Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished majority leader and the minority leader for helping us work this out. This is a bill that has been pending since Memorial Day to try to get all of the equipment and the resources of the FBI to go against the vicious people in this country who would harass and threaten women and children and would cross State lines to do it. In the old days, we did not even have stalking bills because people did not know what the crime was, so people would be threatened and harassed and there was no way to prosecute these vicious actors. But now we do have stalking bills in almost every State, and this will allow us to look them up, and if someone crosses State lines breaking a State law, we will be able to apprehend them. I hope we will be able to prevent the harm and even murders of women and children in this country. Senator Lautenberg is to be commended for working with us to make his amendment a good amendment, and it is a good amendment, and I applaud him for it. I think it adds to the bill. He was willing to work with us, and I think we now have a very strong bill. Because of Senator Lautenberg's amendment, we are also going to be able to keep people who batter their wives or people with whom they live from having handguns. So I think it is going to be a great bill that will give the women and children of this country some protection that they do not now have, and I am very pleased to be supportive of this compromise. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for working on this bill, for putting it together, for carrying it through the Judiciary Committee on which she serves, because this is something that we can truly do in a bipartisan fashion. I know that when our Dear Colleague letter goes out to all of the Senators that we will have probably 75 or 80 cosponsors, because this is a bill that I think everyone will see the need for and want to support. In fact, as Senator Feinstein mentioned, this bill is named for the 9-year-old victim of a tragic killing that was so unnecessary and, unfortunately, is still unsolved. Nine-year-old Amber Hagerman was abducted while riding her bicycle outside her grandparents' home in Arlington, TX, earlier this year. She was kept alive for at least 48 hours before being murdered. Her nude, slashed body was found in a creek bed behind an Arlington apartment complex on January 17, 4 days after she was snatched away from her friends and family by a man driving a truck. The killer of this much-beloved and innocent child has never been identified. Her family and friends still are not comprehending why this could have happened to such a child. The entire community remains stunned, saddened and enraged. They have the chilling certainty that there is a child killer on the loose in their community, in our State, in our country. Although we do not know the name of this monster who kidnaped, molested, and murdered this 9-year-old child, we do know several unpleasant facts about sexual predators who prey on children, like Amber, in communities across this country. Twenty percent of those in State prisons convicted of violent crimes--65,000 people--report having victimized a child. More than half of these victims were 12 years old or younger, 75 percent of them were female. Thirty percent of these sexual predators report having committed their crimes against multiple victims. Sixty-six percent of prisoners convicted of sexual assaults committed their crime against a child. The repeat crime rate for sex offenders is estimated to be as much as 10 times higher than the recidivism rate of other criminals. Mr. President, we know that more than 40 percent of convicted sex offenders will repeat their crimes. We must begin to act on the information that we have. The revolving doors of our criminal justice system have to stop sending violent criminals out on the streets and back into our neighborhoods to prey on those least able to take care of themselves--our children. Justice must be made to serve the young and most vulnerable among us, as well as those who repeatedly violate the law. So it is in Amber Hagerman's memory that I am cosponsoring Senator Feinstein's legislation today to protect this Nation's children from sex offenders. As Senator Feinstein said, the purpose of the bill is tough. It is to require life imprisonment for two-time child sex offenders when their cases are heard in Federal court, and it encourages States to do likewise. It provides for a nationwide system of tracking sex offenders to be administered by the FBI. This legislation would establish new Federal jurisdiction over sexual offenses against children when a person commits a crime after crossing State lines with the intent of committing a sex offense. So, Mr. President, I think Senator Feinstein told us what is in the bill. I will not go into it any further. But I do want to say that it is a primary responsibility of our Government to protect our citizens, and especially the youngest and most vulnerable citizens. We are going to send a message today to the monsters in our society who would murder children that there is going to be a price to pay. Hopefully, we will get these people off the streets, out of our neighborhoods, out of our parks and begin to get serious about personal security in this country, especially for our children. Thank you. I thank Senator Feinstein for working on this bill and for allowing me to be the cosponsor of it in honor and memory of my constituent, 9- year-old Amber Hagerman, so that her legacy will be that she will be a part of protecting children like her from meeting her fate. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Feinstein. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for working on this bill, for putting it together, for carrying it through the Judiciary Committee on which she serves, because this is something that we can truly do in a bipartisan fashion. I know that when our Dear Colleague letter goes out to all of the Senators that we will have probably 75 or 80 cosponsors, because this is a bill that I think everyone will see the need for and want to support. In fact, as Senator Feinstein mentioned, this bill is named for the 9-year-old victim of a tragic killing that was so unnecessary and, unfortunately, is still unsolved. Nine-year-old Amber Hagerman was abducted while riding her bicycle outside her grandparents' home in Arlington, TX, earlier this year. She was kept alive for at least 48 hours before being murdered. Her nude, slashed body was found in a creek bed behind an Arlington apartment complex on January 17, 4 days after she was snatched away from her friends and family by a man driving a truck. The killer of this much-beloved and innocent child has never been identified. Her family and friends still are not comprehending why this could have happened to such a child. The entire community remains stunned, saddened and enraged. They have the chilling certainty that there is a child killer on the loose in their community, in our State, in our country. Although we do not know the name of this monster who kidnaped, molested, and murdered this 9-year-old child, we do know several unpleasant facts about sexual predators who prey on children, like Amber, in communities across this country. Twenty percent of those in State prisons convicted of violent crimes--65,000 people--report having victimized a child. More than half of these victims were 12 years old or younger, 75 percent of them were female. Thirty percent of these sexual predators report having committed their crimes against multiple victims. Sixty-six percent of prisoners convicted of sexual assaults committed their crime against a child. The repeat crime rate for sex offenders is estimated to be as much as 10 times higher than the recidivism rate of other criminals. Mr. President, we know that more than 40 percent of convicted sex offenders will repeat their crimes. We must begin to act on the information that we have. The revolving doors of our criminal justice system have to stop sending violent criminals out on the streets and back into our neighborhoods to prey on those least able to take care of themselves--our children. Justice must be made to serve the young and most vulnerable among us, as well as those who repeatedly violate the law. So it is in Amber Hagerman's memory that I am cosponsoring Senator Feinstein's legislation today to protect this Nation's children from sex offenders. As Senator Feinstein said, the purpose of the bill is tough. It is to require life imprisonment for two-time child sex offenders when their cases are heard in Federal court, and it encourages States to do likewise. It provides for a nationwide system of tracking sex offenders to be administered by the FBI. This legislation would establish new Federal jurisdiction over sexual offenses against children when a person commits a crime after crossing State lines with the intent of committing a sex offense. So, Mr. President, I think Senator Feinstein told us what is in the bill. I will not go into it any further. But I do want to say that it is a primary responsibility of our Government to protect our citizens, and especially the youngest and most vulnerable citizens. We are going to send a message today to the monsters in our society who would murder children that there is going to be a price to pay. Hopefully, we will get these people off the streets, out of our neighborhoods, out of our parks and begin to get serious about personal security in this country, especially for our children. Thank you. I thank Senator Feinstein for working on this bill and for allowing me to be the cosponsor of it in honor and memory of my constituent, 9- year-old Amber Hagerman, so that her legacy will be that she will be a part of protecting children like her from meeting her fate. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Feinstein. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to ask our Members to come together and do what is right for America and welfare reform. Right now we have a fair funding formula. A nongrowth State never loses from its 1994 base or its 1995 base, whichever base it chooses. The growth States are able to grow because that is essential, and we know it is fair. There are no losers in the underlying bill. The Graham-Bumpers amendment creates winners and losers. It says to California, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York, ``You are going to have to go below and actually cut the welfare in your State below the 1994 and 1995 limits.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We came together and we made a very, very fair proposal, and it was accepted because there are no losers. Now, Mr. President, we must keep that fairness. If we really want welfare reform, we must have fairness for all States. That is what the underlying bill is. Please vote against the Graham-Bumpers amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which I believe addresses shortcomings in the current campaign finance law. First, though, if I were going to give a title to the campaign finance reform legislation under consideration in the Senate until now, I would call it the Incumbent Protection Act of 1996, because that is what proposed limitations on expenditures would accomplish. For us to limit campaign contributions across the board would be counterproductive and self-serving. Any such limit, voluntary or otherwise, would favor incumbents because it would inhibit the right of a challenger to go out and raise more campaign funds than an incumbent who already