Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 17, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing to hear the testimony of Gen. Colin Powell on Persian Gulf War issues. The hearing will be held on April 17, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 17, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m. to consider the course of action regarding petitions in connection with a contested U.S. Senate election held in Louisiana in November 1996.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Arizona because, in fact, I do want to talk about the bill that will be in the Chamber very shortly. The bill is sponsored by the junior Senator from Arizona, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bill. I think it is very important that we pass this bill. This bill provides the most strength that we will ever be able to get to deal with the real chemical and biological weapons issues. I like this bill because it has real teeth. It permits the U.S. military to use tear gas, for instance, when it is necessary to rescue a downed pilot or for the control of prisoners, which has been done, because tear gas is basically harmless. I would much prefer that we be able to use tear gas rather than shoot people. It would make more sense. That is one of the problems, Mr. President, I have with the chemical weapons treaty. This bill deals with my concerns in a positive way by assuring that we are not going to unilaterally disarm ourselves from a weapon such as tear gas. So this solves one of the problems that I have with the Chemical Weapons Convention that we will have in the Chamber a few days from now. This bill also preserves the Australia Group. The Australia Group is an effective international export control organization that really has done the most, the very most, to restrict the transfer of biological and chemical materials and technology. It is the one thing that is working and would be vitiated by the chemical weapons treaty. So I am very pleased that this preserves the Australia Group because this is the one thing we have that works. This will strengthen U.S. biological and chemical defense programs. It does require Russian cooperation and, of course, it is very important that we work together with Russia in the dismantling of their chemical and biological weapons. S. 495 has a requirement that we cooperate with Russia. So I think it is a very important, positive step that we must take. Frankly, if we can pass this bill, it will take away many of the fears that many of us have about the chemical weapons treaty. What this bill does not do is require the sharing of chemical defense capabilities with countries like Iran. That is one of the concerns many people have with the Chemical Weapons Convention, the treaty we will be taking up toward the end of next week. S. 495 does not require such sharing. So we would not have to sit down with a country like Iran-- knowing that they will not abide by the treaty as we do--and share our chemical weapons capabilities or secrets with them. We do not produce chemical weapons, but we certainly have the technologies to do so in this country. In that case, of course, we should know what is going on with chemical weapons in other countries. This bill does not require the expansion of trade in chemicals. This is another concern that we have with the chemical weapons treaty that S. 495 addresses. We are not going to expand the trade. We are not going to circumvent the United States Constitution with this bill. S. 495 will not take away the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which many of us believe is inherent in the chemical weapons treaty. It certainly does not permit an intrusive inspection of U.S. businesses by international inspection teams, which is another concern that we have with the chemical weapons treaty. Small businesses that are making chemical-related products should not suddenly be faced with a surprise inspection by an international team of experts. And who knows for what kind of intelligence those groups would be looking? Who knows who would even be in the groups? What kind of protection would a small company making fertilizer or cleaning products have against unwarranted intrusion by an international group that might include someone from the Government of Iran or the Government of China? Who could really tell exactly who would be in those groups? I think the Senator from Arizona has fashioned a very good bill. It is a positive bill. It does alleviate many of the concerns that others have expressed about the reliability, the verifiability and the negative impact of the chemical weapons treaty, but it also makes this country stronger in its ability to enforce restrictions against the actual export of products that could be used in producing chemical weapons. The Australia Group is the best avenue that we have, and S. 495 would preserve it. So I commend the Senator from Arizona. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I am pleased that he is gaining cosponsors by the minute. I think people are beginning to see that we do have an alternative to stiffen the penalties, to stiffen our resolve against chemical and biological weapons and at the same time, make sure that we have laws with real teeth that would disallow the export of products that could be used to produce chemical weapons from our country or other countries in the Australia Group. This is the kind of legislation that I think will help make America stronger and will help protect this great country even more from the future use of chemical or biological weapons. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are there any time limits on the amount of time that a Senator can speak at this time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to share an important day in Texas history--another important day in Texas history--with my colleagues. Fifty years ago today the worst industrial accident in the history of America occurred in Texas City, TX. This morning I was in Texas City for a ``rebirth'' celebration the city is hosting. Today, I would like to honor those who lost their lives in that terrible tragedy. It was a clear and cool spring morning, one described by author Elizabeth Lee Wheaton as ``a day when just to be alive felt good.'' As firefighters worked feverishly to extinguish the flames, this ship loaded down with ammonium nitrate exploded. It was 9:22 a.m. within moments the ferocious blast had killed 26 firefighters, scores of schoolchildren, ruined all the city's fire fighting equipment, and demolished the dock area. The explosion incinerated ships and businesses. The ship's cargo and dock equipment became