Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a distinguished corporate citizen of my home State of Texas. As you may know, Northern Telecom [Nortel], a telecommunications equipment manufacturer based in Richardson, TX, recently received the first annual Corporate Citizenship Award from the Committee on Economic Development [CED]. The CED is an independent, nonpartisan educational research organization of 250 top business, leaders, economists, and university presidents. CED represents no single industry or special interest group, nor does it lobby. For more than 50 years, CED's recommendations have played a major, often decisive, role in critical policy areas such as American competitiveness, government and business management, energy security, education, and job creation. The CED's Corporate Citizenship Award was created to salute those companies that have demonstrated both an active involvement in the policy dialog and a carefully considered commitment to the communities in which they operate and society at large. Nortel received the award in recognition of the principles of corporate and civic responsibility that have guided the company throughout its 100-year history. The award cited Nortel's investment in research and development, the training and education of its workers, the quality of its management, as well as the company's strong and ongoing commitment to education, the preservation of the arts and culture, and community service. With over 5,000 employees, Nortel is a global telecommunications leader. It is with much pride, Mr. President, that I urge my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the Nortel family on this much- deserved distinction.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for taking this time to really talk in a little more detail about why we need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What happened yesterday, and its policy ramifications, really needs to be discussed so that the American people see that just because we are trying in this Congress to go toward a balanced budget does not mean we do not need a balanced budget amendment. In fact, I think when the American people have seen how very hard it is to balance the budget or to even have a 1-year budget that moves toward a balanced budget, and when they see how slow the progress has been and they see, even though we have tried to make the tough decisions--Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, welfare reform--these have been vetoed by the President and, therefore, we are still at ground zero. The American people see this. So, for Heaven's sake, does that not make the argument that we need a balanced budget amendment, because if we can ever get the deficit off the plate, if we can look at the year 2002 toward that point where we will have a balanced budget, don't we need to say no future Congress will ever be able to get out of control again? Don't we need to put in what Thomas Jefferson worried about, that we should have put in the Constitution in the first place, and that is that no future Congress can put debt on generations in the future, that no Congress will be able to say we want to spend this money now, but we want our children to pay for it. Thomas Jefferson worried about that. It was one of the two things he was concerned with that had not been addressed in the Constitution. The other one is term limits, and I think that probably bears on the problem we are having right now. We have too many people who have been in Congress too long who have not been in the real world who have continued to put off the tough decisions. These are people who talk well. They are people who say, ``Oh, we want a balanced budget; of course, we want a balanced budget. We'll make the tough decisions later,'' or ``We will let somebody else make the tough decisions.'' That is what Congresses have been doing for 40 years, and it is what Presidents have been doing. That is why we are in this mess. So, of course, we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It would not take 2 years for a balanced budget amendment to be ratified by the States; that is, if the people are consulted, because the people know. The people of America are not stupid. They know the difference between a balanced budget and stability and the future of their children and out-of-control spending, spend-now-pay- later policies that they have seen for so long out of Washington, DC. The opponents of the amendment, as was pointed out by my colleague from Georgia, really use scare tactics. Let me go through a few of those. This is just a gimmick. Don't you think if this were a gimmick that Congress would have tried it before? I mean, 40 years of gimmicks, I think I have seen just about everything. I think they would have thought of this if it were a gimmick. They say this will tie the Government's hands. ``What are you going to do if you have a war, if you need an emergency expenditure?'' There is a safety valve. You can pass an unbalanced budget with a three-fifths vote, and I think if we were in a crisis in this country, if we were needing to go to war and support our troops, I believe three-fifths of the duly elected representatives of the people of this country would be able to come to that conclusion. But I do not think three-fifths of the duly elected representatives of our country would go into a deficit situation for just another social program. They say this will bring on another depression. You have heard that one. Bring on another depression? The money is going to be spent. People earn money, they send part of it to the Federal Government or they keep it. Now, where is the recession here? The recession is not going to be caused because there is going to be less Government spending. If we have less Government spending, that means there is more money in people's pockets. It is their money, it is not ours. I just love these people. I think the Senator from Oklahoma, who is sitting in the chair, has heard the people on the floor say: ``Oh, we can't have that tax cut, it would cost the Government $300 billion.'' The Government? Whose money is it? It is not the Government's money. Money belongs to the people in this country who go out and work every day. It is their money. The Government will not lose $300 billion if we have a tax cut. I would ask the question a little different way: How much will it cost the hard-working American taxpayer if we do not cut their taxes by $300 billion? We are not talking about lower spending here; we are talking about who makes the decisions. We are talking about whether you decide how you spend your money for your family or whether you send your money to the Government for them to decide what your priorities should be. It is a matter of priorities and who makes the decisions. That is one of the reasons why the Republicans said very clearly, when we put our balanced budget forward over 7 years, that we had a $245 billion tax cut package, because we knew that if we were going to slow the spending in the public sector market, that we wanted to increase the spending in the consumer market. The difference is who makes the decision. That is why we put tax cuts in our balanced budget. It is why we have a $500 per child tax credit. It is why we have IRA's for the homemakers of this country so that the homemakers of America will have the same retirement security options that anyone who works outside the home has. It is why we have capital gains tax reform, so that our small businesses will be able to make those investments that will create the new jobs and help the economy grow. It is why we have inheritance tax reform. It is why we do away with the marriage penalty, or significantly reform it, because we know that the American family deserves to have more of the money they earn to spend for their families. So causing another depression is out of the question. In fact, our economy will boom if we will pass a balanced budget amendment. The markets went up just because it looked like we had the chance to do it a year ago. Last year, the market went up because they had the impression that Congress was finally going to ``gut up'' and do the right thing. We lost it by one vote. It was a great disappointment, but the market knew. The market knew that by lowering interest rates two points, which is what the balanced budget would do, that we would save money for every person in America who is paying a home mortgage, that we would save money for every person in America who is borrowing to buy a car, that we would save money for every person in America who is borrowing to go to college. The markets knew the stability that would be created by a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Last, but not least, they have really talked a lot on this floor about raiding Social Security--raiding Social Security--if we balance the budget. I ask the question to anyone in America: Would you trust a Congress that cannot balance its budget to keep Social Security intact? If someone does not have the guts to have a balanced budget for our Government, can they be trusted to keep the integrity of the Social Security system? Frankly, I think that is why our younger generation does not think they will ever see Social Security, because they see a Congress that cannot even balance the budget or even pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget for the future, and