Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. I had hoped we would be able to accomplish the necessary Amtrak reforms within the context of this tax bill. I believe that Members of the Senate from both parties were prepared to do that. Given that Amtrak has warned us it could reach bankruptcy by the spring of 1998, the reforms embodied in S. 738, which include labor reforms and limits on liability, are simply critical. I am committed to moving S. 738 as soon as possible after the August recess. The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee shares my commitment to provide honest legislative reforms in order to release the tax credits to Amtrak. I hope the majority leader will work with me to assure timely floor action.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Today is a historic day. We will vote and pass the first substantial tax cut in 16 years, giving much- needed, long-overdue tax relief to working American families. We have been working for tax cuts for 3 years now, and we are making a downpayment on that commitment. I view the bill that we are debating today as the second half of an entire economic package. We passed the first half this morning. I was a somewhat reluctant supporter because, while it does take steps toward a balanced budget, we missed the opportunity for historic Medicare reform that would have created real consumer choice and preserved the program for the next generation. The Senate spoke on this issue. But the President's opposition to real Medicare reform prevailed in the final version. He also walked away from some very important decisions we made last year on welfare reform. We have hampered the ability of States to implement the welfare-to-work law. The President has already denied States, including Texas, the ability to privatize and consolidate welfare services. In Texas alone, such consolidation would yield annual savings of some $200 million. The President's continued opposition to true welfare reform carried the day. Mr. President, I did support the bill this morning because it is linked to the tax cuts we are now discussing, and it does bring us closer to a balanced budget. The tax bill is long overdue relief for hard-working American families. Republicans took the majority of Congress with a very clear mandate to make Government smaller, control spending, and let hard-working Americans keep more of the money they earn. We are trying to live up to that promise. We passed a budget plan that will lead to a balanced budget, and now we are succeeding in providing substantial tax relief for all Americans. Who will benefit from this plan? It is the mothers and fathers who will get help raising their children with a $500 per child tax credit; homemakers who want to build retirement systems through an IRA; young couples who are trying to buy a first home, pay for college for their children, or retirement for themselves; small business owners and farmers who have spent their lives building a business or farm and want to pass it to their children; investors who have provided the capital to start new businesses and create jobs. A $500-per-child tax credit will mean over 3.5 million families will no longer pay taxes at all. Instead of writing a $500 check to the IRS, families will get to keep the money they earn and spend it as they decide to spend it. Americans really do not need the U.S. Government to tell them how to spend their money. I think they should be able to choose for themselves. American families know best whether they need to spend money on their children, or save it for retirement, or enjoy a vacation. The Government shouldn't take that money and make their choices for them. In fact, with this tax cut, roughly 28 million families will pay fewer taxes. In my home State of Texas the child tax credit alone will benefit almost 2 million American families. With the passage of this bill, we will cut the capital gains rate to 20 percent. This will encourage and reward investment and create new businesses and new jobs. A low capital gains rate is important to our future and our Nation's ability to save and invest. Our current Tax Code punishes people for saving and investing. This is wrong. We are trying to change it. Lowering the taxation of capital gains will do more than release hundreds of billions of dollars of tied-up capital. It will bring immediate relief to investors, small businesses, workers, farmers, homeowners, and the elderly. We need to encourage investment so that we can generate the technology, the market, and the jobs of tomorrow. Today, more than 41 percent of American families own stock. Fifty-six percent of capital gains are reported by families who earn under $50,000. Two-thirds of mutual fund shareholders today in America have household incomes under $75,000. Fifty percent of those who claim capital gains are senior citizens, many of whom need this money to improve their quality of life. In the livestock industry in Texas, over 60 percent of those polled recently admitted to holding onto assets because they couldn't afford to give Uncle Sam 28 percent of a capital gains tax. We cut death taxes so that years of hard work and success won't be wiped out in one generation. According to a recent survey, 51 percent of family-owned businesses would have significant difficulty surviving in the event of a principal owner's death, due to the death tax. The death tax brings little revenue into the Federal Government--only 1.1 percent in 1997 of all of the Federal revenue. But it does affect hundreds of thousands of small business owners, family farmers, and ordinary Americans who work, save, and invest for a lifetime, just to turn more than half of their hard-earned dollars over to the Federal Government when they die. Mr. President, this is walking away from the American dream. What we have said for over 200 years to people all over the world is, if you come to America and you work hard, you will be able to keep the fruits of your labors and give them to your children