to end one's life. The purpose of this bill and its guidelines are concise and clear. No limitations will be placed on the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment. In addition, it does not affect funding for alleviating patient pain or discomfort. An overwhelming majority of the American people believe their taxes should not be used to pay for assisted suicide or euthanasia. A national Wirthlin poll taken in November 1996 found that 87 percent of Americans did not believe their tax dollars should be used to pay for these procedures. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill which guarantees every American that their tax dollars will not be used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my support of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of which I am a cosponsor. This bill would ensure that no Federal tax dollars are used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia. In addition, it identifies those Federal programs which may not be sued to pay for assisted suicide. These programs include Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Benefits plans, medical services for Federal prisoners, and the military health care system. This bill also makes clear that Federal law will not require health care facilities, in States where assisted suicide has been legalized, to advise patients at the time of admission about their ``right'' to get lethal drugs for suicide. This legislation is needed due to recent Federal court rulings which have declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases on January 8 of this year to determine the constitutionality of those rulings. In addition, some States, such as Oregon, have legalized assisted suicide by referendum. These States may be tempted to consider using Federal funds and facilities to pay for these procedures. For this reason, we must send a clear message. The American people do not want their tax dollars used to pay for assisted suicides. In fact, a majority of Americans are strongly opposed to the very notion of assisted suicide. Counted among those in opposition are the American Medical Association whose physician members would be asked to play the role of moral arbitrator in the decision to end one's life. The purpose of this bill and its guidelines are concise and clear. No limitations will be placed on the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment. In addition, it does not affect funding for alleviating patient pain or discomfort. An overwhelming majority of the American people believe their taxes should not be used to pay for assisted suicide or euthanasia. A national Wirthlin poll taken in November 1996 found that 87 percent of Americans did not believe their tax dollars should be used to pay for these procedures. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill which guarantees every American that their tax dollars will not be used to pay for or promote assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. I think it is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will be debating in this body, in this Congress. I might add, I appreciate the preceding Senator, Senator Durbin, acknowledging, as he presented his amendment to the balanced budget amendment, his overall opposition to the underlying amendment to the Constitution. We are going to, I suspect, hear many amendments--several amendments at least--offered in the coming weeks, with the primary goal of ultimately defeating the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, I believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we are going to debate. The opponents of a balanced budget amendment argue that to compel Congress to balance the budget will forever damage and eliminate the ability to provide our seniors with the protection they have earned. Their plan--and we will be hearing more of it; we have already heard quite a lot--to exempt Social Security is nothing more than a risky gimmick. I say again it is a risky gimmick to put such an exclusion onto the balanced budget amendment. Their arguments are aimed at scaring the most vulnerable segments of our population. In the last 2 years, in my experience in the House of Representatives and as I observe the deliberations in the U.S. Senate, we have seen a great deal of those efforts to scare those who are most vulnerable in our society. So I suppose it is not that unusual, as we enter a debate on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to hear those who would frighten and those who would scare the most vulnerable in our society. They assert Social Security checks will be withheld because there will be no money left in the Treasury. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, a part of that editorial says this: The chances of Social Security checks being sequestered fall into the same range of probability as the Loch Ness monster posing for photographs. Both possibilities are great for scaring folks, but for little else. I believe that is very, very true. Again, nothing could be a more risky gimmick to be put onto the balanced budget amendment than to exclude Social Security from the provisions of the amendment. It is attempting to replace the truth with fear. The plain truth is that the President does not have the power to withhold appropriations, such as Social Security. Only Congress can give him that power. It is our responsibility to appropriate the funds necessary to carry out the domestic and the foreign policy programs of this Nation. In reality, the balanced budget amendment will ensure that money is there to spend. Today, annual deficits and the national debt are the greatest threat to Social Security's existence. If we talk about the threat to the future of Social Security, let us not forget that the greatest threat is continued chronic deficits and an unwillingness or a lack of discipline and a lack of will on the part of the politicians of this country to bring our books into balance. I believe this very vivid depiction of having 28 budget books stacked on top of each other is very clear evidence that the notion--as the President put it in the State of the Union Address--that we can just do it, we pass it and he will sign it, we will balance the books, will not happen, as we see with 28 budgets before us. It has to stretch the credibility of not only the executive branch but a Congress that is more inclined to continue spending on ever-expanding entitlement programs. Since the 1930's, literally dozens of proposals have been made to require a balanced budget to limit the size or the growth of the Federal budget or public debt, or some combination of these ideas, including several very notable recent efforts in 1990 and, again, in 1993. These have come in the form of bills, statutory efforts, and proposed constitutional amendments. An average, Mr. President, of more than 30 measures per Congress have been introduced in recent years. I believe one reason that we have seen such statutory efforts and so many offers of various constitutional amendments is because many of those who occupy the Halls of Congress today, both at the other end of the Capitol in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate, once served in State legislatures where they have the yearly annual experience of seeing their State budgets balanced. They came from State legislatures where there were constitutional provisions that required