they think, ``Now, if they don't have the ability to do that, I really don't think I'm ever going to see Social Security.'' So, Mr. President, I think passing the balanced budget amendment is the most important policy decision that we would make in our lifetimes of public service. I think if we do not take that step, we can wait for our grandchildren to ask the question, ``You were there back then. Why didn't you do something?'' I saw the picture that my colleague from Oklahoma showed of his grandbaby on the floor. I am horrified to think that that baby is someday going to meet me or talk to the Senator from Oklahoma and say, ``You know, why didn't you do something back then when you could, so that I could afford to send my children to college, so that I would have a good job in a great economy in the land of opportunity?'' Mr. President, if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment that is responsible for the American people, we are not going to be able to face our grandchildren, we are not going to be able to answer the question. So if our colleagues will think about the long-term future of this country, or if the people who are looking at voting for a U.S. Senator on the ballot next year will ask that person the question, ``How do you feel about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?'' I mean, you only can say one of two things: ``I'm for it,'' or, ``I'm against it.'' If the people of this country will rise up and say, this is the most important issue, then our grandchildren will not have the question, because it probably would not ever occur to our grandchildren that we would not balance the budget of this country when it is on our watch. So, Mr. President, I think the time has come for the people of America to weigh in on this issue. They saw the vote yesterday. They saw that we are within five, six, seven votes in this Congress of passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which will need to be ratified, so the State legislatures will have a chance to weigh in on this as well. I do not worry about the legislatures ratifying it, if we will have the guts to do what is right in this Congress. Mr. President, it is all a part of what we were elected to do. We did not run for the U.S. Senate thinking it was going to be an easy job. We knew, especially those of us who have run in the last 2 years, we knew that we were going to have to make tough decisions to turn around 40 years of bad decisions. I have been a small businessperson. I bought a little company that was on the ropes. I had to make tough decisions to turn that company around. I did it. But it was not easy. That is the exact issue we are facing here on a much bigger scale, because the people of America are depending on us to make this tough decision for our country. They know that we are not going to agree on every budget cut that it will take. They do not expect that. But they do expect a responsible decision. Mr. President, I will just close by saying, there is only one way to prevent the most dreaded question that I can ever imagine. It is not from one of my constituents calling in or someone that I will see in Texas; it is not from a news reporter. It is from my 5-year-old grandchild, in 20 years, who would say, ``Cake, you were there back then. Now I am going to have a child, and I can't afford to send my child to college. Why didn't you do something?'' That is the question I do not ever want to hear. The way we can assure that we will never have that question in our families is to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution because we know how hard it is to do what is right. We know the resistance that we have faced. We know that if we can ever get it to balance, that we should never again allow a future Congress to mortgage the future of our children. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the question I fear most as a Senator is not a question from a news reporter, it is not a question from a constituent visiting my office, it is not a question from a constituent at home; it is the question that I fear my grandchildren will ask me, and it is this. ``If you were a Senator back then, why didn't you do something? Why didn't you balance our budget, so my family would be able to have jobs and afford an education?'' Mr. President, that is the question I fear the most. A great-grandparent, born in 1900, paid about 24 percent of the family income in Federal, State, and local taxes. That is after the benefits were taken out. A 26-year-old mother today, who may be working in an office or raising her children at home, will pay at least 34 percent of the family income in taxes after benefits. That is already one of the highest levels in our country's history. But if we do not change our ways, the real bad news comes for her children. Her young baby will pay 84 percent of lifetime income in taxes if we do not balance the budget in this country. That is what it will take to continue our current policies for Government spending. Our grandchildren cannot support such a burden of spending, debt and interest. At 84 percent, they will not be able to find jobs at all, much less pay their bills. I do not ever want to be asked why I did not change the course of this country. I did not come to Washington to support the status quo. I came to change the way they do business in Washington, DC. I came to get Washington off the backs of the hard-working American people so they can earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is the American dream. With a balanced Federal budget, the Joint Economic Committee forecasts that interest rates will fall by 2 percent. Let us look at what that means for the American family. Senator Phil Gramm came up with this chart to talk about what it will mean to each family to have interest rates lowered by 2 percent. Our children's education? We would save $1,369 on a 10-year student loan because interest rates would be 2 percent less. There would be a $680 saving on a car loan over 4 years. For a small business, it would mean a savings of $4,716 on a 8-year loan. Farms that are struggling right now, especially in my home State of Texas, where we have a terrible drought, nevertheless have loans to pay. A 2-percent drop in interest rates would save the farmer $2,067 on a 6-month loan. What most Americans pay the most interest on is homes. On a home mortgage, 30 years, a 2-percent drop in interest rates would create $1,880 per year in savings--almost $2,000. That is like saying we are going to cut your taxes $2,000 just by balancing the budget. So, with more interest kept in our pockets instead of paid to the bank, we will be able to send more of our children to college, give more of our children jobs in small businesses, and earn enough to pay for our homes and cars. Yesterday, my office got a letter addressed to all Senators signed by 91 interest groups asking us to oppose the balanced budget amendment. It was signed by all sorts of groups: Labor unions representing teachers, postal workers, Government employees and auto workers; the American Association of Retired Persons; the League of Women Voters; the Americans for Democratic Action, several environmental groups; and several churches of many different faiths. Why did 91 of these groups come together? What is their common bond? They are asking the hard-working people of America to work for their priorities. Many of these groups balance their budgets every year on the backs of the American taxpayer, the same taxpayer who goes to work every day hoping to earn enough money to do a little bit better for their children. These groups had the nerve to say, ``The American public has a right to know how a balanced budget will be achieved before a balanced budget amendment is enacted. Which important programs--education, health care, Social Security, transportation, job training--will either be dramatically cut or eliminated threatening America's vital interests?'' That was the question asked by these 91 groups. Where have they been? Where have they been for the last 2 years? For the first time since Government careened out of control, we have done exactly that. We have told the American people exactly how we will balance the budget over 7 years, and we are asking for a constitutional amendment that will assure that once we do the work to balance it, that never again will a Congress be able to rob from our future generations to pay for what we are going to do today. This Republican Congress has passed a balanced budget twice. It balanced a budget last year that did not touch Social Security, that allowed for increases in Medicare and Medicaid, that funded education, the environment, job training and transportation, and protected our children by cutting taxes on their parents and providing their futures will be deficit free. But, what happened? President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget. So we have delivered a balanced budget in writing, and if they are looking for the details, they can look in President Clinton's wastebasket. And while they are there, maybe they will look at some of the promises that have been made by the President, because 4 years ago yesterday, June 4, 1992, President Clinton told the American people on television that if he was elected, he would present a 5-year balanced budget plan. He went back and forth on that over the last few years, but