to give them a little better start in life than you probably had. So walking away from that American dream is what we are trying to prevent today by having some relief in the death taxes that people have been paying. What does this mean for homemakers? We build on the progress that we made last year in giving for the first time the homemakers of our country the ability to save for their retirement security. This time we are adding to that by allowing the full deductibility of that $2,000 regardless of what the spouse earns or has in a pension. How big are these few changes? Let me just give you an example. Under the old law, a single-income, married couple saving $2,250 a year--which was their maximum--would have, over 40 years, starting at the age of 25, when they are 65 approximately $629,000 in their retirement nest egg. But today, because of the bill we passed last year, and this bill combined, after 40 years of setting aside the $4,000 that they will be able to earn tax free, this couple will have $1.119 million in their nest egg, an increase in savings of almost $500,000. So, Mr. President, when you put this together with the death tax relief we are giving, you can really see that we are making a difference for ordinary Americans. Economic growth does result from lower tax breaks. History shows us that expanded opportunity and prosperity flourishes under such conditions. These are the foundations for our democracy. As a result of the passage of this historic bill, Americans will be keeping more of the money they earn in their pockets. Sometimes I hear debate on this floor when people are talking about these tax dollars as if it is Federal dollars. Federal tax dollars belong to the Americans who earn them. We want Americans to keep the money they earn rather than having to send it to Washington for someone here to make a decision for their families. We are going to create new jobs, new investments, lower interest rates, lower home mortgage payments, lower car payments, lower student loan payments, and higher income for working Americans. Mr. President, it is not everything we hoped it would be. But it is a significant downpayment for the hard-working American families. That is something that I hope we can add to as we look toward the future going into the 21st century. Hard-working Americans should be able to realize the American dream of working hard, doing better for their family, and being able to give their children a start that maybe they didn't have. That is what this bill will start the process of doing for American families. I hope we can continue to work even harder for them in the future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would be fine.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Minnesota who I think was here first, and then if I could follow after the next Democrat.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for wanting to talk about this very important issue, because, as we speak on the floor here today, I hope that the negotiations are about to come to an end and we will give the American family the first tax break they have had in 16 years. I think it is an incredible thing to say that we haven't had a real tax cut in this country for 16 years. As hard-working Americans have tried to improve their quality of life, it just seems like their expenses have gone up so much that we now find that the spouses are working more, sometimes just to pay taxes. That is not what we want in this country. We want spouses to have the option of staying home, if they want to, and not make them work because they can't make ends meet. If we are going to continue the American dream of increasing our quality of life with each generation, we are going to have to pare Government down, balance the budget, make sure that people are not paying any more taxes than we have to have to run a Government. I think the time has come for us to take a leadership role. In fact, that is what Congress is trying to do. We came into power in this Congress, starting after the elections of 1994, with very clear goals: to make Government smaller; to let people keep more of the money they earn; to stop talking about money in Washington as if it belongs to us, but to understand that, no, it belongs to the people who work so hard to earn it, and let's let people have that money back to spend the way they would like to, rather than the way people in Washington dictate. These are the things that we came in to do. We are very close. I hope we will be able to close this loop by the end of this week so that the people of America will be able to feel that they have more of the money they earn in their pocketbooks, rather than writing a check to the IRS in Washington. Fifty years ago--just 50 years ago--Americans sent 2 cents of every dollar to Washington. Today, they send 25 cents of every dollar they earn to Washington, and that is just the Washington part. If you add their State and local taxes on top of that, most Americans pay 40 percent of what they earn; 40 cents of every dollar goes to the Government. Now, Mr. President, I think that is wrong. I think that means Government is too big, and I think the time has come to do something about it. I hope the President will agree with us, agree with the leadership that Congress is providing on this issue and has been providing for the last 3 years, to try to correct the inequity in our tax laws. The bill that we have passed in Congress, which we hope the President will sign, will give tax relief to Americans who are paying income taxes; if they have children, a $500 per child tax credit--not deduction, but credit. That is something that they will get right off the top--$500 per child. If you have two children, you would get $1,000 right off the top. That is going to cut most people's taxes in this country by a lot. When I have asked my constituents in newspaper articles what they would like to see changed, No. 1 is death tax reform. Most people don't think that death taxes are American, because