missiles and were hurled into businesses, houses, and public buildings. The explosion was so powerful that it registered on a seismograph as far away as Denver. One thousand homes and buildings throughout the city endured partial or total destruction. An eyewitness described the scene as follows: ``For 1,200 feet around the location of the ship, metal shards weighing from one pound to five tons crashed down, creating geysers of water in the ship channel and landing on nearby buildings, killing or injuring the employees inside. Nearly all of the people who were on the wharf, including port officials, volunteer firefighters, and many ship's crew, disappeared, many never to be found.'' It was not over yet. The S.S. High Flyer was in dock for repairs and carried the volatile ammonium nitrate. The first explosion ignited the chemicals on the High Flyer and although emergency workers could move the ship away from the docks, it exploded just hours later. This explosion took the lives of many rescue workers who were pulling bodies from the wreckage. In all, nearly 600 people were lost. We will never know who many of these individuals were, and thousands more were injured, many severely. There were many heroes there as well. Many of them. These were the 4,000 individuals including those from the Red Cross, other volunteer organizations, and citizens who put out the fires, comforted the casualties while operating temporary hospitals, morgues, and shelters. Help came in from all over Texas and from many areas throughout the country. I was almost 4 years old, riding my tricycle down Larcum Lane in La Marque when the S.S. Grandcamp blew in Texas City, just a couple of miles from my home. I still remember my fear as if it happened yesterday. Little did I know then that one of the most horrific tragedies in American peacetime history had just occurred; all I knew was that the ground shook, my heart beat double-time, and I had to get home. Approaching my front yard, I found my mom outside screaming my name. She was terrified upon hearing the explosion, feeling the house shake and the windows rattle, and not knowing where I was. The happy ending is that we found each other. No one in the Bailey family of La Marque, TX, was injured in the blast. Such was not so for many others, however. Many of my friends grew up without fathers, fathers who had been victims of that blast. A newspaper headline published 1 year after the tragic explosions announced that ``Texas City * * * Rises Phoenix-like From the Abyss of Disaster.'' The mass tragedy that killed one in 50 citizens and injured 1 in 8, tested the unconquerable spirit of the surviving citizens. Remember the legend of the Phoenix, which consumed with its own fire, raised itself from the ashes after 500 years. These resilient people of Texas City would not wait to rise from the ashes that surrounded them. Through the anguish and heartbreak of such loss, they struggled and shared each others sorrow, refusing to let the dreams die. Immediately city leaders tried to restore life to normal-- following the disaster, Sunday church services continued uninterrupted and within the following week the civic clubs met as usual. As I look at this great city 50 years later, I see the qualities that have earned it honors as an all American city. The survivors and their children possess the spirit that has rebuilt one of our Nation's great industrial complexes. The rich history of Texas City includes being a home to the Indians, a prolific 20th century oil boom, and the first aerial squadron of the United States. I say to my good friend here, Mayor Frank Doyle, I was so proud to see that Readers Digest just included you in their list of 1997's top 50 places in America to raise a family. Keep up the great work. Truly that perfect spring day that became so dark, brought us together as never before. The beauty and strength of the human spirit endured here and I can feel is just as evident today. That spiritual strength in retrospect has changed us all for the better. As that new sculpture of the Phoenix is slowly unveiled today in the warm Texas sun, the spirit of those heroes will again be felt and remembered by all of us. Only now, this wonderful symbol will help us express it more eloquently. I ask that my colleagues help me in remembering this disaster and praying that the victims' families, and those who survived the blast, have found peace in the years since.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today is tax day, and for millions of Americans, this is the day that they end their painful ritual of fiscal fealty to the Federal Government. So I thought it would be appropriate to cite a few statistics that make tax day possible: 136,000 is the number of employees of the IRS responsible for administering the tax laws; $13.7 billion, that is the amount that it costs to administer and enforce the Tax Code; 480 is the number of forms printed by the IRS; 8 billion--8 billion--is the number of pages of forms and instructions sent out by the IRS every year; 293,760 is the number of trees that must be cut down each year to supply the 8 billion pages of paper needed for filing the country's taxes. Mr. President, these are just a few of the statistics that point out the complexity and the burden that our Tax Code puts on the American family and the Nation itself. The typical American family pays more in taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. That is more than 38 percent for total taxes versus 28 percent for food, clothing, and housing. This year, the Republican Congress wants to do something unusual for the taxpayers of our country: Give their money back to them. We want to stop penalizing young couples for getting married. Republicans want to increase the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly. In 1993, 40 percent of families paid higher taxes because they got married. A couple without children who earns $20,000 a year pays an additional $188 in taxes. When they have children, the number soars to $3,717 per year. In Texas, a mother of two children on welfare is penalized $5,862 a year for marrying a man who earns $20,000. Our Tax Code is biased against marriage, and that is just flat wrong. We want to provide a $500-per-child tax credit for the American family to give them help in the struggles of raising a family. This would mean 3.5 million families in America would not have to pay taxes anymore. We want to cut capital gains taxes to encourage and reward investment to create new business, to create new jobs. A low capital gains tax rate is important to our future, because we should be able to take our money and put it where we