then when he did submit what he called a balanced budget to Congress, he did it by saying that all the tough cuts would come after the year 2000 when he would be gone, if he is elected to a second term. I think that is the difference between the President and the Congress. The President has said one thing and made those promises and he has done something entirely different. Congress said what they would do in 1994, and they have kept their promises to the American people. We have set our priorities, and we have kept our promises. So when the interest groups line up to oppose change, I think they should really consider what they are doing to their own members. Do the auto workers want to lower interest rates so they can build and sell more cars? Do the Government employees want lower prices on their homes so they can afford their part of the American dream? Do retirees want to leave a better world to their grandchildren? I know they do, because they contact my office all the time saying that they do. To make this happen, we must change the way we do business in Washington. We must stop the deficit spending and make sure that no future Congress does it again. To stop the deficit spending, we need a permanent constitutional protection so that we will not be able to go out and borrow money on our children's future. The more the population ages, the more economic growth stagnates from high tax, slow growth policies the more urgent our problem will become. I urge my colleagues to vote with me to take action now to protect our country's future for our children by passing the balanced budget amendment and sending it to the States for ratification. We will be better remembered by our grandchildren if they have the same kind of America that we have been privileged to grow up in. And, Mr. President, I do not want to face my grandchildren 20 years from now and have them ask the most dreaded question: ``If you were a Senator back then, why didn't you do something?'' We can take action on the balanced budget amendment this week, and we can set the future course for our country and for our children and for our grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from Senator Thomas' time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New Jersey for setting aside the time this morning to talk about the issue and the commitment that we have to conquering breast cancer, which is the largest killer of women between the ages of 35 and 54 in this country. I thought it was poignant to hear my colleague, Senator Bradley, talk about this issue not only as a women's health issue, which it very much is, but as the family issue that it is. He talked about the fact that there was a trauma in his whole family. Of course there was. This is a disease that affects men, it affects children and families as well as the women in this country. Two of the leaders in the Senate on this issue have been Senators whose wives have had breast cancer, Senator Bradley and Senator Mack of Florida. I am pleased they have taken this leadership role and joined with all of the women in the Senate--eight of us, soon to be nine--that all have had instances in our families or among our friends of women who have had to battle this terrible disease, one which I think we are on the cusp of solving. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Florida and all the women who have come together to understand the importance of conquering breast cancer. I want to talk a little bit about my own history with the Komen Foundation. The history of the Komen Foundation is written on this piece of paper. It says, ``In 1982 Nancy Brinker established the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation with only a few hundred dollars of her own and a shoe box full of friends' names.'' Mr. President, my name was in Nancy Brinker's shoe box. I was one of those that Nancy called together to put on the first Race for the Cure and the first luncheon in Dallas, TX, in 1983. I was a friend of Nancy Brinker, who is one of the most extraordinary people I have ever known. I will say that this history of the Komen Foundation grossly underestimates Nancy's monetary commitment, her time commitment, and her number of friends. She had friends all over the United States as well as in Dallas, because she was such a giving person. Because she had the experience of sitting with her 36-year-old sister who died of breast cancer before her very eyes, she made the commitment to her sister at that time that she would spend her life trying to educate and research this issue so this would not happen to other people. So, 13 years later, I never thought I would be standing on the Senate floor, talking about the Race for the Cure in Washington, DC, but in fact that is exactly what has happened. This has spread like wildfire, because so many families in this country are affected by breast cancer and, frankly, because we have not done enough to highlight and focus on the research that is necessary to beat this disease. In the last 2 years, I want to point out, Congress has been committed to promoting women's health care issues. Breast cancer research and funding has increased over 10 percent per year in the last 2 years. The National Institutes of Health funding for breast cancer has increased over the last 2 years, and last year Congress directed the National Cancer Institute to set aside a portion of its budget to be used for research grants and projects to further the national action plan on breast cancer. We developed the National Women's Health Information Clearinghouse in 1995 and 1996, and Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the space station, which is the sole environment possible for studying certain aspects of breast and ovarian cancer and osteoporosis. A lot of people do not realize that you cannot create the antigravity conditions in space on Earth. You cannot do it. So the space station has given us a new outlet to look at breast and ovarian cancer cells and to look at the bone loss in osteoporosis, all three of which are unique to women. Osteoporosis is not exclusively a woman's disease, but it does hit women the hardest. These are best able to be studied in the microgravity conditions in space. That is one of the reasons why I am so committed to the space station and the importance of space station research for getting to these women's health issues that we have not been able to conquer heretofore. So I commend the Komen Foundation for all they have given to save lives in this country. Let's talk about the way that they have saved lives. Just by their education efforts, they have told women all over our country of the importance of self-examination for early detection, because we find many times women can detect, before they even go for their annual mammogram, that they have a lump that they need to have checked out. This is, in fact, what saved Nancy Brinker's life. Because she had been so educated in the need for early detection because of the death of her sister, Susan G. Komen, it did save her life. But Nancy has gone on with the Komen Foundation to save thousands of women's lives because they now know the importance of an annual mammogram after the age of 35 and the importance of self-examination. This is the most important thing the Komen Foundation has done. But in addition to this, the Komen Foundation has also provided millions of dollars for research through their luncheons and their races for the cure for breast cancer. The research funding goes directly to the doctors who are trying to discover what causes breast cancer so that we can find the cure. So the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which started only 13 years ago, and which is going to have its annual Race for the Cure in Washington, DC, has done so much, as well as the hundreds of thousands of volunteers who come to the races, who pay their entry fee, who volunteer to help coordinate the races, have really given to this project of trying to find the cure for breast cancer. I want to say that the Vice Presidents of the United States have been a very big part of this. Vice President Dan Quayle and his wife, Mrs. Quayle, started by highlighting and focusing the Washington Race for the Cure. I am proud to say that Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have continued that tradition, and they will be leading this year's Race for the Cure in Washington. This just helps us bring in the 25,000 people who are now going to run in the Race for the Cure, and all of this money goes to heightening the awareness of women about the need for early detection, and it goes to the research that will get to the cause of this dreaded disease so that we will be able to find the cure. I am very proud to say that this is a woman's issue upon which all of us can agree. We must find the cure, and I commend the thousands of volunteers around this country who have taken up the cause. I will just add that I had a wonderful experience this past Saturday doing the start of the Race for the Cure in Plano, TX. It just does your heart good to see the women who wear the pink visors. The women who wear the pink visors are the breast cancer survivors, and they have the number of years since they had detected breast cancer put on their visors. There were a number of those out there, and there were the people who wear the tags on their bags that said, ``I am running in memory of my mother,'' ``my grandmother,'' ``my sister.'' The men and women who run are generally running with spirit and heart because they have been affected in some way by this disease. I was able to witness the women's 5K, and the men's 5K, and then the children's 1K. We had toddlers who were still in their strollers. We had toddlers who were barely walking. But we had a spirit out in Plano, TX, that is something I see every time I attend a Race for the Cure. So I urge my colleagues to participate on June 15. I urge anyone in America who has not been to a Race for the Cure to go to one. If you do not have one in your hometown, start one. This is a cause upon which we can all agree and something that will bring us together and eventually solve this dreaded disease that affects the women, the men, and the children in families across America. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have just been informed that the Democratic side is not going to be able to clear the interstate stalking bill tonight. I ask that they do everything possible to see if tomorrow, when we are in session, if we can do what is necessary to clear this bill. It could really make a difference if we can pass it tomorrow, even if there is an amendment and we need to have that cleared with the House, if it is a sincere amendment. I would certainly like to work with the other side to put that on and try to get it cleared by the House next week so we can pass this expeditiously. It really might make the difference for a victim in this country who has had no remedy. It really might make life better for some child who is a victim who has no remedy. Mr. President, I think it is incumbent on us to be sincere in our efforts when we are dealing with something that is clearly bipartisan. I do not think that it should be held up unless there is a very good reason. Most of the Senate has looked at this bill. The Judiciary Committee passed it very easily. It passed unanimously in the House, and I just hope whoever has a hold on this bill will let it go. It is a good bill, it is a simple bill, and the timing really could make the difference in someone's life in this country. It would be worth it if we could clear it tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk about a bill that I hope we can clear tonight in the Senate because it is a very important bill that will begin to protect the victims of stalking all over this country. You know, we did not really know much about stalking until the last few years. That is because it was a hard crime to pin down. Stalking is threats. It is harassment. It is the constant terrorizing of a victim, whether the act that is said would be done is actually perpetrated or if, sometimes, it is not. But whether it is or is not, it is a very tough thing for a victim to continue to be in fear, to wonder, ``Am I going to have someone stick a knife in my back? Am I going to be able to walk in my neighborhood without fear? Am I going to be able to go to sleep at night without fear?" Then, in fact, we have found that the victims of this stalking actually become victims sometimes. When Congressman Ed Royce and I started working on this we had a press conference in which we had some incredible stories of stalking victims. A woman from California who was constantly threatened, who moved to Florida to escape this stalking from this person that she really did not know and who was clearly demented--she moved to Florida and one night did become a victim. The person broke into her home and threatened her with a knife. She did get away without injury. But then there was the stalking victim whose husband was outside with his wife and she was shot to death, he was shot, and this was from a person who had constantly threatened his wife. So they could have prevented it if there had been some way to do it, but, in fact, there was no way to do it because stalking was not a crime until recently. Now we have the situation in which you have the stalking in one State, the person moves to another State, and they do not have the coverage in the other State because the actual harassment was in the first State and when it happened in the second State you had to establish it. The Interstate Stalking Act will make it a Federal crime to cross State lines to do the State crime of stalking. It does not make stalking a Federal crime, but it does make crossing State lines to do it, when it is a crime, a crime. That would give protection to the woman who moved from California to Florida. It will give protection to more of the people who have had the terrorizing experience of being constantly barraged by threats from another person. Many people in public life have had this experience. It is a scary thing to happen. To live in fear most of the time, or some of the time, is something we do not have to put up with in our society. This is a bill that passed unanimously in the House a couple of weeks ago. It was passed out of the Judiciary Committee today on a very bipartisan basis. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Biden for expeditiously having hearings on this bill and putting it through the committee. Now I am very concerned because I thought this would be a bill that would not cause any problem and I would, of course, like to see it go through tonight because I think the President will sign this bill. I think the President is going to see the need for this bill. I think if he can sign it before we come back from the Memorial Day recess, that that might save a life. It might save a victim from being harassed. It really might help a victim. If it helps one victim in this country, then why not do it? If we pass it tonight, it will go straight to the President because the bill is in the form that it passed the House. This should not be a tough bill. I am asking my colleagues on the Democratic side to clear this bill. We thought that it was cleared. Perhaps it was not. Perhaps they can make a phone call, if someone has a concern on their side. I think we ought to be able to do what is right. This is a bill that ought to pass. It is a bill that has merit. It is a bill that is not controversial or it would have been stopped before now. So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see fit to find out if there is a real problem with this bill. Or if it is a problem with something else, perhaps they will clear this bill, because it might save one life. It might save one person from being victimized and it would be worth it if we could do that. This is a bill that passed along with Megan's law on the House of Representative's side. Megan's law has already been signed by the President. This will allow victims of any kind of domestic violence harassment or if it is not a domestic partner or a spouse but a stranger who is doing the harassment, it will also provide protection if a person crosses State lines to do that. Mr. President, I hope it is not too late tonight. I would like to see this bill cleared because it is important. It is the right thing. It is bipartisan and I think there may be something on the other side that could easily be worked out. I just ask my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to expedite this. We might save a life and it would be worth it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, more than a hundred years ago, cattle drives made their way across the Texas plains toward the railhead of Abilene, KS, along what came to be known as the Chisholm Trail. Within a span of only two decades, the Chisholm Trail not only transformed settlements and towns, like Ft. Worth, into major centers of commerce, it also produced one of our Nation's most enduring folk heroes--the cowboy. Since 1976, the Chisholm Trail Roundup has been held in the historic Stockyards District of Fort Worth, TX. The Roundup celebrates the Western spirit of adventure and perseverance and honors the cultures of tribe and Nation that forged a new way of life on the American frontier. From native American dances to cowboy gunfights, the roundup displays all aspects of frontier life and creates an atmosphere in which learning about our history and enjoying the festival come together. As one of the country's largest annual festivals, the Chisholm Trail Roundup is nonprofit and benefits Western heritage organizations. For 3 days in June, Fort Worthians will gather once again to celebrate the city's rich heritage and to relive one of the most memorable times in American history. As a Senator from the State of Texas, I would like to recognize the Chisholm Trail Roundup and its efforts to remind us of our pioneering heritage. I appreciate the thousands of hours of work that have gone into planning this year's event, and I am looking forward to many more roundups in the years to come.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield, although it will be the Finance Committee that has the final word on this, what the Senator from New Mexico and Senator Exon have done by accepting this amendment is to give clear direction to them with a unanimous vote of the Senate saying this is what we want to be a priority. I do think because of the leadership of the Senator from New Mexico and Senator Exon that we will be able to declare victory at the end of this year. It is a long time coming. Thank you. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I appreciate Senator Domenici for realizing what a priority this is and for agreeing to this amendment. I appreciate the Democrats who are also accepting it. This is the right thing for the homemaker and the families of America. I hope that by the end of this year we will be able to declare victory and say that this option is now open for all of the people who work in our country whether the work is inside the home or outside the home. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be charged to the majority time for the resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to say how much I appreciate what Senator Domenici has done, with the acquiescence of Senator Exon. Clearly, this is a bipartisan issue, and it is something that will really make a difference for the homemakers and the one-income earner couples in America. In fact, it makes them equal with every person who works outside the home. Now people who work inside the home will have the same opportunity for retirement security. Senator Barbara Mikulski and I cosponsored the homemaker IRA bill in 1993. It was included in the balanced budget that was passed by Congress and sent to the President last year. But it was vetoed, so we are coming back this year in the balanced budget resolution and saying this is a priority. This amendment is adopted. It is in the bill. It will be a priority, and here is what it does. It says that, if you work inside the home, you are now only able to set aside $250 for your retirement security, whereas, if you work outside the home, you are able to set aside $2,000 a year for your retirement security. So this has created a real hardship on a one-income-earner family or on a homemaker who may lose his or her spouse in the future. Our bill says, if you work inside the home, you can set aside $2,000 a year just as if you worked outside the home. This allows the one-income-earner couple that may be sacrificing for the homemaker to stay home and raise the children to have the same retirement benefits and options as if the spouse had worked outside the home. What it does for the homemaker who may lose her spouse in later years is to have in her own name, her own retirement account, her IRA just as if she had worked outside the home all these years. This, Mr. President, just makes everybody in this country equal if they work inside the home or outside the home. They will be able to set aside that $2,000 a year for their retirement security. What difference does it make? It makes a big difference. A lot of people do not take advantage right now of the $2,000 that they can set aside that will earn interest tax free so that at the end of their working lives they will have a nest egg. The conservative estimates, if you just think of a 6-percent return, would be that a one-income-earner couple now would be able to set aside enough to build, over a 30-year working life, almost $200,000 for a nest egg. But if you allowed the homemaker to contribute equally, it would go up to about $335,000, so almost $350,000. If you do better than 6 percent in your investment, of course, it would be more than that. A $335,000 nest egg is a lot for a family that has just to set aside $4,000 a year. For an individual to set aside $2,000 a year, you can get into the $200,000 to the $250,000 range in your retirement nest egg. That can help a lot. When you have Social Security, which is a supplement, and then you have an IRA, if you have set aside that $2,000 a year, you can have an income that you will be able to live on. This is what we should be encouraging in our country. We should be encouraging savings. Every statistic you see says that our country has the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation in the world. That is really a shame. We ought to encourage savings, and this is the way we can do it. So what we have done by having this amendment adopted by Senator Domenici and Senator Exon is we have said that this will be a priority. When all of the Washington mumbo jumbo ends and we have had our House bill and our Senate bill and our conference committee, what we are saying is in the end when we reconcile all these differences and all of the things that we have passed, that the high priority will be for equity for the homemakers of our country for their retirement security. Mr. President, it is a win for everyone. It is a win for the homemaker. It is a win for the one-income-earner family. It is a win for America because the more people who have a retirement security, the more people who will be happy, who will be stable, who will not have to worry about looking to the Government for help. This is a very modest investment for us to say these earnings will be tax free through these years to give that stability in retirement to that couple, or that individual that has worked for 30 years and should be able to plan for their own retirement security. So I am very pleased that we have taken one more step. We have passed this bill once. It was vetoed by the President. Now we are coming back. We are going to pass it again. I hope that we will be able at the end of this year to say we have finally done what we should have done a long time ago in this Congress, and that is acknowledge that the work done inside the home is every bit as important as the work done outside the home and maybe even more so. So I am pleased that we are doing this once again. We are going to stress how important the homemakers and the family units are in our society. This is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I want to say that the original cosponsors of our resolution, this amendment, are Senators Dole, Robb, Feinstein, and Snowe. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Helms, Murray, and Moseley- Braun, at their request, to be cosponsors of this with Senator Mikulski and myself.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Up to 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would appreciate the opportunity to explain what we have done for the homemakers of America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was my understanding that the two managers would put it in at the appropriate time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was here when Admiral Boorda was first announced as the Chief of Naval Operations, the first man to come up through the ranks to become the Chief. I worked with him then on a variety of issues, but especially on his mind was the aftermath of Tailhook. As the only woman on the Armed Services Committee, we had a chance to sit down and talk about what had happened and what could be done to get the Navy going in the right direction. The Navy is very special to me because it is the service that my husband chose during the Korean war. I love the Navy, and Mike Boorda loved the Navy. I want to say that I thought he did as much as any human being could do to be in charge of a service during the downsizing time, which everyone knew had to be done. He did it in a way that would plan for the future, to make sure that the strategic part of what the Navy does for our national defense and our security were strong. Yet, he had the compassionate side that worried very much about sexual harassment. He wanted to make sure that he instilled in the men and women that he served as their leader, that, in fact, the value system that was instilled in the men and women of the Navy was the most important part of their service. He did everything a human being could do to instill that value system in them. Every time a problem arose, I would talk to Mike Boorda and he would be showing concern and saying, ``What more can we do?'' I think that he was a fine leader. I am stunned, as every one of us is, that we have lost this fine leader. I hope that his memory will be served as the person who was a man of his word, who served his country well, and who had the respect of everyone that met or touched his life. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Frist for all the work they are doing to try to draw distinctions between the President's budget, which is before us as an amendment, and the underlying budget resolution, which is the responsible budget resolution that really balances by the year 2002. My colleagues have said that the President's budget balances and that it provides for middle-class tax relief. The American people want a Federal budget that balances, and they also want to keep more of the money that they work so hard to earn. But let us look at the President's budget and let us respond to the demands of the American people. As Paul Harvey would say, ``Now it is time for the rest of the story.'' Let us look at the issue of balance. I really think the President cannot have a straight face when he says his budget balances, when more than half of the cuts--more than half--come in the last 2 years--2001 and 2002--of the 7-year period the budget covers. There are $600 billion in cuts over 7 years, and some $350 billion of those are in the last 2 years. I think it is very obvious that whoever is elected President this year, 1996, is not going to have to face the issues in the year 2001 and 2002, because there will be yet another President. I do not think we can, responsibly, with a straight face, pass the President's budget and tell the American people that we have done the responsible thing. I want to use some examples of what the President's budget does. Take NASA for an example. Under