enjoys greater name recognition. Challengers would have no way of overcoming that very real disadvantage. We should strive to level the playing field, not tilt it further toward those who already enjoy the advantage. That said, there are a number of commonsense principles I believe can be invoked in order strengthen the current campaign finance law and make it more equitable. I support the idea of requiring that 60 percent of a Senate candidate's campaign funds be raised from individuals within his or her home State. This rule would ensure that those who would be represented by the candidate have the greatest say in the outcome of an election. I support limiting the use of personal wealth to finance campaigns. Right now there are no limits on the amount of personal wealth a candidate can spend on his or her own political campaign and be reimbursed. Today, such candidates are entitled to make personal campaign contributions to their own campaigns, and repay themselves after the fact. The status quo is campaign finance based on creditworthiness, and as such is inherently inequitable. I think we can fairly, and constitutionally, set a limit on the amount for which such candidates can be reimbursed for upfront expenditures from their personal pocketbooks. The bill I am introducing today would set a personal reimbursement limit of $250,000 on the use of Senate candidates' personal funds or funds from members of their immediate families. I support limiting political action committee [PAC] donations to the same amount as individuals are entitled to donate to a candidate. This legislation decreases the PAC contribution limit to the same limit as an individual. Under the bill individual contributions are limited to $1,000 and PAC contributions are lowered from $5,000 to $1,000 to make both categories of limitations equal. The vast majority of PAC's are cooperative, grassroots efforts within a specific group, or company, such as a teachers' association, a union, or a tax-limitation group. Most people who contribute to PACs give small amounts of money. If someone wants to participate in the process, they should be encouraged. Our campaign finance law should be neutral. Neither PAC's, nor individuals, should be given preferential treatment. I support the idea of doing away with the congressional franking privilege for mass mailings during election years. I do not use and have never used the franking privilege of mass mailings at any time. It is, frankly, an advantage for incumbents provided at taxpayer expense which should be canceled. My legislation would eliminate mass mailings as franked mail from January 1 of an election year through the date of an incumbent Senator's general election. This may seem strenuous, but it is absolutely necessary. Mr. President, campaign finance reform is a work in progress. We are in the process of restoring confidence in the political process. For the American people, this is a plus--not a weakness. The ability to fine tune and strengthen the political process while preserving our basic democratic institutions is one of the great strengths of our country. It requires our greatest dedication.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which I believe addresses shortcomings in the current campaign finance law. First, though, if I were going to give a title to the campaign finance reform legislation under consideration in the Senate until now, I would call it the Incumbent Protection Act of 1996, because that is what proposed limitations on expenditures would accomplish. For us to limit campaign contributions across the board would be counterproductive and self-serving. Any such limit, voluntary or otherwise, would favor incumbents because it would inhibit the right of a challenger to go out and raise more campaign funds than an incumbent who already enjoys greater name recognition. Challengers would have no way of overcoming that very real disadvantage. We should strive to level the playing field, not tilt it further toward those who already enjoy the advantage. That said, there are a number of commonsense principles I believe can be invoked in order strengthen the current campaign finance law and make it more equitable. I support the idea of requiring that 60 percent of a Senate candidate's campaign funds be raised from individuals within his or her home State. This rule would ensure that those who would be represented by the candidate have the greatest say in the outcome of an election. I support limiting the use of personal wealth to finance campaigns. Right now there are no limits on the amount of personal wealth a candidate can spend on his or her own political campaign and be reimbursed. Today, such candidates are entitled to make personal campaign contributions to their own campaigns, and repay themselves after the fact. The status quo is campaign finance based on creditworthiness, and as such is inherently inequitable. I think we can fairly, and constitutionally, set a limit on the amount for which such candidates can be reimbursed for upfront expenditures from their personal pocketbooks. The bill I am introducing today would set a personal reimbursement limit of $250,000 on the use of Senate candidates' personal funds or funds from members of their immediate families. I support limiting political action committee [PAC] donations to the same amount as individuals are entitled to donate to a candidate. This legislation decreases the PAC contribution limit to the same limit as an individual. Under the bill individual contributions are limited to $1,000 and PAC contributions are lowered from $5,000 to $1,000 to make both categories of limitations equal. The vast majority of PAC's are cooperative, grassroots efforts within a specific group, or company, such as a teachers' association, a