them to balance their budget, and they saw year after year after year that it could be done. So when they came to Washington, they came with a determination, they came with a deliberation that we would have, in fact, that same provision embodied in the U.S. Constitution. But it has been frustrating. Year after year and time after time, we have seen those efforts defeated. The opponents of a balanced budget amendment, I believe, are pursuing a campaign of deliberate disinformation. There has been and will continue to be an effort to distract and to divert the attention of the American people from the real issues that are at stake in the debate over a balanced budget and over a balanced budget amendment. The opponents would distract and divert the American people from the real threat to Social Security, which is chronic deficits and enormous accumulated debt. They would like the debate over the coming weeks to be about Social Security, but the debate is not about Social Security. The debate is about the chronic deficits that threaten the future economic stability of this Government and our economy in years to come. That's what it is about. If you care about Social Security, you should care about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, because that is the best way of ensuring fiscal sanity being restored to our budget process. Without a credible, sustainable balanced budget, we will never have the money to pay out future benefits. It is just that simple. A balanced budget amendment needs economic prosperity that will produce revenues necessary to fund the program. With a balanced budget, the big spenders in Washington will not be able to target and, therefore, raid Social Security to pay for other programs. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment will throw out, I think, any diversion to confuse the issue. They will use scare tactics. The truth is that excluding Social Security does nothing to secure benefits into the future. The President's own budget counts these surpluses to achieve his balance. What if Social Security is excluded? Social Security will not be protected, but between the years of 2002 and 2007, the deficit will appear $700 billion larger. That means either a mammoth tax hike on American families, almost $1,100 per year per household, or devastating cuts in important programs like Medicare, cancer research, Head Start, and environmental cleanup. In the years since 1960, the budget has been balanced only once. Deficit spending during that period has increased the official national debt from less than $284 billion to over $5 trillion, and the 28 budget books that are stacked right over here give vivid evidence of that failure of Congress to discipline its spending habits. Interest payments on the debt now consume about $240 billion annually; $240 billion annually just on interest to service the national debt. The $240 billion that we are spending in interest payments is larger than the combined budgets of the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Justice, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, and Transportation. I suggest that if we have a commitment to education, then we ought to have a commitment to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure that these exploding interest payments will finally be reined in. In the future, the debt problem will only get worse. The Government's current debt calculation fails to include the 10 to 20 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities. These are promises to pay future benefits like Social Security, Medicare, Government employee retirement and other programs. In short, we will soon long for the days of $200 billion deficits unless something is done, and that something should be the balanced budget amendment. When you exclude Social Security, you derail the very purpose of the amendment. I was interested, as I listened to the deliberations of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week on the balanced budget amendment, in the testimony of a former Congressman, my former colleague, Tim Penny. He referred to this gimmick of taking Social Security off budget and out of the unified budget as being the greatest money-laundering scheme in history, because future creative Congresses will find it not too difficult to begin to shift programs into the Social Security trust fund so as to circumvent the purpose and the goal and the intent of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is a loophole so large, not only can a truck drive through it, but tons and tons of red ink can flow through it. Finally, the goal of such an amendment is to defeat the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, I am glad that Senator Durbin acknowledged his underlying opposition to an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget altogether. So while he offers this amendment to the BBA, he still opposes the concept of an amendment requiring a balanced budget. Secretary Rubin--who was quoted earlier this afternoon--Secretary Rubin, when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee, was asked by my brother, Congressman Hutchinson, whether there was any balanced budget amendment that he could envision that he would be able to support? In other words, if you went ahead and excluded Social Security, or if you put in a recession provision, or if there were some other addition to a balanced budget amendment, was there any such amendment that Secretary Rubin or the administration could support? And when finally pressed, Secretary Rubin said no. He said he could not envision any amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget in any form that the administration would support. I think that really tells the story, that while there will be efforts to divert attention, while there will be efforts to distract the attention of the American people, all of the amendments that are offered are in the end ultimately being offered with the goal of defeating this very, very important amendment to the Constitution. I want to put a human face on the balanced budget amendment. We can often become too consumed with who has political advantage in policy debates that we forget who sent us here and how it often affects them. Let me tell you about one of my constituents. Bob Boyd, a small business owner in Little Rock, is the kind of person who can speak to the importance, I think, of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Boyd was a delegate to the White House Conference on Small Business. During that time, he and the conference made several recommendations to President Clinton. The one proposal which received the most votes, more than any other policy recommendation by the White House Conference on Small Business, was for the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, that proposal has only collected dust at the White House. But this was from the White House Conference on Small Business, the recommendation that received the most support. When asked why so many of the conference voted on this proposal and voted for this proposal, Bob simply says: . . . as a small business owner, we know the importance of the bottom line and [the] government doesn't, they have lost the principle of being responsible for their debts. Bob said that the President told them ``that small business is the engine that drives our economy.'' Unfortunately for Bob, and for all the