the American dream is that, if you work hard, you should be able to pass what you have accumulated on to your children to give them a little bit better start. That is the American dream. Why should people be taxed on money they have accumulated and already paid taxes on? Why should they be taxed again when they pass what they have worked so hard for to their children? The worst thing is when their children have to sell part of the family farm, or all of it, just to pay inheritance taxes. That is not right, Mr. President, and we are trying to change that. In the agreement we are trying to get with the President, we would raise that inheritance tax credit to $1 million. We are going to try to keep people from having to sell assets that are not readily salable, because when you tell people that family farm is worth $500,000 or $1 million, but they can't earn enough to feed their family or to make life better for their family, it is very hard to tell them that they have inherited $1 million when it is land that is really unproductive. So we are trying to raise that, so that you will not have to sell equipment in a small business or a family farm that you could not possibly sell on the open market for $1 million. So we are going to try to make a dent in that death tax. We are going to try to make it easier for people to sell their homes, which is most people's biggest asset, without having to pay the huge taxes that they now do. We are going to try to cut the capital gains tax to 20 percent. Today, 41 percent of American families own stock. They own stock in a pension plan or a mutual fund. That is how they are investing for their retirement security. We want people to be able to have a capital gains tax cut so that if they need to sell a stock, they will not have to pay a 28-percent tax rate on the capital gain. In fact, more than 83 percent of capital gains are reported by households with less than $100,000 in income; 56 percent of capital gains are reported by families with less than $50,000 in income; nearly one-third of capital gains are reported by senior citizens. This will help the senior citizens, particularly those that are having a hard time getting by. If that senior citizen could sell their home or sell their stock without being penalized so heavily, it would give them a little bit better quality of life. We are trying to give more help to people who want to save for their retirement futures with individual retirement accounts. A lot of people say an individual retirement account is not really a retirement plan. But I want to just give you one example, because I worked very hard for homemakers to be able to set aside $2,000 a year for their retirement security, and they can do that now. They are able to set aside $2,000 a year, just as those who work outside the home. I want people to know that if a couple starts, at the age of 25, setting aside $2,000 a year per person, by the time they are 65, they will have over $1 million in their retirement nest egg. That is a retirement plan. If a couple can just save $2,000 a year per person, starting at the age of 25, they can have $1 million for their retirement security. That is another reason that we want to do away with that death tax, because we want middle- income people to be able to save enough for real retirement security and not have it taxed away when they die, so that their children will not be able to have that little bit extra. Our bill will even make IRA's better because it will make them deductible in most instances, and it will make it easier for people to set aside this $2,000 a year. So if we can do that, if we can have a better savings rate in this country, if we can make people more secure in their retirement, if we can give a capital gains tax cut and a death tax cut and $500 per child tax credit, not only will we have kept our promise to the American people, but we will have provided, for middle- income Americans who are working so hard to do better for their children, an opportunity in which they can say, yes, I can see the difference, I can see this tax relief. That is what we are working for in this Congress. I hope the President will not stop us from giving tax relief to hard- working, middle-income Americans, because if he does, he will be making a great mistake for the prosperity of our country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is critically needed to reduce the regulatory burdens on our doctor's offices today. In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as a reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory test performance. Unfortunately, the regulations enacted as a result of the CLIA 1988 legislation did not reflect the intent of the act. What in effect happened following the passage of CLIA 1988 was a series of regulations that substantially increased the amount of paperwork to be performed in physician offices and now ultimately increases the cost of health care to the patients. There has been little, if any, documentation that the CLIA 1988 reforms resulted in an improvement in patient care. In fact, a Texas Medical Association study showed that the annual cost of the labor and administrative overhead added by CLIA averages $4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of registration, controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or accreditation. At a time when the entire health care industry is under pressure to control health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only subject physicians to increased administrative costs but also decrease the amount of time devoted to patient care. One Texas physician describes his CLIA inspection as being left with a feeling that nothing of any real value was accomplished. Dr. McBrayer from the Texas Panhandle relates the inspection: We were written up for such monumental things as the fact that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't sign it. It didn't matter that they had learned how to use it. That was