union, or a tax-limitation group. Most people who contribute to PACs give small amounts of money. If someone wants to participate in the process, they should be encouraged. Our campaign finance law should be neutral. Neither PAC's, nor individuals, should be given preferential treatment. I support the idea of doing away with the congressional franking privilege for mass mailings during election years. I do not use and have never used the franking privilege of mass mailings at any time. It is, frankly, an advantage for incumbents provided at taxpayer expense which should be canceled. My legislation would eliminate mass mailings as franked mail from January 1 of an election year through the date of an incumbent Senator's general election. This may seem strenuous, but it is absolutely necessary. Mr. President, campaign finance reform is a work in progress. We are in the process of restoring confidence in the political process. For the American people, this is a plus--not a weakness. The ability to fine tune and strengthen the political process while preserving our basic democratic institutions is one of the great strengths of our country. It requires our greatest dedication.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think it is unconscionable to hold up health care reform that the people of this country expect and that both Houses of Congress have passed because we do not want conferees to sit down and work out a compromise on medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts, Mr. President, are something very important for health care reform in this country. It allows a business to give to an employee the amount of money that that employee would have anyway and have choices, so that the employee could take that money and perhaps save by going to different health care coverage or perhaps save money for future rainy day expenses for their health care needs for themselves and for their families. What we want is for them to have that option and to have the tax breaks to be able to save for those health care needs. So, Mr. President, we are talking about not allowing the appointment of conferees so we can move health care reform as we have promised the American people we would do. Mr. President, I also have to say I do not know why the Senator from Massachusetts would be so concerned about the ability to have medical savings accounts. I will just read from his very own health care reform bill in 1994, just 2 years ago, where his bill says: It is the sense of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate that provisions encouraging the establishment of medical savings accounts be included in any health care reform bill passed by the Senate. So, Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts' own bill includes language encouraging the establishment of medical savings accounts. So why will the Senator from Massachusetts not allow us to have conferees appointed for that reason? Is he afraid that we cannot sit down and discuss it and get the health care reform? Mr. President, it does not wash. There is gridlock in the Senate, and it has to stop. The majority in the Senate is trying to make that happen. I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. To the conference committee, because we do not know how it is going to come out. MSA's were passed by the House--they were not passed by the Senate--by a narrow majority. So why should we not be able to work that out? Why would one Senator object to even appointing conferees so that we could sit down and work out the differences between our two bills? Is that not the way this process works?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If you do not even appoint conferees----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How would we know----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia, who wanted to talk about the gridlock that has come over the Senate, really in the last year and a half. But I think it is beginning to show, because our distinguished majority leader made the eloquent effort yesterday to bring up nine separate bills, and had objections raised to every one of them. These are bills that range from the health care reform bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, which is being held up from even having conferees appointed for it, to a stalking bill that was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and would be passed unanimously out of the U.S. Senate but for the objection of one colleague from the Democratic side. Mr. President, we have had, in the last year and a half since Senator Daschle became minority leader, over 65 cloture motions that have been required to try to get on with the business of the Senate. Let me just give a list of a few of those. Unfunded mandates, to keep the States from having to pay for the mandates that are dreamed up in Washington, D.C. It took four cloture motions to bring the bill up, and once it was brought up the bill passed nearly unanimously. Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: That is what the people of this country have been asking for, a balanced budget amendment so that when we do finally balance the budget, hopefully, we will never again see the spectacle of a Congress that will tax our future generations for the programs that we ask for today. It took three cloture motions before we could debate that bill. And when we finally did, we lost it by one vote. Striker replacement, line-item veto, health insurance tax deductions for the self-employed and the small businesses of this country: Every one of these required cloture votes before we could even talk about them on the floor, debate the differences and pass them. Let's go one step beyond. When we are talking about gridlock, it is not just the Democrats in the Senate, it is also President Clinton. It is the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Clinton has vetoed 15 bills, 15 bills that have finally made it through this Congress, and of those 15, I want to read you what they are, because I think it is important to see the differences between President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress and what they would do versus what the Republicans would do, as shown by what we have passed in Congress. The Bosnia-Herzegovina Self-Defense Act, vetoed by the President. This would have allowed the Moslems to arm and train themselves so that we might not have had to send Americans with a NATO force to bring peace to that country. They might have settled it 2 years earlier if we had given them the right to have free access to defend themselves. It was vetoed by the President. Seven-year balanced budget: The President promised the American people a balanced budget. So did Members of Congress. Congress produced, and the President vetoed it. Securities litigation reform: We were trying to have litigation reform that would cut the costs of the securities industry in this country and for the investors in this country. It was vetoed by the President. That one was overridden. Welfare reform: Another promise of the President to the American people, a promise kept by the Republican Congress, vetoed by the President. A ban on partial-birth abortions; a ban on killing babies that are halfway out of the mother's womb: Vetoed by the President. Product liability reform: The single most important litigation reform bill that has been passed by this Congress that would have tried to bring down the costs of regulation and the prices to consumers, product liability reform, vetoed by the President. The rest of the bills vetoed by the President were appropriations bills for specific agencies and departments of Government or authorization bills to run the departments of Government. I think we are beginning to see a pattern here, a pattern of gridlock and obstruction, a pattern of broken promises. I think the American people deserve to know what Congress is trying to do and what we are being obstructed from doing. Let's talk about some of the items that our majority leader tried to bring up yesterday. He mentioned the stalking bill. The stalking bill is my bill. It was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. It is being held up because one Senator wants to put a gun control amendment on the bill. Other Senators had amendments that they had hoped to offer on this bill. Senator Feinstein had an amendment. Senator Gramm of Texas had an amendment. They were willing to step back because they knew if we opened up the bill, we might not be able to get it passed, and, of course, we were hoping to send it directly to the President after its unanimous passage by the House of Representatives. So they agreed to step back and not change it so that it could go directly to the President and give to the stalking victims of this country another measure to help protect them from threats and harassment that might be fulfilled, because we have not passed this bill that would allow the FBI to come in and track a stalker that goes from one State to another. This is especially important in a State like New York, where many of the people who work in the New York metropolitan area live in Connecticut or New Jersey. It is especially important where the threats become so great that a victim moves to another State to elude the threat and harassment and is followed by the stalker, and there is no way to have the ability to clamp down on that stalker before he fulfills his mission of beating up or murdering the victim. This bill is being held up for no good reason. Why would we have a holdup on health insurance reform? The American people have asked for health insurance reform. They have asked for portability so that if they lose their jobs, they will not worry about losing their health care coverage. They have asked that we do away with preexisting condition clauses because they are worried that if they do change jobs, their insurance company will say, ``No, I'm sorry, we cannot take you on because you or someone in your family has an illness that might be expensive.'' That is what the bill does that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and by the House. Why would it be held up? Why would it be filibustered for 2 months? The Senator from Massachusetts has raised the objections because----

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Kansas for her leadership on this very important issue. Mr. President, I want to speak specifically about the homemaker IRA part of this bill. The homemaker IRA was put forward 3 years ago by myself and Senator Mikulski. It now has 62 cosponsors. This is a matter of simple fairness and equity. I cannot believe that we are standing here today talking about this issue, because if you work outside the home, you can set aside $2,000 a year which accrues tax free for your retirement security. But if you are a homemaker working at home, raising your children, contributing to this country and its stability, you are allowed to set aside $250 a year. If we can pass the homemaker IRA and allow the homemakers of this country to be equal in their ability to contribute to their retirement security for a one-income-earner couple, the difference will be $188,554 for a 30-year accumulation at $2,000 a year versus $335,000, a difference of $150,000, roughly. That is the difference in retirement security that we can make today if we can pass this very important bill. The homemaker IRA had also been passed in the Balanced Budget Act last year. It was included. It was vetoed by the President. This is a bill I hope we will be able to see signed by the President. It is very