the President's budget, the NASA budget lopes along about where it is now for 3 years, and then it drops 10 percent over 2 years. Now, that is not a responsible approach toward a research, technology, or scientific endeavor. How can you be midway into an experiment and, all of a sudden, not have the money for it? The Republican budget, on the other hand, has steady declines in the NASA budget, for which they can prepare. NASA officials can see very clearly what is going to happen and plan how they are going to have to allocate their resources. Let us take defense spending, another example. The President is proposing another $3 billion in cuts this year. That would make it the 12th straight year of decline in defense spending. Today we spend only a little more than one-half of what we spent on defense in 1985. Weapons purchases alone are down 70 percent from 1985. And here we are, at a time when we have American troops all over the world that are seeking to keep peace in some way or another; while we must maintain the highest defense readiness, and we are looking at a major technology initiative in theater missile defense to defend against the very real ballistic missile threat to our country and our troops in the field; with all these priorities, we are looking at a Presidential budget that reduces defense spending again. Now let us look at tax cuts. The President's budget has a tax credit of $300 per child up to the age of 13. But the tax credit is only temporary, because it ends if a balanced budget isn't reached in the year 2002. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's budget will not be balanced by the year 2002. By comparison, the Republican budget, the underlying budget, has a permanent tax credit of $500 up to the age of 18 for middle-income taxpayers. That is a big difference to an American family. Anyone who has a teenager knows that those are the years when you face the most urgent demands on their hard-earned income. Let us talk about the homemakers of this country. The budget that is underlying--like the budget that we sent to the President last year and which was vetoed--hopefully will include homemaker IRA's. But the President's budget does not. He does not think that the work done inside the home is every bit as important as the work done outside the home. Therefore, he did not provide for the retirement security options for the homemakers of this country. We must not stand for that. We must make sure that this year we do address that terrible inequity, so that a one-income-earner family and a two-income-earner family will have the same retirement security options. It is only fair that homemakers have their retirement nest egg and that one-income-earner families, who are sacrificing to have a homemaker at home when their children come home from school, will not have to suffer in retirement years. So there are big differences between the President's budget and the budget that we are trying to pass today. We must reject the President's budget. It is a hollow budget. The balance will only occur if we make huge cuts in the year 2001 and the year 2002. Mr. President, now is the time for Congress to act responsibly, to have cuts that are sloping very gradually, so that agencies or people that are entitled to benefits will know exactly what is there in a responsible manner. The cuts in the rate of growth of spending should be gradual, not staying at the same level until no one around here will be in office anymore, and then cutting to the bone and saying, ``Oh, yes, we are going to set the budget numbers, but we are going to let you in the future make the tough decisions.'' No, Mr. President, now is the time to make the tough decisions, and that is the issue before us. Are we going to do the responsible thing for our children and grandchildren for the future of this country, or are we going to adopt the President's budget that is before us on the floor right now, which will not really balance? Those tough decisions being put off now will not be any easier then. Most certainly, we cannot expect a defense budget to go up, down, and back up. Nor can we afford to have an experiment at NASA proceed to a certain point and then drop off the face of the Earth--figuratively speaking. Mr. President, that is not responsible. We know it, and the American people know it. Let us do the responsible thing and reject the President's hollow budget and make the real tough decisions now. That is what the American people asked of us in 1994. It is what we promised. Let us keep the promise. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our leader and in just saying from our hearts how much we respect the decision that he made, this bold and courageous decision, and how much we will miss him. As has been mentioned, there was not a dry eye in our caucus today when he made this announcement. He and Elizabeth and Robin came in, and it was just the Republican Senators, and they said, ``This is like family. It's like saying good-bye to family.'' But this is a man that America is now going to be able to see, who is deeply rooted in this country, and who knows exactly what he wants to say to the American people. He made the decision by himself. But he could not speak on the Senate floor, talking about amendments to amendments and quorum calls and cloture votes, and get across to the American people how very important his goals and his mission and his vision for this country are. He knew that he had to go out into America as an American, not as a Senator, and speak from the heart. He made that decision. As usual, he always livens everything with his humor. He said to us today, ``I've been thinking about this for 2 months. I made the decision about 30 days ago. The reason that it didn't get out, in a town that is known for leaking, is because I didn't tell one U.S. Senator about it.'' Of course, we all laughed, because that was true. He had kept his counsel. He had made this decision, as he so often does, by himself with his wife Elizabeth. He knew it was right. When we first started hearing about it today, many of us said, ``Oh, no; that must be a mistake. He's going to step down from leadership, but not from his seat.'' Then the more we heard about it, we thought, ``Well, of course. That is Bob Dole's genius that he would see so far ahead of the rest of us that, yes, indeed, he was going to give up his seat because he began to see that this election is a crossroads, and he must show the American people who he is, what he stands for, and what integrity and character he has.'' He knew that he could not do it talking about amendments to amendments. He knew it had to come from the heartland and from the heart. So every one of us are thrilled for him, thrilled that he has made this decision because we know the mission is the highest of all. That is to make the changes in America that will give every child in this country the same benefits and opportunities that Bob Dole himself has had by having the great good fortune to grow up in this country. He grew up in Russell, KS, in a working family. He has known hardship. He has known tragedy. He has stood the test of extreme injury and pain, being told that he probably would not walk again, being told that if he walked, it would be with a limp, knowing that he could overcome this with the grit and determination that the great upbringing in the heartland of America would give him. He has never forgotten that opportunity. As I go on the campaign trail with him or as I walk down the hall with him, jaunty as he is, I always see that Bob Dole knows his bearings. He has never had anything easy in his life. He has fought hard. He has stood the tests that have been thrown at him time after time. He wants every American child to have the same opportunity that he did. His mission is to make sure that they do. So we love him. We are going to miss him. But every one of us are going to be with him on the campaign trail talking about the message that Americans want to hear: What are you going to do for our country? What he is going to do for our country is prepare for the future, to go into the 21st century without a deficit, saving Medicare, with welfare reform, making sure that we take care of the truly needy but making sure that we look to the future for our children and grandchildren. That is what this man is going to do. He has put that ahead of his own career and his own life, because he knows how important this is to the American people. God's speed, our friend. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respect Senator Grassley very much. I respect Senator Simon, and Senator Exon. But I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I think they are wrong on this issue. In fact, let us cut to the chase. We are not talking about allowing the President to come back in and certify that he needs more money. The President has said that he does not want the money. His budget came in $11 billion lower this year in real terms than it was last year, and that was after telling the American people in his State of the Union Message that he did not think we should cut defense spending any more. Mr. President, we have had testimony before the Armed Services Committee from every single high ranking military and civilian official in this administration; the President's own administration. Every chief of every service has said we cannot continue to train our forces and modernize our forces if we do not have the money to do it. This is the 12th straight year of declining defense spending; the 12th straight year. Weapons procurement is down 70 percent since 1985. It is proper after the cold war that we would draw down our military spending. But, Mr. President, we have gone far enough. If we maintain keeping the funding level that Senator Grassley is suggesting that we cut, the $8.3 billion, what would it take away from our Armed Forces? What would it do to us? First, it would stop the increasing modernization that we must have as we are drawing down our force numbers. It is essential that we have the modernization, equipment, and technology to make up for the smaller numbers of people that we will have in the field. That is what the drawdown requires if we are going to be able to fight and win two simultaneous major regional conflicts. We must have the technology and the equipment to do it. It will pay for an improved quality of life for the men and women who risk their lives to serve our country. We are asking for a 3-percent pay raise for our military; 3 percent. These are the young men and women who volunteer to fight for the freedom and independence of our country. We must assure that they have a better quality of life that demonstrates to them that they have the complete support of the American people. We will also not be able to increase our commitment to counter the ballistic missile threats; the threat of ballistic missiles launched at our country. The Secretary of Defense testified that we do not have a defense to ballistic missiles fired at the United States. He said that this year. The Secretary of Defense, himself, thinks that we need to go forward with the technology for a ballistic missile defense for our country. At least 30 countries throughout the world have ballistic missile technology and capabilities. Many of those have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability as well. So, of course, we ought to be able to defend our shores, or any of our troops in the field against incoming ballistic missiles. Yet, if you cut $8 billion that Senator Grassley wants to cut, we will not be able to go forward in that technology. Mr. President, we should have learned a lesson from our experiences in previous wars. That is what history is for--to teach us lessons. We should learn the lesson of the Korean war. We should not forget the lessons of Task Force Smith, when we had drawn down our forces after World War II, and we did not have the equipment and the training going into the Korean war, and Task Force Smith was a unit that was rushed into combat in the early days of the Korean war and were obliterated by the North Koreans. They were brave soldiers who fought courageously but because they were not equipped with up-to-date equipment and their training was woefully short they suffered terrible casualties. We cannot forget the sacrifice of those who died in Task Force Smith and now once again repeat those same mistakes today by undercutting the ability of our troops in the field to have the equipment and the training and the technology they need to do the job when they signed up to protect our freedom. We saw in Desert Storm an almost perfectly executed war, but we had almost 6 months to prepare for that war. Our enemies will not always give us 6 months to prepare for a war. They saw what happened to Saddam Hussein when he did that. So when you talk about cutting $8 billion out of our defense budget, you are talking not about fat; you are talking about muscle and bone. You are talking about cutting the critical support for our military that we must continue to provide if we are going to maintain the strength of our military. As President Reagan once said, we got peace through strength. Being weak and unprepared and technologically inadequate is not what America is about. If we are going to have the greatest nation on Earth and the last superpower status on Earth, we must have the equipment and the technology and the upgrading to do the job. So cutting our military budget to the level that the President asked for is certainly not going to do that. I implore my colleagues to look at the big picture and to remember the lessons of Task Force Smith. Let us not let the deaths of those brave men go unheeded. Let us keep our freedom and our strength, and let us keep our commitment to our troops in the field for a quality of life and let us have a ballistic missile defense for our country going into the 21st century. Now, Mr. President, according to the previous order, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Cohen.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for taking this time to talk about this gas tax and why we are still talking about it. We had this bill on the floor last week. We have been trying to make tax cuts throughout this Congress. Every time we submit a tax cut to the President, it comes back with a big veto on it. I think we need to talk a little bit about the philosophy of why we want tax cuts. A lot of people say, ``Well, why do you want tax cuts when you have a deficit?'' The reason is twofold. One is, if you are going to lower the rate of growth of spending by the Government, tax cuts put more money into the economy. But the second reason is who makes the decision about how to spend the people's hard-earned money. That is the question here. So when someone says, why tax cuts? it is because we believe that the people of this country who are working so hard to make a living for themselves and for their families should have the ability to spend their money that they earn rather than sending it to Washington for someone to decide whether this program is more important to your family than going on a family vacation or buying food to eat or having a new dress for the senior prom. Whatever the decision for a family is, we believe that family ought to be able to decide how they spend their money. That is why we are trying so hard to provide tax cuts for the middle class. This is something that the President promised in 1992. He promised it in his election campaign in the book ``Putting People First.'' He said his would pass tax cuts for the middle class. But instead, what the middle-class people of this country got was the largest tax increase in the history of America. That is what happened in 1993. There were no tax cuts for the middle class in 1993 or 1994 or 1995. The only tax bills that have been passed have been tax increases. In the 1993 President Clinton budget he increased taxes, including a 4.3- cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes. This was a different kind of gasoline tax than we have seen in the past. In the past, a gasoline tax has automatically gone into the highway trust fund. It has gone as a user fee to finish and maintain our National Highway System. But not the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax of 1993. No. That was a tax increase that was supposed to go against the deficit. 4.3 cents per gallon just went into the general fund. So we have been trying to repeal this tax since the time we voted against passing it in the first place. In fact, every Republican in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate voted against this tax increase in 1993. We are now trying to repeal the gas tax. We believe the American family is quite capable of making the decision on how that family spends its money, and so we oppose all tax increases. We think the family is more capable of making good decisions about what is right for them than somebody in Washington, DC. In my home State of Texas or in Senator Coverdell's home State of Georgia, we believe the people who earn the money can make the decisions. So that is why we are fighting so hard against the Democrat filibuster for this gasoline tax cut, because we believe it is very important for the working people. It is especially important in a State like mine, where people have to drive so much because there are wide open spaces and they have to go so far to get to work and to school. We think that this tax cut will be very beneficial to the working families and particularly the families that are barely making ends meet and have to drive long distances to go to work or for the essential needs for themselves and for their families. So, Mr. President, we are trying very hard to stay consistent. We did not vote for this tax increase in the first place. Now that gasoline prices are so high, we want to take this opportunity to give a little relief to the people who are using their cars for the essentials of life, or even if it is for recreation--that is important in a family, too--we want people to have a little relief from these high gasoline prices. We think 4.3 cents per gallon is a good place to start. I heard it said the other day say that somebody in California was trying to make the decision on whether to pay their home mortgage this month or fill up the van with gasoline. That is not a serious statement, but a joke, but it is getting to be more and more serious when it costs $60 to fill up a van. That will make a dent in a working person's salary and their expendable income. So, Mr. President, I hope that the people who are going to be voting on the floor of the Senate tomorrow on this very important measure will consider the working people of this country and the tax