need it at the time. But many people cannot sell their assets because of the huge capital gains tax that has accrued over the years. So we need to encourage investment to create the new jobs and the new industries that will get our economy on a safer track. We want to cut estate taxes so that years of hard work and success will not be wiped out in a generation. I have known people who have had to sell land that they inherited because they could not pay the inheritance taxes on that land. Mr. President, that is wrong. It walks away from the American dream. The American dream is if you work harder in this country, you can do better and you can create a little nest egg that will make it easier for your children to have a better life. Why in the world would we take dollars that are taxed first when you earn them, again when you invest them, then when you die? It does not make sense, and it especially hurts the small family farm, ranch, or business. We are trying to cut the burden of taxes on the American family. What better day than today to talk about this burden and to talk about the differences between the President and Congress and our priorities. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The time was extended for the Democratic side by 10 minutes. Up until 12:40 is still the Republican time; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, can I make an inquiry?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Those are the original cosponsors. I hope that we have 100 cosponsors by the time this bill comes to the floor. I would like for it to go on a voice vote. That may be a pipe dream, but, nevertheless, I think it would be responsible Government, and I think it would be right for the American people.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona because he and I talked about this when we saw the debacle of the closing of the Government 2 years ago. We thought this is not the way to run a railroad or a government. We have talked about this for a long time, but it was Senator McCain who said we are going to fix this and we are going to fix it in a responsible way. The Senator from Arizona has provided great leadership, and with the Senator from Arizona, we have gotten the other leaders of our Congress--we certainly have Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who deserves a lot of credit for helping on this; the majority leader, Senator Lott; the majority whip, Senator Nickles; Senator Craig; Senator Ashcroft, and many Members have been talking about what we can do to run this Government in a responsible way. So the Senator from Arizona and I are introducing this bill together to try to provide for a good, solid, easy way to make sure that things keep going if we get bogged down in tough negotiations. This may seem like a kind of small, inside-the-beltway-process issue. People might say, ``A continuing resolution, so what, big deal, why are you doing that?'' This small thing will have huge ramifications if any parts of our Government are not funded on September 30, because what happens is that when you get into the heat of negotiations, threat of Government shutdowns become a leverage point for one or the other side. It can work either way. But the issue is the American people, the people who were mentioned by Senator McCain, the Federal employees and their families not knowing for sure that they are going to get paychecks, people who have planned their family vacations for over a year and they go to the Grand Canyon and it is closed or they come to Washington, DC, to visit this Capitol and it is closed or they cannot get into the Smithsonian or the National Gallery of Art; people who are planning their vacations or business travel and they find their passport has expired and they cannot get a new passport, so their dreams go up in smoke--these are people who are affected by a shutdown of Government. This very small process issue becomes a real quality-of-life issue for everyone in our country who is in need of regular Government service. That is why we are acting now. We are trying to provide for a smooth transition if we bog down in negotiations, hitting against the end of the fiscal year, September 30 of this year. We want to make sure that if we in Congress cannot agree with the President that we are still able to negotiate in good faith for what is right, rather than bumping up against a deadline and fearing that Government is going to shut down and cause a disruption in the lives of so many families in our country. We wanted to do it right now. As Senator McCain said, we are intending to put this bill on the supplemental resolution that will be coming before Congress probably by the end of this month. We want to do it now before the heat of battle so that we will know that this is not going to be a tool used by either side. Some people have said, ``Does this cut for Republicans or does it cut for Democrats?'' It cuts for the American people. It might go either way. It might hurt Republicans, it might hurt Democrats, but who will not get hurt if we pass this are the people of America, and that is who we are here to represent. I want to talk for a minute about the 98 percent that we are going to fund in the continuing resolution. People may say, ``Well, why not 100 percent, why not 90 percent?'' We wanted 98 percent because in our original budget resolution, when Congress decided to get serious about balancing the budget of this country, we set a trajectory starting at fiscal year 1995, actually and going to the year 2002 that would have a cut of about 2 percent each year in the growth rate of spending, because we felt that that was a responsible approach. Ninety-eight percent is a 2-percent cut in the 1997 budget that we are in right now. A 2-percent cut makes sure that we are not going to go over our budget projections and hurt our ability to balance the budget if, in fact, we go into this continuing resolution. But it also funds at 98 percent, which I think is virtually full funding, programs that are ongoing and necessary. If there is any agency in Government that cannot do with 98 percent of its present budget, then I would like to introduce them to the real people in America who have had to balance budgets and cut budgets every day of their lives. I think 98 percent is certainly something that the Government can live with, because we know that families and businesses in this country have cut much more than 2 percent in any fiscal year in their own lives. We think 98 percent covers expenses responsibly, but it keeps within our budget projections so that we have the ability to slow the rate of growth of spending, and so the Congress still