irrelevant. The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices and thereby free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 percent have discounted some type of testing, as a direct result of the CLIA 1988 reforms. This has resulted in some areas of Texas experiencing physician shortages. Many physicians are concerned about the possible consequences to patients caused by the decreased access to testing or the delay in obtaining results. In the wake of the health care reform debate, it is important to promote quality-driven cost- effective ways of delivery care. Mr. President, the CLIA 1997 amendments will not jeopardize the quality of laboratory testing. This bill will exempt physician office lab tests from the CLIA 1988 restrictions that have caused many physicians to discontinue simple laboratory tests due to the excessive amounts of regulation involved in the performance of these tests. The CLIA 1997 amendments that I am introducing today in the Senate will have the narrow purpose of ensuring that essential laboratory testing performed by physicians remain a viable diagnostic option for physicians and their patients without the excessive rules and administratively complex requirements that currently exist, and, most importantly, eliminate the strain the CLIA 1988 legislation is placing on patients in rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing and care. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which will reduce health care costs and improve the ability of patients to receive laboratory tests in a timely fashion while providing the much needed regulatory relief to physicians all over the country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is critically needed to reduce the regulatory burdens on our doctor's offices today. In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as a reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory test performance. Unfortunately, the regulations enacted as a result of the CLIA 1988 legislation did not reflect the intent of the act. What in effect happened following the passage of CLIA 1988 was a series of regulations that substantially increased the amount of paperwork to be performed in physician offices and now ultimately increases the cost of health care to the patients. There has been little, if any, documentation that the CLIA 1988 reforms resulted in an improvement in patient care. In fact, a Texas Medical Association study showed that the annual cost of the labor and administrative overhead added by CLIA averages $4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of registration, controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or accreditation. At a time when the entire health care industry is under pressure to control health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only subject physicians to increased administrative costs but also decrease the amount of time devoted to patient care. One Texas physician describes his CLIA inspection as being left with a feeling that nothing of any real value was accomplished. Dr. McBrayer from the Texas Panhandle relates the inspection: We were written up for such monumental things as the fact that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't sign it. It didn't matter that they had learned how to use it. That was irrelevant. The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices and thereby free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 percent have discounted some type of testing, as a direct result of the CLIA 1988 reforms. This has resulted in some areas of Texas experiencing physician shortages. Many physicians are concerned about the possible consequences to patients caused by the decreased access to testing or the delay in obtaining results. In the wake of the health care reform debate, it is important to promote quality-driven cost- effective ways of delivery care. Mr. President, the CLIA 1997 amendments will not jeopardize the quality of laboratory testing. This bill will exempt physician office lab tests from the CLIA 1988 restrictions that have caused many physicians to discontinue simple laboratory tests due to the excessive amounts of regulation involved in the performance of these tests. The CLIA 1997 amendments that I am introducing today in the Senate will have the narrow purpose of ensuring that essential laboratory testing performed by physicians remain a viable diagnostic option for physicians and their patients without the excessive rules and administratively complex requirements that currently exist, and, most importantly, eliminate the strain the CLIA 1988 legislation is placing on patients in rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing and care. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which will reduce health care costs and improve the ability of patients to receive laboratory tests in a timely fashion while providing the much needed regulatory relief to physicians all over the country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg, to engage in a colloquy on a matter of extreme importance to my State and a number of others, and that is the need for more research into wind and severe storm disasters and ways to protect people and property from catastrophic harm.