important for the many small business advantages, as well as the homemaker advantages in retirement security. It is very important that we send the bill to the President and that he sign it. This is a big bill. It is a bill that has a lot in it. It has the minimum wage, we have the Bond amendment, and we have the Kennedy amendment. I am very concerned about the potential of adopting the Kennedy amendment, which is a retroactive minimum wage increase and the fact that that could kill the homemaker IRA bill, because I cannot vote for a retroactive increase in wages that someone who is now in the middle of the summer, who might have an inn or a restaurant and has set prices according to what the wage scale is to all of a sudden wake up and find that the costs are 20-percent higher. I cannot vote for that. I think it is wrong. So I hope that we will be able to pass this bill in a responsible way with some exceptions for small business to give them the ability to continue to compete because they do not have the advantages of the efficiencies of a large business. I hope that we will be able to pass the Bond amendment which will have a minimum wage increase but one that can be provided and planned for, one that will have some small business exemptions so that they will still be able to compete. I hope we can put together a package that will be signed by the President that will be bipartisan, that will have the Bond amendment protections of our small business people as we are also protecting the homemakers and the people who are not now allowed to set aside $2,000 a year for their retirement security but could if they worked outside the home. I commend Senator Kassebaum and Senator Mikulski who have been working on homemaker IRA's for 3 years and the many cosponsors that we have for that bill. I hope that we can put together a bill that will not kill the small businesses of our country, and at the same time that we can help the homemakers who are contributing to the stability of our country every day and do not have the same advantages of retirement security that those who work outside the home do. Thank you, Mr. President. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am taking the floor today to speak in favor of the Bond amendment. I certainly am speaking for the small business people of this country when I support the exemption that is provided in this amendment. I think it is very important that we look at the big picture when we are making law that is going to affect the economy of our country and most certainly the workplace of our country. We have passed free trade agreements, so we are now going to be in competition with businesses throughout the world. Many of these businesses have lower standards than we do. They have lower wage scales. I think America should keep our high standards, but I also think if we are going to keep jobs in America through export markets rather than shipping the jobs overseas--rather, export our products instead of our jobs--if we are going to do that, we have to look at the big picture and look at what we have done in this country over the last 3 or 4 years. In fact, what we are doing is increasing the cost of doing business in America. So if we pass the minimum wage increase, we are going to add one more increase to the cost of doing business that will make us less competitive in the global marketplace. I was a candy manufacturer. I did export into Canada, for instance, but I also competed, Mr. President, with candy that was made in South America and Mexico, and it was very difficult to compete with candy that was made at much lower cost because I had to be price competitive. So I am very hopeful that we will look at this competition that we have created as we are taking up an increase the size of a minimum wage that we are talking about today. So if we increase the minimum wage at the same time that we have increased taxes--that has already been done--we have more regulatory costs, and that has been proven, as well, pretty soon we are going to see our jobs exported rather than our products exported from America-- products made with American labor. I think we have to be very careful. I appreciate the fact that Senator Bond and Senator Lott are working on an amendment that would give our small businesses a break. By having the $500,000 exemption, we are taking the businesses that are most vulnerable to the margins of profit and we are going to give them a break. I think that is very important. I have seen that small businesses have a harder time competing for export markets anyway because they do not have the size that makes for more efficiencies. So if we can give them this bit of help--$500,000 is a very small company, especially if that is your gross receipts, that is a small company--I think if we can give our small businesses the advantage of an exemption, then maybe we will be able to get the best of both worlds with this overall minimum wage increase. I also like the provision in the amendment that says we will have a training wage for 180 days. A training wage is an entry wage. You do not find experienced people making the minimum wage; you find people who have no experience whatsoever making the minimum wage, and they quickly move on if they learn fast and show that they are able to take on more responsibility. So I think the training wage is very important for our entry level people, our young people who are trying to get their first experience or our older employees who might be coming back into the marketplace. Getting that first bit of training and allowing the leeway to get that training, I think, is going to be a very important mitigating factor for the companies to be able to say, yes, I can take a chance and hire someone at the $4.25 level because I know that if they