has some leeway to make the decisions going into the next fiscal year of what actually needs to be cut without running, if we did go 2 or 3 months, into having to cut more because we were overspending in some areas. So that is how we came up with the number of 98 percent. Mr. President, I think we are taking a very responsible action today. I hope that we will have 100 percent vote in the Senate. I have not really talked to anyone who is against this bill, but I think it is something if we can agree on in a bipartisan way, we will clearly make the people of America sure that we are not going to have some kind of disruption in their lives, whether it is their family vacation or business travel or going into a museum or a national park they would like to go into or, if you are a Federal employee or a veteran, we do not want you to worry that your pay or your benefits are going to be there. This will provide for that smooth transition, and I hope Congress will take this responsible action, do this now before we even know what the issues are so that the smooth transition is there and we can negotiate on the budget in a way that is responsible, that does meet the needs of our country, but also makes sure that in the end, we are going to continue to march toward the year 2002 with a balanced budget for the United States of America. I am very pleased to be able to cosponsor with Senator McCain the McCain-Hutchison Government Shutdown Prevention Act. We are joined in the cosponsorship by Senators Stevens, Nickles, Craig, Ashcroft, our majority leader, Senator Lott, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to commend the city of Nassau Bay for its efforts to celebrate the development of space exploration and the international cooperation associated with it. Nassau Bay is hosting a special day of recognition for America's astronauts and their Russian counterparts on April 12, 1997. In addition, the State of Texas has proudly honored these brave men and women by declaring April 12th ``Space Explorers' Day'' in Texas. I rise today to appropriately recognize this day in the U.S. Senate. Nassau Bay is located near NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Center. The community has been integrally involved in this Nation's space exploration activities since we began the space program a generation ago. Nassau Bay residents were among those to walk on the Moon and provide the technical and managerial support necessary for America's successful space program. Today, Nassau Bay is still critical to NASA's manned space mission. Nassau Bay rightfully celebrates the continuation of that mission by hosting ``Astronaut Day'' on April 12. Astronaut Day celebrates the men and women who have expanded humankind's horizons and recognizes the technological advances resulting from their work that have been incorporated into our everyday lives. I join Nassau Bay and the State of Texas in honoring the many dedicated men and women who devote their time and talents to helping this Nation realize the cherished dream of space exploration. They have truly broadened the frontiers of knowledge and their outstanding accomplishments are worthy of special recognition. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to give Nassau Bay the recognition it deserves in the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me, the city of Nassau Bay, and the State of Texas in reflecting on the important contributions our space pioneers and explorers have made to history, science, and the quality of our lives on this planet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on April 9, 1997, an important milestone will be reached when the Lockheed Martin Corp. rolls out the F-22 in Marietta, GA. The F-22 is a powerful new aircraft that will ensure complete and total air dominance for the United States in the 21st century. How do you measure success in air superiority. The best measure I know is reflected in the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft in over 40 years. And that is why the F-22 is critical at this time, for the F-22 ensures that impressive record of protecting our forces continues unbroken. There are some who fail to understand that the threat to our air forces is growing and that the world remains dangerous despite the end of the cold war. Throughout the world today there are a host of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles readily available on the open market to any nation with the money available to buy them. At the same time, a new generation of tactical fighter is also being produced in Russia and elsewhere which can out perform and defeat our current air superiority fighter, the F-15C. All of these pose significant threats to our ability to maintain air superiority. The F-22 will ensure that America maintains not just air superiority but air dominance. And as the former Secretary of Defense William Perry once said ``everything else we do depends on air dominance. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the rollout on April 9 will mark the beginning of a new era for Air Force aviation. As a Texan, I am also proud of the role America's premier tactical fighter complex in Fort Worth, TX played in building this revolutionary aircraft. I hope my colleagues will take notice of the rollout in a year which marks the 50th anniversary of our Air Force. I also hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to reflect on the importance of our Air Force and the role they have played since their founding 50 years ago in maintaining peace and stability in a dangerous world. The rollout of the F-22 will begin a new chapter in Air Force history and help ensure the Air Force and the country remains strong and capable in the future.