small businesses in Arkansas and America, the national debt, and the taxes it needs to pay for it, are taking up all the fuel. I strongly believe that ratification of a constitutional amendment is the only way to turn around this unending sea of financial debt. It is time to put the harness of the U.S. Constitution on Congress and the President. It is time to require these institutions to be more fiscally responsible than our predecessors have been. I would just say again, as I conclude, Mr. President, that there is a fundamental immorality that goes along with chronic deficit spending. For decades and for generations of our history as a Nation, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was not necessary because there was an inherent fundamental belief on the part not only of our policymakers and our politicians but the people of the United States as a whole that spending more than you take in, whether it is your family budget or whether it is the Federal budget, is simply wrong. To transfer our spending in the form of debt to our children and to our grandchildren, for them to assume through higher taxes and through a lower standard of living, is simply wrong. The intrinsic value, though, of the balanced budget amendment rests on a simple point--it affects every American. It will affect how and where we spend taxpayers' dollars. It will affect the process by which those decisions are made. Moreover, it will affect the real value we place on the taxpayers' money, when we are restricted in the ways we spend it. The time has come for Government to learn how to work with less, how to see the citizen's money as being precious, and to permanently reduce its size so that its people's wealth can expand. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time allocated to Chairman McCain. Mr. President, last week I had the opportunity to speak before the Commerce and Environment and Public Works Committees on behalf of my good friend and our nominee for Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater. I am proud today, and honored today to be able to rise before the entire Senate body and once again voice my support for the President's choice for Secretary of Transportation. I have known Rodney Slater since the 1980's, when I was first elected to the Arkansas State House of Representatives and Rodney was the executive assistant for then Governor Bill Clinton. From the very beginning of our relationship, I had the deepest respect for Rodney on both a personal and professional level. Professionally, I think there is no question whatsoever that he is qualified to become the Secretary of Transportation. Before coming to Washington, Rodney served for 6 years as commissioner and later chairman of the Arkansas State Highway Commission. During this time, Rodney, without hesitation, tackled the great challenge of improving a poor rural State's infrastructure. He took on that challenge, not just trying to please, but trying to do the right thing. Arkansas, like most of our States, is a very diverse place with many competing regions. Rodney, though he hailed from the delta, was always fair to every part of the State of Arkansas. I think that is a preeminent qualification for somebody who is going to be Secretary of Transportation of the United States. He will be fair with all modes of transportation. He will be fair to all parts of our Nation. In the last 4 years, Rodney has served as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, where he has faced the demands of implementing ISTEA. As you know, hearings on the reauthorization of ISTEA will begin next week. We will be dealing with some of the most important and complicated issues of transportation when we consider this vital piece of legislation. Rodney's experience with national and local transportation needs as well as his expertise in the intricacies of ISTEA give me great confidence he will be able to work with Congress in a manner that will help us form legislation that will not only be fair but will address the Nation's pressing transportation needs into the 21st century. Certainly I look forward to working with a Secretary of Transportation who brings hands-on experience to the Department. On a personal note, I cannot adequately express my esteem for Rodney, for the courage he has shown in overcoming a childhood of deprivation. He is a native of Marianna, AR, the Mississippi Delta region, one of most impoverished of our Nation. Many children grow up in those conditions and find that poverty overcomes them. They never come close to reaching their full potential. Rodney serves, I believe, as a role model for countless Americans who pull themselves up from poverty to make the American dream a reality. If you judge a person from what they overcome, then Rodney Slater has overcome a lot, and should be esteemed. He has not only benefited his own life, but the lives of those he has touched through his selfless public service. His experience in the region of the world he came from, I think, gives him a unique perspective of the value of our Nation's infrastructure and the role it plays in economic development. Another one of the great things about Rodney, which I have expressed many times, is his commitment to his family. Nobody could question that after watching the confirmation hearings. Several of his family members came there at each time. I want to reiterate my comments from last week. I have no hesitancy whatsoever in giving my support for Rodney Slater to be Secretary of the Department of Transportation. I believe the President made a fine choice and I look forward to casting my vote for that confirmation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Senate Joint Resolution 1. I speak not only for myself, but I think I speak for thousands and thousands of Arkansas voters and their families who sent me to Washington with a primary goal of balancing the Federal budget and getting our books in order. Arkansans, like most Americans, are hard-working, decent people with jobs and families facing constant pressure to make ends meet. Gathered around the kitchen table, these families, like so many others, pay their bills, attempt to budget for future expenses, and say no to the things they cannot afford. They act responsibly. Also, they act with the fear that a prolonged illness or unexpected job loss could push them over the edge, robbing them of financial security and destroying everything that they have worked for and saved. America's families have been forced to live within these limits. My question to the U.S. Senate is, can we ask any less of the Federal Government? My colleagues, we carry a heavy burden. That burden is both the annual deficit that we caused and the debt that we have created. As of February 3 of this year, our national debt stood at over $5 trillion. Whenever I hear these numbers I have to ask myself, what does that number mean, what does it mean to me, or better yet, how can we visualize numbers of this magnitude? Author David Schwartz has written a book entitled ``How Much Is a Million?'' It is a book to help parents explain large numbers to their children. Maybe it will help us as well. One of his examples says, ``If a billion kids were to stand on each other to make a human tower, they would stand up past the moon. * * * If you stood a trillion kids on top of each other, they would pass beyond Mars and Jupiter * * * and almost as