prove that they are worth something, I will then be able to pay more. But that gives me time to get the product on the market and productivity up and find out if I am going to be able to afford this and then hopefully be able to make the increase at the end of the 180 days. I also think, Mr. President, that this folds into the welfare reform that we have been talking about. If we are going to put limits on the amount of time that a person can be on welfare, if we are going to encourage people who are able-bodied to go into the job market rather than staying in a cycle of welfare, we have to have the jobs available for these people to enter the workplace. They are the very people that need that entry-level wage. People who would be making a transition from welfare into the job market ought to be able to get that training wage, get that experience. Their employers hopefully would be able to take a chance at this lower level of the wage, and give them that opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to become citizens of this country who are taking a responsibility and providing their fair share of the workload for this country. So I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment, and help us make sure that we keep the strength of our economy as we are moving into this higher minimum wage level. Let us have time for people to prepare. I think increasing the minimum wage immediately could put a very big hardship on some of our small businesses that they would not be able to immediately cover. But if we give time for these businesses to plan for the increase, and see how they are going to be able to increase their prices in order to make up for the higher costs, that we will be doing something that will not hurt the small businesses of this country nearly as much, and it will not hurt so badly our businesses that might be competitive in the international marketplace either. Many people are concerned that if we raise the minimum wage, it will increase the cost of employing even people who are not making the minimum wage. We are going to start a ratchet effect so that every level of wage is going to go up. Well, that is good, but it is also something that we have to look at very carefully to make sure that our businesses can absorb these higher costs. We need to give them the ability to raise the price of their product in time so that they will not be in a loss situation and have to actually lay people off and eliminate jobs. That is certainly not what we want the outcome of the minimum wage increase to be. So I think the delay, giving business a chance to prepare for the minimum wage increase, keeping the training wage are very important. I think the $500,000 and below exemption is very important for helping our small businesses to be able to keep their small businesses going and increase employment rather than have to lay people off. More than seventy percent of the new jobs in this country are created by small business. So the last thing we want to do is hurt that economic machine, that job-creating machine that is the small business of this country. So we want our small businesses to be able to plan for this increase, to have the ability to absorb the increase in costs that will happen. I think this is the responsible way to do it. Mr. President, before I end, I would like to say that I am also very, very pleased about another part of this bill. It does not really relate to the minimum wage, but in the business tax part of the bill that will be introduced tomorrow. I just want to commend Senator Roth, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for including the Hutchison-Mikulski homemaker IRA bill. I have been fighting for 3 years to give the homemakers of this country the ability to retire in security the same as if they had worked outside the home, because there is no question in my mind that the work done inside the home is as much a part of the American family, if not more important to the American family, than the work done outside the home. But ever since IRA's have been allowed in this country that would allow people to set aside $2,000 a year, tax free, for their retirement security, ever since we have authorized those, we have not allowed the homemaker, who works inside the home, to be able to contribute that same $2,000 a year. We are trying to correct that inequity. Senator Mikulski, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Snowe, and Senator Gramm have all signed on to be cosponsors of that bill. Senator Roth especially has been very helpful, not only in putting that in the original tax cut bill that was vetoed by President Clinton last year, but he has also included it in this bill. If this bill can be signed by the President then we will have our homemaker IRA's. So I am hopeful that this is a bill that will include the Lott-Bond amendment so they will help the small businesses be able to prepare for this minimum wage increase and give the exemptions for small business to be able to continue to pay the lower minimum wage, and then if we can have the homemaker IRA that will really make a difference in the savings in this country and in the security of our one-income-earner families and not only that, but when you take everything into consideration, it is just a matter of equity. It is just flat equity that every person who is working in our country, whether it is inside the home or outside the home, should have the same opportunities for saving for retirement, tax free. And that is exactly what we will be doing if we are able to pass this bill with that very fine amendment that will be sponsored by Senator Roth tomorrow. So I am very pleased to be supportive of this measured minimum wage increase because I believe that it can be good for our country if we do it in just