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senators Coverdell and Feinstein. I think they have come a long way in this process, and I appreciate their willingness to stand with what I think will be the strongest vote in the Senate and do something that is constructive, rather than destructive. I thank Senator Dodd, Senator McCain, and Senator Domenici. I thank Senator Lugar for coming in and helping in this process. It took all of us together to come up with a solution that we thought would be something workable with our Senate colleagues, hopefully with our House colleagues, and something that would be a help to our relationship with Mexico. I think that was the key to this matter, because, in fact, Mr. President, we are losing the war on drugs. Mexico is losing the war on drugs. They are seeing their country rifled with corruption because of the billions of dollars that are coming in illegally, and America is losing the war on drugs because we see 1 in 4 of our children who say they have been offered illegal drugs, children as young as 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old. Yes, Mr. President, what we are saying today is it is no longer business as usual in the drug war. Mexico is not a country that is thousands of miles from our border. This is our border. Mexico is our border. We are tied. We are tied economically; we are tied in security interests. We cannot walk away from this issue. It is our joint problem, and that is what we are saying today by passing this resolution. We had $8 billion of trade with Mexico in 1975. Today, it is over $100 billion. Mexico is the United States' third largest trading partner; it is Texas' largest trading partner, with $22 billion of trade between Texas and Mexico. But our relationship is deeper than that. It is not just dollars. Every one of the border States-- California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas--were once part of Mexico. So our cultures are ingrained. We together, in the past few years, have drifted into accepting unacceptable conditions in the arena of drug trafficking. I cannot imagine a worse situation. In my State, we have ranchers who will not go outside into their front yards without guns, because they may meet someone with an AK-47 walking across their ranch with illegal drugs. There is a state of lawlessness in my State that we have not seen since the frontier days, and we cannot let this stand. In fact, a number of our ranchers are selling their land to the highest bidders because they feel defenseless. And guess who the highest bidders are? They are people fronting for those who are trafficking illegal drugs. They are paving their way through the United States through the remote areas of our border States. This is a frightening situation. In Eagle Pass, the intimidation began when ``coyotes'' were smuggling illegal aliens through this remote border area took to cutting fences and using cattle ranches as a back-door entrance to America. When local and State officials complained to the Federal Government, the response was that would be 2 years before we can get help to you. So my State sent Texas Rangers down to the border. But even that has not been enough to do the job. So we have a problem that we must solve together. Another new thing that seems to be happening is our customs agents on our side of the border, many of whom have relatives in Mexico, are now being threatened with harm to their relatives in Mexico if they do not cooperate with drug traffickers. So this corruption is on both sides of the border. The number of drug seizures in Mexico in 1996 was only half the number of seizures in 1993. The number of drug-related arrests in Mexico in 1996 was half the number in 1992. Mexico is the source of 20 to 30 percent of the heroin coming into our country, 70 percent of the foreign-grown marijuana, and the transit point for 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine shipped into our country. This is a sieve, and we must plug the holes. I will say that having just described a horrendous situation in Mexico, let's look at America. In America, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, over 12 million people are drug addicts; 10.9 percent of young Americans between the ages of 12 and 17 are using illegal drugs; drug-related illness, death and crime cost this country nearly $67 billion in 1996. So I have been troubled about what we are doing on our side, and yet, shortly after taking office, the Clinton administration cut the Office of National Drug Control Policy staff by more than 80 percent, hardly making it a priority. They also have made proposals to cut the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and other Federal agencies, including, though Congress has authorized 1,000 Border Patrol agents, only coming forward with a budget for 500. I have spoken to the Attorney General, Janet Reno, I have spoken to the new drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, both of whom I respect very much, and I have said this is unacceptable. I cannot have my State being overrun and have only half the contingent of new Border Patrol agents that Congress has authorized. Congress has made this a priority, and we must have the same commitment from the administration. The ``Just Say No'' campaign that Nancy Reagan put forward was effective, and we must have an education effort much like that one that says to our young people, ``Drugs will hurt you, they will hurt you tomorrow, and they will hurt you 20 years from now when you have children.'' We must let them know that if we are going to win this war on drugs. So, Mr. President, we are asking for more. We are asking for more from our country and more from Mexico, because the fact of the matter is, we are in this together. Just like any good marriage, when there is a problem, you cannot solve it if only one party is willing to talk. We must have both parties willing to talk, both parties willing to give, both parties willing to say, yes, if we make a bigger effort together, we can lick this problem, just as we have licked the problems for over 300 years between our two countries. We don't really have an alternative and our children's lives are in the balance. So the differences between Senator Feinstein and Senator Coverdell and myself and others about how we would solve this problem were all differences of what would be the most effective. There was never a difference among any of us about what the problem is. And that is, we are losing the war on drugs. We are losing a generation of our young people. And that is not good enough. We must do better. And we will do better with the resolution that is before us today that says the two countries will sit down together and we will address the concerns, we will address the concerns of money laundering, of corruption. We will address the concerns of demand on our side. And, Mr. President, we will do it together. And that is why I hope this vote of the Senate is a clear message to our friend and neighbor to the south that we want to work together and we want results for the sake of both of our future generations. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona just touched on an important point, and that is, all of us are trying to avoid a vote directly on decertification. No one wants that to happen. But, in fact, if the Senator from Arizona is correct--what all of us worked so hard to put together was a positive, productive statement that we could work from to make progress in the war on drugs between our countries--if what he is saying is true, then we are all going to be forced to make the worst of all votes because we just can't get our bill on the floor for debate. Is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues, Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Helms, the Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act of 1997. This legislation will transform OSHA from an agency that generates fines and paperwork to one that plays a more constructive role in improving worker safety. Mr. President, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted in 1970. It may not surprise my colleagues that since that time, the incidence of work-related injuries and illnesses has steadily declined. But it may surprise them to learn that in the 25 years prior to enactment of OSHA, workplace injuries declined almost twice as fast as they have since the enactment of OSHA. The reduction of workplace injuries, which had been occurring before OSHA was created, has actually slowed since the agency was created. One may reasonably ask, why is that the case? Mr. President, I have talked to hundreds of business people throughout my State of Texas and throughout the Nation. Time and again, I have heard stories of burdensome and complex OSHA requirements and of arbitrary and unfair inspections and fines. The vast majority of other employers in this country desire and strive to see to it that their employees have a safe place to work. Indeed, it is in their own best interest to do so. Injuries are costly: They interrupt production schedules, cause a loss of productivity and increase the burgeoning expense of workers' compensation, not to mention the impact on overall employee morale and productivity. Many of the employers I speak with would like to work with, rather than against OSHA, but fear that if they take any affirmative steps to improve and review the safety of their workplace, it will only serve to attract aggressive OSHA inspectors. Thus, rather than helping to raise the safety level of American workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Act actually discourages employers in many cases from aggressively working to improve workplace health and safety. Remarkably, OSHA's response to the growing call for reform of its enforcement tactics has been to seek to expand its territory. Most recently, OSHA has worked on establishing new and enormously costly standards on ergonomics and even on the prevention of nighttime crime at retail stores. Mr. President, when Congress established OSHA, it did so with the intent that the agency, employers, and employees would all work toward the common purpose of creating safer and healthier workplace environments. Unfortunately, the culture of OSHA has evolved into one of regulatory excess, punitive enforcement, and standard setting based on arbitrariness rather than sound cost/benefit analysis. Things have gotten so bad that OSHA inspectors have even testified that they have been required to meet monthly quotas for citations and fines. The bill I am introducing today will restore OSHA to its intended mission by requiring the agency to take a commonsense approach to establishing safety standards and by encouraging cooperation and voluntary improvement rather than confrontation. In brief, the bill: Requires that OSHA, prior to setting a new standard, establish that a worksite safety hazard exists and consider whether it can economically be corrected using feasible technology; It provides safety consultation and assistance to small businesses to encourage OSHA compliance; It gives employers an opportunity to correct problems identified by employees before a formal OSHA complaint is filed, and protects employees who raise safety concerns to their employers; It stops the practice of citing contractors for the violations of subcontractors whose employees are not under the contractor's control; It limits employers' liability for the unsafe conduct of employees who have been properly trained and equipped by their employer; It requires that fines for violations be proportional to their actual impact on employee safety; and It will end the de facto practice of establishing quotas for enforcement activities. Mr. President, I realize that there are employers out there who may not care about the safety of their employees. To them, I say, beware. Under this bill, OSHA will be freed to concentrate its resources and enforcement efforts on those employers who willfully disregard workplace safety. But to the other 99 percent of the honest, hardworking business people in America who want to do right by their employees, I say: We have heard your call for action, and help is on the way. I urge them and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues, Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Helms, the Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act of 1997. This legislation will transform OSHA from an agency that generates fines and paperwork to one that plays a more constructive role in improving worker safety. Mr. President, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted in 1970. It may not surprise my colleagues that since that time, the incidence of work-related injuries and illnesses has steadily declined. But it may surprise them to learn that in the 25 years prior to enactment of OSHA, workplace injuries declined almost twice as fast as they have since the enactment of OSHA. The reduction of workplace injuries, which had been occurring before OSHA was created, has actually slowed since the agency was created. One may reasonably ask, why is that the case? Mr. President, I have talked to hundreds of business people throughout my State of Texas and throughout the Nation. Time and again, I have heard stories of burdensome and complex OSHA requirements and of arbitrary and unfair inspections and fines. The vast majority of other employers in this country desire and strive to see to it that their employees have a safe place to work. Indeed, it is in their own best interest to do so. Injuries are costly: They interrupt production schedules, cause a loss of productivity and increase the burgeoning expense of workers' compensation, not to mention the impact on overall employee morale and productivity. Many of the employers I speak with would like to work with, rather than against OSHA, but fear that if they take any affirmative steps to improve and review the safety of their workplace, it will only serve to attract aggressive OSHA inspectors. Thus, rather than helping to raise the safety level of American workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Act actually discourages employers in many cases from aggressively working to improve workplace health and