far as Saturn's rings.'' In another case he says, ``If you wanted to count from one to one trillion * * * it would take you about 200,000 years.'' Let me take a moment to put this kind of massive debt into perspective for those slightly older: $5 trillion of debt translates into over $19,000 for every man, every woman, and every child in America. That is practically equal to having an additional midsized car payment without having a vehicle. The debt of an average family is more than $72,000. That could be the equivalent of owning a second residence without being able to stay there. For a family or person who owns a home, it amounts to an additional $37,000 on average tacked on to their mortgage, without raising the value of their home. For many young adults who are taking advantage of student loans to obtain a better education, the national debt can ring up $2,200 in additional costs on that loan. This significantly impacts the paycheck of the recent young college graduate who must make larger than anticipated loan payments at an entry-level salary. For those persons trying to afford a new car, the national debt means the price of that car will go up another $1,000. At the conclusion of 1 hour of debate, the 60 minutes that Senator Thomas has reserved, 1 hour of debate on this resolution, our country will owe roughly $29 million more than it did when we started the debate. Last night, the President advocated that we change the Constitution to protect victims rights, but he rejected and condemned the notion that we should amend the Constitution to ensure that our Government lives within its means. As if we were rewriting the Constitution to ensure a balanced budget, saying that is not a requirement, we should not do that. We have the authority; all we have to have is the discipline. I will sign it; you pass it. And yet in the same speech advocating that we change the Constitution to protect victims rights. There are those who have said that a balanced budget amendment would wreck the economy. Well, business probably more than any other part of our economy has felt the effects of our huge national debt. Government has siphoned billions of dollars in investment capital, which, in turn, restricts our economy from reaching a higher growth potential. Deficits make businesses compete with Government for money, causing interest rates to be higher than they should be. With interest rates higher than necessary and private capital formation being stifled, it is quite possible to foresee lower living standards in the future, even in this time of slow growth we have experienced. National growth rates of 2 to 3 percent simply are inadequate for America. Balancing the budget can mean an additional $88.2 billion of capital investment in the first 7 years that we have a balanced budget. The less money being taken by Government, the more money that is available for economic development and job growth. Even more important, we have seen evidence that our debt and annual deficits have restrained the ability to make a better life for all of us. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that deficits have kept our standard of living down by 5 percent. However, if we decide to make the choice to balance the budget by the year 2001, the General Accounting Office has stated it would lead to a 35-percent increase in the standard of living. Just think what that would mean in spending power to middle-class Americans. A balanced budget amendment will propel Congress to do what legislative remedies, with such words as ``firewalls,'' ``spending ceilings,'' and ``lock boxes,'' what all of those statutory techniques have failed to accomplish since 1968. This measure will give the impetus to set goals and make priorities without budget gimmicks which have characterized the process over the last 30 years. It will make the budget process look more like what happens with our families than the current situation. For most of the history of our country, the budget was balanced. Permanent deficits were viewed as intolerable. Permanent deficits were viewed as something that was wrong. Chronic deficits were unacceptable not because of the constitutional prohibition, but because of a deeply embedded moral belief that permanent deficits were simply wrong, a principle held by politicians and the general public alike. With the creation of entitlement programs in the 1960's, the proclivity of politicians to expand these popular and expensive entitlement programs have gone virtually unchecked. The intolerable increase in spending has had the inevitable result of persistent deficits and an ever expanding national debt. James Buchanan, a professor of economics at George Mason who testified in 1995 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ``The immorality of the intergenerational transfer that deficit financing represents cries out for correction.'' He is so right. He calls it the ``immorality of the intergenerational transfer of deficit spending.'' What he calls the ``immorality of intergeneration transfer'' is nothing less than one generation stealing from another generation. The fundamental moral code of our Judeo-Christian tradition says ``thou shall not steal.'' That sets the standard. Every time we as a Government spend one dollar that we do not have, we are stealing from our children. From the establishment of the Republic, our Founders saw public debt not only as immoral but as the principal threat to the survival of our representative democracy. James Madison said, ``I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse and in a republican government, a greater curse than any other.'' George Washington, in his farewell address, called the accumulation of debt ``ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' Indeed, the War of Independence was fought over the principle of taxation without representation. The Founders also knew that deficit spending would impose exorbitant tax rates on coming generations to pay for the debt accumulated by our own conspicuous consumption. My colleagues, this is the ultimate taxation without representation. When we immorally steal from our children, from our grandchildren, ensuring that they are going to face ever increasing levels of taxation without the right to have any say about it today, Mr. President, the time has come for us to stop stealing from our children and stop the chronic deficit spending by the adoption of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, sending it to the States for ratification. We must do it now. I thank Senator Thomas for yielding. (Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today in support of America's families. It is with a deep sense of honor that I stand for the first time before this great deliberative body. As the first Republican Senator to be popularly elected from the great state of Arkansas, I believe it is fitting that my first legislative initiative be on behalf of those whom we hold most dear--the children of America's families. It is doubly fitting that I join my dear friend from our days in the House of Representatives and now Senate colleague, Rod Grams, in cosponsorship of the Family Tax Fairness Act of 1997. My career of public service has been grounded in principles of faith, preservation of the family and honest but less intrusive government. These tenets will be my guide post as I serve the good people of Arkansas in the United