the right way. So I thank the sponsors of the amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to add how much I appreciate Senator Nunn, Senator McCain, and Senator Bradley for helping work out what I think is a very important amendment, which will say exactly what the parameters of the expansion of our NATO alliance should be--the questions that should be asked, the positives as well as the negatives. I think that is exactly what we ought to be doing. The bottom line is, when we are talking about probably the best alliance that has ever been put together in the history of the world, we want to expand it judiciously and wisely. When we are talking about putting the lives of our military personnel, potentially, on the line, we need to do so judiciously and wisely. When we talk about spending the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are there for the national defense of our country, when we talk of expanding that responsibility, we need to do so judiciously and wisely. So I appreciate the fact that we are going to ask these questions. What are the benefits? What are the costs? What are the potential negatives of an expansion of this great NATO alliance? This is the responsible approach. I thank all of my colleagues who are cosponsors of the Nunn- Hutchison-McCain-Brown amendment. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Virginia need to make a statement?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will yield to the chairman.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Nunn- Hutchison amendment. Let me just say that I appreciate what has been said on the floor, and I think that all of us are moving in the same direction. I think that we are moving in a very positive and responsible way. This is not an issue of, are you for NATO expansion or not? This is an issue of a responsible approach to the expansion of NATO. What we are asking for is a report that would ask and answer the questions that anyone coming into a mutual defense pact would want to be answered. Very clearly, if we are going to put up the resources of the United States and the lives of our young men and women who are in our armed services, we want to do it in a very responsible and studied way. We have simply said we want this decision to be a fully informed decision. We want to know the extent to which any prospective new NATO members have established democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed forces, the rule of law, parliamentary oversight of military affairs. I think these are very important questions to ask because they determine how strong a democracy will be in any country that would be part of this very important alliance. I think it is important that we know what are the mechanisms for border dispute resolutions. Certainly, we know there are going to be border disputes among friendly nations. There are border disputes that are not so friendly. We must know exactly what the resolution of border disputes will be, how will it be handled, what are the mechanisms that will be set forth for the resolution of border disputes. Most certainly, had Yugoslavia been a member of NATO, it would have put us in a very difficult situation. Yugoslavia was not a member of NATO, so it was not in the perimeter of the actual NATO alliance. I think these are very valid questions. I am certainly going to support the informed expansion of NATO. I want to be there for especially the countries that are trying so hard and are succeeding at having strong economies and are putting democracies in place that are beginning to work. I think we are looking at the time element here. We need to have a test of time before we go into the mutual defense pact. That is what we are saying here. I think it is a very positive thing for all of us to ask these questions and to make sure that if we are going to have before us the ratification of the expansion of the NATO treaty, that we have all of the answers to these questions, because a two-thirds vote will be required in the Senate. We want to make sure there is overwhelming support. Last but not least, Mr. President, I want to make sure that we protect the underlying NATO alliance. I think it is very important we keep the commitment that we have in this country to our transatlantic friendships and our transatlantic allies and alliances. To do this, we must make sure if we expand this very important alliance, which I think probably has been the most successful alliance perhaps in the history of the world, that we need to do it judiciously and carefully and in a very informed way. I think we have seen great disagreement on American troops in Bosnia. We did this in a NATO mission. I do not want there to be a question in the future about the strength of NATO or our commitment to NATO. This is our important alliance. I want to keep it strong. I think the way to do that is to make sure when we expand, we do it in an informed way. It is not a question if you are for or against the expansion of NATO, but whether you are for a deliberate and informed expansion of NATO. I think there can be no question that when the lives of our citizens are at stake and when the money of our hard-earned taxpaying citizens is at stake, we should know exactly what we are getting into, as should every member nation of this alliance and every prospective member nation of this alliance. I speak in favor of the amendment. I hope we can work out the language so that every single Member of the Senate will be comfortable that this is the right thing to do. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 4367

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thurmond, I offer an amendment which would extend the term of the remaining transitional member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.