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as you know, there have been a number of severe tornadoes, wind storms, hurricanes and other wind-related disasters in recent months which have killed scores of people and destroyed communities. Earlier this year, the small town of Jarrell, TX, experienced a tornado that killed 29 people, seriously injured many others, and caused millions of dollars in damage to homes and businesses. The President's home State of Arkansas was also hit by a wind disaster that resulted in loss of life. The home State of the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Hollings is still rebuilding after the devastation of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Mr. President, there is important work being done at Texas Tech University to help improve design construction of buildings to make them more resilient to windstorms. The laboratory building will include space to house a wind tunnel, a structural and building component testing lab and a material testing lab. These laboratory facilities will be used to develop innovative building frames and components that are resilient to extreme winds and windborne debris and yet are economically affordable. The research will also produce results to help cope with the environmental effects of wind erosion and dust and particulate generation. The Department of Commerce, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, does wind research. NIST in particular is engaged in research that complements the Texas Tech project. The Committee has provided $276,852,000 for the scientific and technical research and services (core programs) appropriation of NIST. Part of the increased amount is for continued research, development, application and demonstration of new building products, processes, technologies and methods of construction for energy-efficient and environmentally compatible buildings. Senator Gregg, do you concur that it is the intent of the committee to direct $3.8 million in funds provided to NIST for scientific and technical research and services for cooperative research between NIST and Texas Tech University to pursue this important wind research?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak on this bill. I thank Senator Gregg, our subcommittee chairman, and Senator Hollings, our ranking member, for help, for cooperation and commitment to the most important issue facing my State, and that is bolstering the front line of our Nation's defense in the war on drugs. The U.S. Border Patrol has been funded in this bill. It has been funded to the extent that we will be able to add 1,000 new Border Patrol agents during fiscal year 1998. This bill provides adequate funding for their training and supervision. Moreover, it reflects the ongoing commitment of Congress to put 5,000 new Border Patrol agents on the line and to regain control of our borders by the year 2002. Mr. President, I have to tell you that this was a hard-fought effort. The Immigration Reform Act passed last year directed the administration to submit a budget request to Congress which included funding for 1,000 new agents. Regrettably, they only requested funding for 500. I and Senator Gramm have had many discussions with the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner. I am convinced of their commitment to secure our borders. I think they really are sincere. But now they must back that up with the requested resources in future years. Over the past several months, I have felt and expressed a sense of hopelessness in our Nation's war on drugs. I feel this hopelessness because no matter where I travel in Texas, I meet people who have lost loved ones to drug violence. I know ranchers and farmers along our border who have been intimidated by drug smugglers. They have had their homes shot at in broad daylight. I know of Customs agents of Mexican- American heritage who have been told by drug smugglers to look the other way as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines are smuggled across the border because their families back in Mexico will be harmed if they do not. Just this morning, a friend of mine called me to tell me about his friend who lives in Carrizo Springs. He described gangs of drug thugs and illegal immigrants who are terrorizing residents of this small Texas community. They are scared and they feel helpless. These Texans have the misfortune to live along the front lines of a business that provides $10 billion to the Mexican economy each year--the drug market. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs. Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States. And 10.9 percent of all children between 12 and 17 use illegal drugs and 1 child in 4 claims to have been offered illegal drugs in the last year. Drug-related illness, death and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion each year, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration. I strongly believe and share the view that effective treatment and prevention is needed to break the cycle that links illegal drugs to violent crime. It is the only way to protect our children and save their future. Mr. President, our southern neighbor, Mexico, is the source of between 20 and 30 percent of the heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana, and 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine shipped into the United States. If the flow of drugs is going to stop, the front line of that war will be along our Nation's border with Mexico. The United States-Mexico border is 2,000 miles long, and Texas has 1,200 miles of that border. You can see how that border goes. You can see that, of the 2,000, 1,200 miles is along Texas. Texas has been and will continue to be the key battleground in this war. I am pleased that we have been able to work with the Border Patrol and the committee to correct disparities in placing Border Patrol along the border. As you can see from this chart, Texas has 1.7 agents for every 1 of our 1,254 miles--1.7 for this 1,254-mile border. New Mexico and Arizona do not fare much better. California has 16.3 agents for every one mile of the border. I cannot go home and tell my constituents that we are doing all we can in the war on drugs if Congress and the administration fail to provide the funding for more Border Patrol agents. Two of Mexico's largest drug cartels, the Juarez cartel and the Matamoros cartel operate from El Paso here and Brownsville, respectively. You can see from this chart that from the Matamoros cartel, the gulf cartel, the drugs go in and over to the eastern seaboard. From the Juarez cartel, it goes into Colorado and Chicago, the Midwest. From the Tijuana cartel, it goes into California, goes to the Pacific Northwest. So you can see what is happening to our