States Senate. In my lifetime, I have observed the precipitous decline of the economic and moral health of the American family. This decline is attributable to many causes not the least of which is the rising tax burden. As a member of the baby boomer generation, I, like all of you, have watched our 2% tax rate of the 1950's grow to 25%, nearly a 300% increase since World War II. This means that America's families send one out of every four dollars to Washington. In real terms, the average American family pays more in federal taxes than it spends on food, clothing, transportation, insurance, and recreation combined. What is the payback for millions of hardworking American families? It is increased crime rates, failing educational systems, intrusive government, and a very real threat to our overall quality of life by the shrinking of America's backbone--the middle class. It is my belief that over taxation is slowly destroying the middle class American family. Families are working harder and harder and taking home less and less. Measured by average after-tax per capita income, families with children are now the lowest income group in America. Their average after-tax income is below that of elderly households. It is below that of single individuals, and it is below that of couples without children. The shrinking family paycheck because of ever-higher taxes forces families with children to spend more time at work and less time at home. Less family time translates into children with less parental supervision with all of its attendant problems. The Family Tax Fairness Act of 1997 with a $500 tax credit for every child under the age of 18, provides the stimulus to keep our families strong. It translates into over $25 billion of tax relief each year, of which over 78 percent would directly benefit working and middle class families. I am convinced that parents, not government, can best decide how to allocate resources. Under this proposal, a family with two children would receive $1,000 to pay for clothes, college, or health insurance for the children. The Family Tax Fairness Act of 1997 is a statement by our government and our society that all our families and all of our children are valuable. In closing, I am reminded of the words of William Sumner in his speech, The Forgotten Man. ``The Forgotten Man . . . delving away in patient industry supporting his family, paying his taxes, casting his vote, supporting the church and school . . . but he is the only one for whom there is no provision in the great scramble and the big divide. Such is the Forgotten Man. He works, he votes, generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay . . . Who and where is the Forgotten Man in this case? Who will have to pay for it all?'' Sadly, the Forgotten Man is a metaphor for today's American family. So, while I urge support for the repeal of the death tax--the inheritance tax--that killer of the American dream . . . and while I urge support for dramatically cutting the capital gains tax rate, which both economists and experience teach will actually increase federal revenues, let us not forget the American family. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Grams and myself in support of the Family Tax Fairness Act of 1997. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and a resounding sense of accomplishment that I stand in support of H.R. 3118, as amended, the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996. This bill represents the culmination of strong bipartisan efforts to move Veterans' Administration [VA] health care into the 21st century. I want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Stump for his leadership and to the ranking members Sonny Montgomery and Chet Edwards of the Veterans Affairs' Committee for their steadfast support in doing what is right for America's veterans. H.R. 3118, within appropriations, directs VA to provide all needed hospital and medical care services and establish and manage health care programs to promote the cost-effective delivery of health services to veterans with compensable service-connected disabilities, former prisoners of war, veterans exposed to toxic substances and environmental hazards, veterans meeting the ``means test'' as provide under existing law, and veterans of World War I. The bill requires VA to manage the provision of health care services through an annual patient enrollment system that is reflective of the priority system, which provides the highest priority for enrollment to those with service-connected conditions and also requires that effective October 1, 1998, veterans enroll in a VA managed care plan to receive health care services. Veterans in need of care for a service- connected condition of 50 percent or more service-connected disabled are exempt from the enrollment requirement. The bill eliminates restrictions on VA providing prosthetics, but requires VA to establish guidelines for providing hearing aids and eyeglasses. The bill directs the VA to maintain its capacity for specialized services at the current level and within distinct programs and facilities dedicated to the specialized needs of those veterans. It also requires VA to consult with the Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities Programs and the Committee on Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans in the assessment of these activities. Furthermore, the VA is required to report to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees by April 1 of the years 1997, 1998, and 1999 on VA's compliance with the specialized services provisions of the bill. To ensure the budget neutrality of the eligibility reform provisions of this bill, the authorizations for appropriations are capped at the following amounts: $17.25 billion for fiscal year 1997 and $17.9 billion for fiscal year 1998. The bill requires that no later than March 1, 1998, VA report to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on the impact of the implementation of eligibility reform. The bill authorizes the following major projects for a total amount of $358.15 million: construction of an ambulatory care facility and renovation of ``E'' wing, Tripler Army Hospital, Honolulu HI, $43 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Brockton, MA, $13.5 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Shreveport, LA, $25 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Lyons, NJ, $21.1 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Tomah, WI, $12.7 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Asheville, NC, $26.3 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Temple, TX, $9.8 million; addition of ambulatory care facilities, Tucson, AZ, $35.5 million; construction of an ambulatory care facility, Leavenworth KS, $27.75 million; environmental improvements, Lebanon, PA, $9.5 million; environmental improvements, Marion, IL, $11.5 million; environmental improvements, Omaha, NE, $7.7 million; environmental improvements, Pittsburgh, PA, $17.4 million; environmental improvements, Waco, TX, $26 million; environmental improvements, Marion, IN, $17.3 million; environmental improvements, Perry Point, MD, $15.1 million; environmental enhancement, Salisbury, NC, $18.2 million; and seismic corrections of building number 324 at the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center, Palo Alto, CA, in the amount of $20.8 million. The authorization covers the fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The bill authorizes the following major medical facility leases for a total of $12.236 million: Allentown, PA, $2.159 million; Beaumont, TX, $1.94 million; Boston, MA, $2.358 million; Cleveland, OH, $1.3 million; San Antonio, TX, $2.256 million; and Toledo, OH, $2.223 million. The bill requires the VA to develop a 5-year strategic plan for its health care system which specifically addresses the integration of planning efforts at the grassroots level, coordinated within the prescribed geographic network, and then formulated into a national plan. The plan is required to be updated annually. The VA is also required to submit to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees an annual report on the top 20 major medical construction projects of the Department which includes the justification of the projects and any changes to the report, such as the addition, deletion, or change in rank order of any of the projects. The bill expands the required documentation and justification of each major project and major facility lease proposed in the President's budget. The bill redefines a major medical construction project as costing at least $4 million and repeals effective fiscal year 1998, a provision of law exempting certain previously funded construction projects from the law's authorizations requirement. The bill also provides that amounts in excess of $500,000 may not be obligated from the VA's Advance Planning Fund until VA reports such proposed obligations to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. The provision of Health Care Sharing and Administration broadens and expands VA's ability to share health care resources while ensuring that services to veterans are not adversely affected by contractual agreements or sharing arrangements that may be established between the VA and other health care providers. The bill makes permanent VA's ability to enter into sharing agreements with the Department of Defense under provisions of DOD's CHAMPUS program. The bill clarifies VA's authority to recover or collect from insurance plans (including CHAMPUS supplemental plans) and directs that all funds received under these provisions be credited to the facility that provided the care. It also exempts those personnel involved in providing care under this provision and other sharing authorities from personnel ceilings. The effective date for the implementation of an administrative reorganization is reduced from 90 to 45 days during which Congress has been in continuous session. The bill repeals limitations in 38 USC Section 8110(c) on contracting-out services currently performed by VA employees. VA is required to report annually to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on those activities which it proposes to study for possible contracting out and those which have been contracted out. Under Subtitle B of the bill, Care of Women Veterans, it stipulates that mammography standards for the VA be as stringent as those prescribed by Public Law 102-539 and requires that VA report to the Congress within 120 days of enactment of the legislation on the implementation of such standards. The bill also requires annual surveys through 1999 of all VA medical centers to identify patient privacy deficiencies relating to the treatment of women veterans, to develop plans for the correction of identified deficiencies, and to give priority to correction efforts in the Department's construction planning and budgeting process. Under Subtitle C, Readjustment Counseling and Mental Health Care, VA is required to furnish readjustment counseling to those veterans who served in-theater during the Vietnam-era and those Vietnam-era veterans who seek or who have sought readjustment counseling before January 1, 2000. The provision also authorizes Vet Center counseling services to veterans of conflicts prior to the Vietnam-era such as Korea and World War II. Other provisions of this section require the VA to submit to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees a report on the feasibility and desirability of collating Vet Centers and also a report on the provision of offering limited health care services at readjustment counseling centers. Both reports are due within 6 months of enactment of the legislation. The bill also establishes an 18-member Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans which is required to submit an annual report on the readjustment of veterans with department comments to the Congress. The bill authorizes appropriations for establishment of up to five centers of excellence in mental health research, education, and clinical care activities (MIRECC's). The MIRECC concept is intended to improve the quality of care, particularly at VA psychiatric facilities, by fostering collaboration between those facilities with primarily psychiatric or mental health missions and non-psychiatric tertiary medical centers. MIRECC's are to be modeled after the successful Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC's). Authorizations for appropriations are $3.125 million for fiscal year 1998 and $6.25 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. VA is required to submit reports on the operation of MIRECC's for the years 1999 through 2002. The bill requires VA to establish a Committee on the Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans to assess VA's capability to meet the treatment needs of veterans including women veterans who suffer from chronic mental illnesses. The committee is required to submit reports for 1998 and the three years following on ways to improve care to this group of veterans. Subtitle D of the bill contains the following important provisions:

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 919, the Child Abuse, Prevention and Treatment Act. I commend Chairman Goodling, Ranking Member Clay, as well as our colleagues in the Senate for working together to bring this important bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this month I received a 1,300 name petition from my constituents in northwest Arkansas regarding the child abuse case of Kendall Shea Moore. Kendall was a tiny infant who in the first 5 months of his life had virtually every bone in his body broken and his skull cracked. Finally on April 7, 1994, after the baby was admitted to the intensive care unit, authorities arrested those responsible for this horrendous abuse--the child's own father and as an accomplice, the baby's mother. As you can imagine, this case caused an uproar in northwest Arkansas. However, the action that really incensed my constituents was when the court decided to return the baby to his mother. Just over 9 months from the day he was admitted to the intensive care unit, Kendall Shea Moore was permanently returned to his mother's custody. In response to the outcry from my constituents, in January 1995, I hosted a meeting in my district office, bringing together Arkansas State legislators, foster parents and child advocates. I was appalled by the stories I heard from these foster parents. Time and time again they told me of children being returned to abusive situations. They told me of foster parents being aware of criminal abuse and not being able to testify in court. I was also told of doctors not being able to come forward due to confidentiality concerns. Unfortunately, I do not believe this tragic situation