safety. Remarkably, OSHA's response to the growing call for reform of its enforcement tactics has been to seek to expand its territory. Most recently, OSHA has worked on establishing new and enormously costly standards on ergonomics and even on the prevention of nighttime crime at retail stores. Mr. President, when Congress established OSHA, it did so with the intent that the agency, employers, and employees would all work toward the common purpose of creating safer and healthier workplace environments. Unfortunately, the culture of OSHA has evolved into one of regulatory excess, punitive enforcement, and standard setting based on arbitrariness rather than sound cost/benefit analysis. Things have gotten so bad that OSHA inspectors have even testified that they have been required to meet monthly quotas for citations and fines. The bill I am introducing today will restore OSHA to its intended mission by requiring the agency to take a commonsense approach to establishing safety standards and by encouraging cooperation and voluntary improvement rather than confrontation. In brief, the bill: Requires that OSHA, prior to setting a new standard, establish that a worksite safety hazard exists and consider whether it can economically be corrected using feasible technology; It provides safety consultation and assistance to small businesses to encourage OSHA compliance; It gives employers an opportunity to correct problems identified by employees before a formal OSHA complaint is filed, and protects employees who raise safety concerns to their employers; It stops the practice of citing contractors for the violations of subcontractors whose employees are not under the contractor's control; It limits employers' liability for the unsafe conduct of employees who have been properly trained and equipped by their employer; It requires that fines for violations be proportional to their actual impact on employee safety; and It will end the de facto practice of establishing quotas for enforcement activities. Mr. President, I realize that there are employers out there who may not care about the safety of their employees. To them, I say, beware. Under this bill, OSHA will be freed to concentrate its resources and enforcement efforts on those employers who willfully disregard workplace safety. But to the other 99 percent of the honest, hardworking business people in America who want to do right by their employees, I say: We have heard your call for action, and help is on the way. I urge them and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky managing this amendment in opposition because we are exercising that free political speech that we enjoy. I think the ability for us to disagree while not being disagreeable is very important in the process. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for leading the opposition. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue because I think it is so important. When we are talking about amending the Constitution, and especially the first amendment to the Constitution, which is, in effect, what this would do, I suggest that we think very carefully about the ramifications. So what are we doing here? We are actually considering an amendment that would open the door for restriction on first amendment political speech and freedom of association of many kinds. It seems to me, if we are rating the amendments, the free speech amendment is one of if not the most revered in our country. If we are going to dissect the freedom of speech that we have known for over 200 years in our country and effectively establish various levels of free speech, I think we must examine the impact this would have. By allowing restrictions on political speech, as this amendment would do, but not other forms of speech, we are opening the door to rendering political speech secondary to commercial advertising or even pornography. What could we be thinking? Of all of the rights we have, the ability to have freedom of political expression is perhaps the greatest, and must be preserved at least as vigorously as other rights. Additionally, Mr. President, I would suggest that this amendment might also be called the Incumbency Protection Act of 1997. If we unduly restrict the ability of people to spend money to support the candidate of their choice and to likewise have the ability to raise adequate funds to run against incumbents in political office, as this amendment would allow, what we are doing is saying that, forever more, incumbents will have an advantage that challengers will not have. In fact, the reason we have the ability to have relatively free access to campaign funds or free access to the news media by challengers is so our democracy will work. Our democracy will only work if everyone gets a fair chance to do his or her very best to run against an incumbent or anyone else for political office. The idea that we would allow for almost limitless restrictions on that fundamental right is unthinkable. Mr. President, many of us believe that campaign reform is essential, that we would look at our system and that we would make sure that there is accountability, openness, and transparency--that whoever contributes to campaigns would be known to the voting public. We need to make sure that is the case. But to say that we would open the door to allowing restrictions on free access to the media or that we would require the media to, in effect, give access to anyone who might decide that they are going to pay a filing fee is really an inhibition not only of free speech but of the right of free press, which is also a crucial element of our first amendment. This resolution raises this as a real possibility and encroaches unacceptably on our hallowed Bill of Rights--that document that has made our democracy work and has kept our Government in the hands of the people. Our democracy will simply not be as strong if we do not preserve the freedom to be able to go out into the news media, or the sidewalk, or anyplace else and proclaim why we are running and what cause we care about for public office. So I applaud Senator McConnell for standing up for the first amendment, for making sure that we do not do something that would amend our Constitution without careful consideration. I know that many in this body are frustrated. They are frustrated with our campaign system. I am sure that Senator Hollings is frustrated and is clearly trying to fix a system that has problems. I would just say to my colleague from South Carolina that I think we need to address campaign reform, but this is not the vehicle. Amending the Constitution to provide for the ability for any State legislature or any Congress in the future to limit access to the airwaves or freedom of speech or association or of any organization to lawfully contribute to a campaign is simply not the way to go. Let us in Congress come together on real campaign finance reform so that the people of America will be informed voters. But whatever we do, we should never relegate political speech to second-class status. Rather, we must work to ensure that the basic right to speak one's mind in the political marketplace of ideas remains the most protected of all of our rights. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to say I do support the nomination of Secretary Pena. However, I think it is very important that this new Secretary take the opportunity to set an energy policy in this country that says to the American people that energy self-sufficiency is our goal. We should be able to create energy through our own natural resources, not only to create jobs in America, but also to make sure that our country is strong with energy self-sufficiency. I am going to work with Senator John Breaux, my cochair of the Oil and Gas Caucus, to try to make sure that we take the duplication of regulation off of our oil and gas industry. Where State regulators are able to handle the issues, we should let it happen at the State level rather than the Federal Government duplicating the regulations which become costly and burdensome to our oil and gas industry. Why not put that money into new capital creations, to create new jobs in our country, rather than going through more bureaucratic morass that so hampers our businesses? I also want to give incentives, incentives to drill and explore for our own natural resources, especially marginal drilling that is more expensive. Why not give incentives so we can create the jobs in America and also create energy resources for our country that would make us more able to be sufficient? Mr. President, it is very important that the new Secretary come with the full support of the Senate. I hope that he will be committed to a strong energy policy for our country and that he will also take seriously the requirement that we work for the new alternative MOX fuels that will, I hope, come from the nuclear weapons that we are in the process of dismantling. I hope he will take the opportunity to visit Pantex in Amarillo to see what can be done with this great MOX fuel opportunity, to use the aging nuclear weapons in our arsenal. In supporting this nomination, I would like to briefly discuss two issues of importance to my State of Texas and the Nation. Mr. President, a healthy and competitive oil and gas industry-- capable of producing adequate and affordable energy supplies--is crucially important to the U.S. economy and to the welfare of the American people. This is especially the case at a time when U.S. companies and workers face growing competition in the global economy. As cochairman, of the Congressional Oil and Gas Caucus, I am concerned that U.S. policy, taken as a whole, has overtly encouraged increasing oil imports over expanding domestic production. I look forward to working with Secretary Pena to reverse this trend and to create conditions that foster a competitive and healthy oil and gas industry. This year, I will be working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to continue our goal of reducing or eliminating redundant or unnecessary regulations on this industry. For example, there are many regulatory requirements to address the same concern imposed at both the Statese co- and Federal level. Where possible, we should eliminate one level of identical regulations, which have destroyed jobs, raised consumer prices, and sent American business to foreign countries. I look forward to working with Secretary Pena on these objectives. I believe in most cases the State regulations should be given the greater deference. I will also be working with my colleagues to provide tax incentives which encourage oil and gas drilling and production, especially for marginal wells and formations which are difficult to develop. I know all the members of the Congressional Oil and Gas Caucus look forward to working with Secretary Pena on these issues and to ensure that Government policies which affect the oil and gas industry are the result of sound and informed decision making. Mr. President, I would like to turn briefly to a second and final issue of concern to Texans and the Nation--the continued transformation of our Nation's nuclear weapons complex and the important work being performed at he Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX. Our victory in the cold war signaled the end of the arms race, but it has focused our current efforts on arms reductions. A benefit from these reductions is the potential energy source of special nuclear materials from dismantled weapons. Just a few months ago, Department of Energy officials announced their intention to process excess plutonium into mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors. Pantex has been the Nation's premiere nuclear weapons production site since 1951. Today, it is the only authorized site to assemble and disassemble weapons. Currently, the plant stores all the plutonium removed from dismantled weapons. The 3,400 workers at Pantex played a key role in our cold war victory and their expertise in safety and security handling and storing plutonium should not be ignored as the Department searches for a MOX fuel fabrication site. The excellent safety record, cost savings and efficiencies established at Pantex over the last 40 years make it the ideal candidate for new DOE work. As DOE proceeds with its assessments of potential sites, I invite Secretary Pena to visit Pantex so he can see firsthand the world class facilities and professionals available to the Department of Energy near Amarillo and in the Texas Panhandle. I also ask Secretary Pena to take a close look at the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. I am concerned that with an end to our nuclear testing, computer modeling alone will not be sufficient to maintain our deterrent nuclear capability. I hope that together with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Pena will take a close look at how we manage and maintain this critical capability. I look forward to working with Secretary Pena on these and other important issues. The next Secretary of Energy has a great opportunity to give our country an energy policy that values energy sufficiency for our country. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Secretary Pena. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we extend for 2 minutes the debate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.