country and what not closing the border can do to the amount of illegal drugs that are coming into our country. As we work on this funding for fiscal year 1998, I will be asking many questions about deployment of resources from the DEA and from the Border Patrol because we must put the resources where the threat lies. Two-thirds of the illegal immigration and the illegal drugs flowing through Mexico and into our country go through Texas, through McAllen, through Eagle Pass, and through the Del Rio Border Patrol sectors. Two- thirds of the illegal immigration and the illegal drugs go through these corridors. Yet as we have said, there are only 1.7 agents per mile in Texas, and we must do something about that, and that is what this bill is going to address today. The bill that we pass will fully fund 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. We need this help. It is the highest priority I have. As long as drugs are coming through Mexico into the United States through this border, it should be the highest priority for everyone. That is why I cannot say enough times how pleased I am that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg; Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the subcommittee; as well as our chairman, Senator Stevens, all agreed that this was a crisis that affects all of us. It is not just the border States; it is all of the States that these drugs funnel into. Nothing is a greater priority than stopping the flow of illegal drugs into our country. When 1 child in every 4 has been offered illegal drugs, we cannot look them in the eye and say we are protecting their future if we do not stop those illegal drugs. So I want to work with the Attorney General and the Commissioner of INS and General McCaffrey, who is our drug czar, who is trying to grapple with this issue. I want to say to them, no resource is going to be withheld if it will stop the illegal drugs and the illegal immigration into our country that has criminalized our borders. This bill addresses that today, and I will ask the Attorney General and the Commissioner of INS to help us by deploying the full 1,000 and making sure that we stop the centers where these people are coming through Texas. If we can stop it right now, then our children will have a better future. Thank you, Mr. President. Once again I thank the subcommittee chairman. I think, if we can work together on a bipartisan basis, we can make a difference for the future of our country. And this is a major first step. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with this proposed course of action. I intend to introduce separate legislation including these provisions so that they may be considered by the Commerce Committee this year.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of this important subcommittee, because they have seen, early on, the importance and the benefits, for our present society and our future children and grandchildren, of space research continuing to move forward to find how we can live better through experimentation in space. That is going to help all of us now and in the future. They have seen this and I am so pleased that the Senate has continued to ratify its faith in space. I cannot imagine that anyone in the past few weeks who has seen the Pathfinder exploring Mars, the pictures that are being taken by Pathfinder on Mars that show it to look about like Arizona--I cannot imagine that anyone would not be so excited about what we are going to be able to learn from this kind of continued exploration. So I think now, of all times, people who are big thinkers, who have a vision for our country, would not want to stop our efforts to explore in space. We have talked about the importance of the health benefits that we have in the microgravity conditions in the space station before. Senator Mikulski and I have worked on osteoporosis and breast cancer, trying to increase the funding. You cannot, no matter what you do, no matter how much technology you have--you cannot reproduce the gravity conditions that are in space, on Earth. You cannot do it. Yet we know that those microgravity conditions will allow us to watch the development of breast cancer cells and of osteoporosis in this weightlessness and perhaps find the cure for breast cancer. We can learn how to combat osteoporosis in the older, especially women, but also men. In fact, NASA research already has led to these developments in health. The cool suit for Apollo missions now helps improve the quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis. NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body. NASA has developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without penetrating the skin. NASA research has led to an implant for diabetes that is only 3 inches across. It provides more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections. I was reading about Professor James Langer's discoveries. He is from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He wrote in Physics Today that, ``Metallurgists have long sought to predict and control alloy microstructures.'' This may seem a little off the wall, but in fact it is very important when they are trying to find the very best substance with which to make products. He found that this is best done in the microgravity conditions because gravity affects the way things can solidify. So you take all these scientific things and boil them down to: How does it make my life better? In fact, it does make our life better. It does make our health better. It does give patients who have multiple sclerosis or osteoporosis a better chance to have a good quality of life. I reject the idea that we would walk away from the possibilities for the future for better health and better quality of life, but also the products that will be formed from the scientific developments that we make with the space station. Once we have the research, then we take that technology and we make the products. And that is what has kept our economy burgeoning