is unique to Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the family and of doing everything we can to keep families together and encouraging the bond between parent and child. I am also a strong defender of the constitutional rights of parents. However, we as a society have an obligation to protect the weakest and most vulnerable. There is something seriously wrong when we allow children and infants to be returned to homes where criminal abuse has occurred. Based on the input I have received, there are several areas where we could reform CAPTA. First, we need to allow foster parents a greater opportunity to have input into the system. S. 919 requires States to establish citizen review panels to review the activities of State and local agencies. Specific duties include review coordination of child abuse prevention programs with foster care and adoption programs; and the review of cases involving child fatalities and near fatalities. Second, we need to promote greater interagency cooperation. Very often State human services departments are not equipped to deal with cases of criminal abuse; nor should they be. These cases rightfully fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement. S. 919 specifically encourages the cooperation of State law enforcement, courts, and State agencies in the investigation, prosecution and treatment of child abuse or neglect. Finally, S. 919 deals with the issue of family reunification and the termination of parental rights. In cases of criminal abuse, where a parent has been convicted in a court of law, the legislation directs the States to have provisions in place protecting a surviving child from reunification with the convicted abuser. In addition, the legislation clarifies that such a conviction is grounds for the termination of parental rights. No longer will States put children back into homes where parents have been convicted of egregious acts such as murder, voluntary manslaughter or felony assaults of their own children. Children, like Kendall Shea Moore should never have to face the possibility of abuse again. We owe our children more than that. Mr. Speaker, as we witness the continuing dissolution of the family in our society, I fear that the incidence of child abuse will only increase. We need to act and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support passage of S. 919.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3877, which would name the post office in Camden, AR, after my friend and colleague, David Pryor. David began his career in 1960 with his election to the Arkansas general assembly. He then came to Washington in 1966 as the Representative of the Fourth District of Arkansas. After serving for 6 years he returned to Arkansas and in 1974 the people of Arkansas chose him as their Governor. Following his two terms as Governor, Arkansans again sent him to Washington--this time as their U.S. Senator. David is considered the most popular politician in Arkansas. For those of us who know him it is easy to understand why. For the last 18 years David has diligently served the people of Arkansas. He is the consummate example of a statesman. He is tireless in his service to his constituents, courteous to those he disagrees with, listens to all sides of an argument, makes his decisions with thoughtful consideration, and is unyielding on matters of principle. He is an example not only to those of us in public service but to all Arkansans. He truly represents the very best of our State. Senator Pryor has been particularly active on issues affecting the elderly. Arkansas has one of the highest per capita populations of senior citizens in the Nation, and David has been one of their primary champions. Through his service on the aging committee, including 6 years as chairman, the Senator has sought to bring attention to the problems which they face. His advocacy on their behalf, particularly in the areas of prescription drug prices and reforms to the nursing home industry, has been recognized nationwide. David Pryor has also been a leader in efforts to protect the American taxpayer. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator wrote the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which was the first piece of legislation in 40 years to guarantee the basic rights of individual taxpayers when they deal with the Internal Revenue Service. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would point out that during my tenure in the Arkansas legislature I was privileged to serve with another Pryor-- Mark Pryor, David's son. They say you can tell a lot about a man by the children he raises. I agree. I learned a lot about David through his son. I had the opportunity to observe first hand the character traits that David passed on to his child. Duty, honor, integrity, and devotion to constituents are always foremost in the Pryor family. Madam Speaker, I consider it a high honor to be able to call two generations of Pryors, my friends, and I think it fitting that we honor the service of Senator David Pryor here today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, last week we had an opportunity to honor one of our most distinguished colleagues with a truly fitting tribute by renaming the Jackson Mississippi VA Medical Center to the G.V. Sonny Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Mr. Montgomery has given extraordinary service to this country and has made monumental contributions on behalf of America's veterans. His service in World War II and later in the Mississippi National Guard shaped a lifelong commitment to a strong national defense. As an advocate of peace through strength during some of the greatest threats to our country's security, Sonny Montgomery always knew that in order for our Nation to face and resist its adversaries, it must treat its defenders with dignity. He emulated this belief during his 14 year chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the 25 years of vigorous, dedicated work on the Armed Services and National Security Committees. Sonny Montgomery's legislative record is one of steady and patient progress, consistently a product of hard work and consensus building. It may fairly be said that he has left a legacy to America's veterans through his relentless efforts to protect, improve, and expand their benefits and services. Sonny Montgomery is a man admired by his peers, cherished by his friends, and deeply respected by all that know him. It has been an honor to serve with him on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I strongly support the measure to bestow the name of such a remarkable gentleman upon this medical center.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this bill which makes English the official language of the U.S. Government. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our values and our ideals that ultimately bind us together as a nation. But it is the English language which serves as the means by which we can communicate these values to those around us. Our common language, English, is that which unites us. Eight-six percent of all Americans support establishing English as the official language of the U.S. Government. In fact, in a recent survey, telephone survey, taken in a section of my district in northwest Arkansas, it was found that 97 percent of those polled approved of declaring English as the official language of our Government. I think the numbers speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman. Nearly half the States in our country have established official English laws, including my home State of Arkansas. In 1987, as a second term legislator in the Arkansas General Assembly, I cosponsored this legislation which we have before us, signed by then-Governor Bill Clinton, now President Clinton, making English the official language of the State of Arkansas. Governor Clinton signed that law. I hope he will sign this bill as well. My legislative director's grandparents were immigrants from Norway. They came over on a boat. They learned English. They taught their children English. They assimilated in our culture and they lived the American dream. They still revere their Norwegian heritage. They still cherish that tradition, but they knew that English was part of becoming Americans. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is very reasonable. It takes a reasonable approach; it makes good sense. We can honor the diverse backgrounds that are present in our society while at the same time emphasize the common bond that we have in the English language. I urge an aye vote on this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to join the chairman in expressing, once again, to the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, how much he will be missed in this Chamber and in this House. This is the last bill that the committee will bring to the floor this year and it is an appropriate time. My predecessor, John Paul Hammerschmidt, regarded no one higher and no one closer to him during his 26 years of service in the House than his relationship with Sonny Montgomery. He would come back to Arkansas many times and lauding the achievements of Chairman Montgomery and his advocacy on behalf of veterans. All I can say today is, the half was not told. I have enjoyed the last 4 years getting to know the gentleman and I wish to tell him he certainly will be missed. Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a historic day for America's veterans, for it marks the end of a 10-year quest to streamline eligibility for veterans' health care. Under the leadership of Chairman Bob Stump and in the true spirit of bipartisanship demonstrated by the ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee, Sonny Montgomery and Chet Edwards, the Veterans' Affairs Committee has taken the first major step to move the delivery of veterans' health care into the 21st century. The Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, while not the panacea for all the ills of VA health care, is the first step in the rational transformation of the arcane eligibility provisions which have literally crippled the delivery of VA health services and have left patients feeling cheated and confused. The bill substitutes a single, streamlined eligibility provision--based on clinical need for care--for the complex array of disparate rules currently governing eligibility for hospital and outpatient care. In doing so, it would lift restrictions on VA's providing ambulatory treatment. Those restrictions currently tie many veterans' eligibility for outpatient treatment to determinations that are medically uninterpretable such as ``to obviate the need for hospital admission.'' The application of these medically indefinable standards have contributed to relative disparities in different areas of the country as veterans attempted to access VA health care. Understanding that this bill is the first of many steps to come in improving veterans' health care, it also contains a number of other important provisions. The bill eliminates restrictions on prosthetic devices but does not turn VA into a drugstore for such devices as hearing aids and eyeglasses. It requires VA to manage the provision of hospital care and medical services through an enrollment system according to a series of priorities. The bill refocuses our time-honored commitment to service-connected care while allowing the VA to manage care for those veterans with lesser means who depend upon the VA as their health care safety net. Other important provisions expand operational flexibility by enabling the VA to contract for hospital care and medical services to increase the cost-effective provision of care and services. The bill expands VA's authority to execute sharing agreements by permitting any medical resource to be provided under a contractual agreement with any entity. It also authorizes flexibility in the establishment of payment levels and exempts the personnel involved in providing services under such arrangements from personnel hiring limits. This exemption should be very helpful as VA seeks to participate to a greater extent with TRICARE and other managed care programs. An important consideration of this bill is that it offers protection of specialized services by directing the VA to maintain its capacity to provide for the specialized treatment and rehabilitation of disabled veterans within distinct programs and facilities dedicated to the specialized needs of veterans. In closing I would like to address the controversial cost estimate placed on this bill by the Congressional Budget Office, an estimate that we have strongly refuted with a committee cost estimate. To further ensure budget neutrality of the bill, it has been amended to include not only subject to appropriations language but a 2-year cap on the authorization for the medical care appropriation. Eligibility reform, in my view, is as significant a piece of legislation as the G.I. bill. I urge my colleagues to show their support of veterans by supporting H.R. 3118, the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend and thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] for his leadership on this issue and his bipartisan efforts on this amendment. This reporting of deaths in custody requirement passed the House last year during the Contract With America. It passed with bipartisan support by a voice vote. At that time both the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime spoke in strong support of the reporting of deaths. This amendment will ensure a measure of accountability on the part of law enforcement officials by requiring them to report deaths that occur while in custody. It requires municipal or county jails, State or Federal prisons who receive funds under this bill to report to the Attorney General the deaths of those who die in their facilities. Today no one counts how many people die in jail cells and lockups across the country. This amendment will send a cautionary message about accountability and I believe it will save lives. It is estimated that each year in this country over 1,000 men and women die while in prison, jail or police custody. An exhaustive investigative reporting piece in the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey revealed that while most of these deaths are listed as suicides, many are, quote, tainted with racial overtones, good-ole-boy conspiracies and coverups or investigative competence. By requiring a report to a central source, the Attorney General, we will have an accurate account of how numerous these deaths are and what circumstances surround them. In supporting this amendment, we are supporting accountability of reporting of those 1,000 deaths which occur each year in jails and lockups across this country. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.