relief that they were promised, and I hope they will make their promise good because I think it is about time that the people in Washington, DC, started thinking about the people who are out there earning a living, hoping that Government will not continue to encroach on their lives to a greater extent than is absolutely necessary. That is what we are trying to do, Mr. President. So I appreciate the Senator from Georgia. I hope that people will think about the 4.3 cents per gallon for somebody who is filling up a car every 4 days or so. It may not seem like a lot, but it is a lot if you are barely making ends meet. This determines what disposable income is and whether you are able to do some of those extra things that you would like to do for your own family. The bottom line is, Mr. President, we want the working people of this country to have as much of the money they earn as we can possibly let them keep. That is the difference between Congress and the President. The President would rather have Washington make these decisions. He does not like the gas tax cut. As I understand it, he has now said that he would sign it because he is hoping to have this with the minimum wage increase as well, but it is clear that it was not his first choice. He has said on many occasions he does not want this tax cut. But, Mr. President, I hope this is just the first of many tax cuts. I hope that we will enact the tax cuts for families in this country that were vetoed last year because that is what is going to make a difference for American families--the $500 per child tax credit, homemaker IRA's, so the women who are staying home and raising their children will have the same opportunities for retirement security that anyone who works outside the home has. That is in the bill we sent to the President that he vetoed along with the $500 per child tax credit and lessening the marriage penalties so families would not have to pay such a great price for getting married. All of these things will help the American family keep the money they earn. That is the bright red line of difference between the President and this Congress. We want people to keep the money they earn for their families. We think that will make the American family stronger. So, Mr. President, I hope that everyone will think about how much this could mean to the people of this country. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to reflect briefly on the loss of life and tremendous talent our Nation suffered when, only days before Easter Sunday, 33 Americans--leaders in business and Government--perished in a storm off the coast of Croatia. Each of these individuals was strongly committed to the idea that economic renewal is critical to achieving peace in that desperately war-torn land. Compassion for others in need drew all of them on their mission to the Balkans in an effort to help heal that desperate corner of the globe. I particularly want to remember U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. Charismatic and energetic, he inevitably devoted himself to the task at hand with all his heart and mind. His enthusiasm for public service was only equaled by an amazing ability to attain his goals. He lived the American success story by proving that everyone, through hard work and determination can achieve their heart's desire. Ron Brown's immense personal popularity made his untimely death all the more sorrowful. Born in Washington, DC, but raised in New York's Harlem, Secretary Brown attended Middlebury College in Vermont where he was the only black student in his class. After graduation he joined the U.S. Army and, serving as an officer, proudly represented his country abroad. Following his military career he worked as a welfare caseworker in New York City while attending law school at night. An individual of enormous charm and wit, Ron Brown became the first African-American leader of a major political party in the United States. Regarding this historical achievement he stated, ``I did not run on the basis of race, but I will not run away from it. I am proud of who I am.'' President Clinton named Ron Brown to serve as U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the first African-American to occupy that post. He performed its duties with wisdom, dedication, and conscientious attention to detail. Secretary Brown more than anyone else in Government, gave business a seat at the diplomatic table. Because of his friendship with and access to the President, the State Department was on constant notice that if our economic efforts overseas were not represented, Ron Brown stood ready to serve as their advocate. Representing the United States around the world, he was America's premier salesman for what we have to offer--equality, opportunity, and abundance. This April, bravely undertaking a mission into what had recently been a war zone and still was a potentially hostile region, Ron Brown proved to the world what those who knew him always took for granted: that he cared less for his personal safety than for the good of the people who live there. In his own wonderful way, Ron Brown served as a peacekeeper. Working to establish international trade and business in the region, he offered its people the opportunity to rebuild a civil society. Yes, the United States lost 33 lives, 33 talented individuals, each with an unlimited potential to achieve. But we as a nation have also gained 33 luminous examples of ultimate dedication and compassion. These bright stars of self-sacrifice form an American constellation which can, if we let it, guide us forward with generosity and courage toward a better tomorrow for ourselves and all of our neighbors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to strengthen the protections our society offers to stalking victims, those individuals whose stories we so often hear only after they end in tragedy. My bill would make it a felony for a stalker to cross State lines with the intention of injuring or harassing the victim. It would make it a felony to place a stalking victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury in violation of a protective order by such travel. And it extends that protection of law to members of a victim's immediate family as well. Freedom from fear is one of the most cherished advantages we are supposed to enjoy in our country, but stalking victims have been robbed of that freedom. Their victimization is made worse because currently, restraining orders against stalkers issued in one State cannot be enforced in another State. If the victim leaves the State--to work, to travel, to escape--they lose their protection. Many times victims are told to put some distance between themselves and their stalker, perhaps they are even counseled to move far away. Under such circumstances, stalking victims must go through the time- consuming process of obtaining another restraining order in a different jurisdiction. We all know the wheels of justice grind slowly. Time is what many stalking victims don't have. In such situations, time is what determines whether they live or die. The legislation I am introducing today will give stalking victims that time they need. It will protect victims regardless of where they go. Victims will no longer be trapped in their own states in order to benefit from the shelter of law. In addition, this bill allows the resources of the FBI to be applied against interstate stalkers to prevent the intimidation of victims, or their coming to actual harm. Just as importantly, this legislation goes beyond last year's domestic violence legislation by expanding the definition of a stalking victim from offender's spouse or intimate partner to simply victim. Many people are stalked by someone other than a spouse or intimate partner, often someone they know only slightly or don't know at all. Common sense tells us they need protection as much as those stalked by a spouse or romantic partner. This provision alone would double the protection we now can provide stalking victims. Mr. President, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that we are not federalizing the crime of stalking. Stalking is and will remain a State crime, subject to State jurisdiction and sanction. But under the bill I am proposing, if a stalker crosses State lines, then Federal resources can be brought to bear to ensure the stalker is caught and stopped, the same protection we provided last year for victims of domestic violence. The legislation also protects victims who live or work on Federal property: military bases, post offices, national parks, and other locations This bill sends an unmistakable message. Its penalty provisions are stiff. We will be putting predators on notice that if they are convicted of crossing State lines to stalk a victim, they risk: 5 years in prison; 10 years if their victim comes to serious harm or if a dangerous weapon is used; 20 years if stalking results in permanent disfigurement or life-threatening injury; or life in prison if their victim dies. Mr. President, this bill bridges the gap between law enforcement authorities in different States. It will allow us to stop stalkers who might otherwise duck under the net when they cross State lines, doing great damage to their victims. If our society is serious about stopping the intimidation and actual injury that result from stalking in countless communities every day, this law is long overdue.