and growing and able to accept the new, young people who come into it after they graduate from high school and college; accept the new people who come to our country, looking for the American dream. Part of the American dream is the commitment to research. It is the commitment to the future. An important part of that is space and the space station. That is why it is so important that we keep this commitment to space research, to NASA, to the space station. And the Senate has done that. In the 4 years that I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been very proud of the big thinkers and their ability to see the difference between shutting off our future and our possibilities and saying we can save a small amount here, not thinking that for every $1 we invest we get a $2 return in our productivity and in our gross national product. I respect the Senator from Arkansas. I know he believes sincerely that this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. I wish, before he leaves the Senate, that he would come around to seeing the benefits of space research so maybe in his last year here he would say: You know what? I think there is a future, it is worth keeping, that it will make life better for our children, that it will provide scientific jobs for our children, that it will keep the technology and the research and the innovations in America, along with our international partners. Because this is not just people who write in Physics Today. This is quality of life for elderly people who have osteoporosis. This is for the prevention of breast cancer. This is for the scientific base that has made America what it is today. To walk away from that would be un-American and it would be unthinkable. So I hope our colleagues will give us the resounding vote that we have had in the past. I hope they will resolutely stand for the future, for our children and our grandchildren, and for a great America for years to come. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator agree that it is not the intent of her report language to expand the CSOC procurement to include elements of the Space Flight Operations Contract not presently envisioned to be part of the SCOC contract, as stipulated in the pending request for proposals.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to engage the Senator from Maryland in a colloquy regarding the intent of report language included on her behalf in the Senate Report accompanying S. 1034, the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill concerning NASA's Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say it was a pleasure for me to hear the Senator from Ohio talk about this very important subject. I am proud the Senator from Ohio was once my constituent when he made the historic trip into space--that was really the beginning of our space program--and made us all so proud that we really could conquer space. What we have learned and what we have done for quality of life and for health research since his first foray into space has been, perhaps, more than even he could have dreamed would happen. I am very proud he is a supporter of the space station and the NASA Program and knows that what he did in the beginning is certainly not the end and certainly, I hope, we can continue the legacy that he has left for us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am pleased that I was able to work with Secretary Rubin and Ambassador Barshefsky's staff on this amendment. I am confident that they will use this directive from Congress to make progress--in the spirit of NAFTA--to correct the personal duty-free allowance inequity. I hope that it can be passed by unanimous consent when it is brought to the floor. Mr. President, my amendment addresses the disparities that exist in the personal duty-free exemption's of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The United States provides each United States resident who is returning from Mexico and Canada with a personal exemption from duty on merchandise valued at up to $400 once every 30 days. This is the same duty exemption every U.S. citizen is afforded when they return to the United States from any country. Mexico, however, has a two-tiered duty- free allowance structure. If you are a Mexican resident and live within 25 kilometers of the border, when you return to Mexico at a land border crossing, you may only return with $50 in duty-free merchandise. This has become known as the $50 rule, and it is crippling businesses on the U.S. side of the border in Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. If you are a Mexican resident bringing more than $50 in merchandise, you must pay a 22.8-percent duty rate. This rule, Mr. President, makes it prohibitively expensive for a Mexican resident to purchase a washing machine, refrigerator, electronics, furniture, or any item costing more than $50 in the United States. In U.S. border communities, countless small businesses have closed their doors and thousands of American jobs have been lost. Our larger retailers are also suffering, as Mexicans who used to travel across the border for goods are now limited to purchasing them on their side of the border. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It directs the United States Trade Representative and Secretary of the Treasury to begin discussions with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada to achieve parity in the duty-free allowance structure of the three NAFTA countries. These officials will report to Congress within 90 days on the progress they are making to correct these disparities. If the situation remains unchanged, in 6 months these officials will propose appropriate legislation and action to bring the United States duty-free allowance into conformance with the allowance levels established by Mexico and Canada. Mr. President, this is an important issue for my constituents, and I look forward to this amendment's adoption.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Kyl, McCain, Gramm, Bingaman, and Boxer be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have probably the best relations with Mexico than we have had in this country in a long, long time. I think NAFTA has added to the good will and the trade between our nations. But there is one part of our trade relationship that is not at parity and is not in the spirit of NAFTA, and that is the exemptions for personal goods or for buying when you are on the border between Mexico and the United States. As a matter of fact, there is not parity in the exemption, and I think that is against the spirit of NAFTA. I am hoping that we will be able to change that, and that is what my amendment will attempt to do. The amendment is very simple. It directs the U.S. Trade Representative and the Secretary of the Treasury to begin discussions with their counterparts in Mexico to achieve parity in the duty-free allowance structure of all of our NAFTA countries, and the concern is between Mexico and the United States. These officials will report to Congress within 90 days on the changes they are making to correct these disparities. If the situation remains unchanged, in 6 months these officials will propose appropriate legislation to bring the United States' duty-free allowance to conform to the allowance levels established by Mexico and Canada. Let me give an example of what is wrong and why this disparity exists. The United States provides that each U.S. resident returning from Mexico has a personal exemption from duty on merchandise valued at up to $400 once every 30 days. Mexico, however, has a two-tier duty- free allowance. If you are a resident in a 25-kilometer strip along Mexico's northern border, and you return from the United States at a land border crossing, you may only return with $50 in duty-free merchandise. This has become known as the $50 rule. It is crippling business in our border retailers on the U.S. side of the border in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona, because if you are a Mexican resident bringing in more than $50, you must pay a 22.8 percent duty rate. Now, this makes it prohibitively expensive for a Mexican resident to purchase a washing machine, a refrigerator, any kind of electronics or any item costing more than $50, so it is inequitable. We believe in the spirit of NAFTA, in parity, in equity, any rule you want to apply, that it should just be the same. We have been talking about this for 3\1/2\ years, since I came to the Senate. The border retailers in Texas told me that the $50 rule was being enforced by the Mexican Government. I have talked to the officials of the Mexican Government about this. I truly believe that President Zedillo intended to do something about it. He said he was going to right after he was elected. But we all know that the peso crisis occurred, and surely he had so many things on his plate that this was not on the front burner. I understood that. Now the Mexican economic situation is stabilized, and certainly, I think, it is on its way to full recovery, and I think this matter of equity and parity must be addressed. That is why my amendment would just ask the U.S. Trade Representative and the Secretary of the Treasury to begin these discussions, to report back, and if they are not able to make progress, then tell us what legislation should be passed to make this happen. That is the amendment. I hope both sides will agree this is in everyone's best interests, and I hope we will be able to vote on this or have it accepted early next week and that we can begin the process of making sure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of NAFTA is applied to both sides of our relationship with the country of Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the amendment aside, and we will take it up at the appropriate time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Dodd-McCain amendment that will put this charade of certification aside and try something new in the war on drugs. I think, Madam President, all of us want the same result; we want to stop the illegal drugs from coming into our country. Today, 13 million Americans use illegal drugs; 1.5 million use cocaine, 600,000 use heroin, and 10 million use marijuana. Madam President, it is coming in through Mexico. Twenty percent of the heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana in this country, and 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine comes in through Mexico. This is under the process we have now--certification--which is insulting, which does not have any positive consequences and, I submit, really only has negative consequences. Madam President, how is the best way for us to attack the issue of illegal drugs coming in from Mexico? Is it to insult our neighbor? Is it to berate them? What does that give us? It gives us a hostile neighbor. Is that going to help? I hear people on this floor talking about Mexico as if it is 2,000 miles from our border. Madam President, Mexico is our border. We share family ties, we share a trade relationship, we share problems for both of our countries in illegal drug transit. It is bad for Mexico, it is bad for the United States. And I submit that we share friendship. We know Mexico is not doing enough; they know it. I have met with President Zedillo on this issue. I am convinced that he is trying to do everything he can. He is attacking this issue. Berating his country is not going to help the situation. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Dodd-McCain amendment. Let us try something new. Let us look for positive results in a partnership, not an adversarial relationship that cannot help us. It will not solve our problem and it could make worse problems on our border than we could ever foresee. Let's do something different; let's give it a chance. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I look forward to learning the results of this pilot program and thank my distinguished chairman for his able assistance. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 848