Kay Hutchison

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.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk for a minute about the importance of arming and training the Bosnians. One of the commitments that the President made to Senator Dole and Senator McCain was to arm and train the Moslems. I want to read from the Dole floor speech of November 30, 1995. He said: What is needed is a concrete effort, led by the United States, to arm and train the Bosnians. This effort should not be contingent on so-called ``builddown provisions'' in the Dayton agreement. I understand administration officials said this morning that the U.S. or NATO would not be involved in enabling Bosnia to defend itself. In my view, it is an abdication of responsibility to rely on unspecified third countries to create the conditions that will allow withdrawal of American forces. The sooner we start to enable Bosnia to defend itself, the sooner U.S. forces can come home. In my view, the definition of a success of this deployment must include a real end to the war. That is only possible with the creation of stable military balance which enables Bosnia to defend itself. Anything less simply exposes American forces to great risk in order to monitor a temporary interlude in the fighting. That is what Senator Dole said on the floor on November 30, 1995. Both he and Senator McCain repeatedly talked about the importance of that element. It is absolutely true. I have been to Bosnia twice in the last 8 or 9 months, and I have seen what the three warring factions are doing and what their relative strengths are. There is a strong Croatia; there is a strong Serb force in Bosnia; there is a good, strong force of Moslems, but they are underarmed and undertrained. To be very practical, Mr. President, any reader of military history or, indeed, history of the world, knows that a lasting peace is best kept with strength. The parity of strength among the three parties will give Bosnia the very best chance for peace that it could possibly have. The reverse is also true. If we do not strengthen the Bosnian Moslems, they could be overrun by either of the other two stronger parties. That could happen because we have not kept our commitment. Mr. President, if we want to have a lasting impact on this country, with the vast amount of resources, human and monetary, which our country has put forward already, we must take the last step. This administration is not doing it. There is no large-scale effort to arm and train the Moslems, which was a promise that President Clinton made to Senator Dole and to this Congress. It was a promise made. Mr. President, that is the key for a lasting cease-fire and the possibility for lasting peace in Bosnia. There must be rough parity among the three parties. Right now, we are almost halfway into the IFOR mission, the NATO mission, of which this country is a part, and we have yet to see a real effort in arming and training the Moslems. Now, one of the reasons given, Mr. President, is that the Iranian contingency has not left Bosnia, has not left Sarajevo. Well, Mr. President, why have the Iranians not left Sarajevo? Could it be because Iran was the one country that violated the arms embargo to help the Bosnian Moslems with arms in their time of need? This should come as no surprise. This Congress spoke forcefully time and time again: lift the arms embargo. Let arms from legitimate sources go into that country and help those people fight for themselves. But this administration continued to refuse to allow that to happen, and so there was one country that provided the arms. And we now learn that this administration knew and did not object to the Iranians providing those arms, in violation of the U.N. embargo, which the administration refused to let Congress lift. Mr. President, it is a botched policy, and I would call today on the President of the United States to say just what his policy is. Where is the integrity of the policy of this country when two promises that were very important have been broken: That we would not violate the arms embargo despite repeated attempts by Congress to lift it legitimately, and that our troops would go in with a purpose of separating the warring factions and leave December 20--two commitments that we now see are being broken? Mr. President, I see my colleague from Georgia has come to the floor, and I am happy to yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague from Georgia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Mike Montelongo, of my staff, during this period of morning business.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk today about a matter that concerns all Americans: the presence of 35,000 young American men and women supporting the peace implementation force in Bosnia. Those troops were sent as a part of a NATO force to monitor the Bosnian peace agreement reached in Dayton, OH, last year. The Senate voted last December to support those troops, to provide them whatever they needed to do what they have been asked to do. But in the resolution submitted by the distinguished Republican leader, Senator Dole, and Senator McCain of Arizona, the Senate also said by a margin of 69 to 30 that it does not endorse the President's decision or the agreement reached in Dayton. The House of Representatives was even more harsh. The House voted 287 to 141 to condemn the Dayton agreement, while expressing support for the troops that have been sent on this mission. There is never a doubt that we will support fully American troops anywhere when they are performing a mission for this country. We will always be there for them. But, Mr. President, that does not mean we cannot question the policy, and this Senate and the House of Representatives did just that. Many wanted a vote to deny the President the ability to dispatch the troops by withholding the funds needed to pay for such a deployment. That was not the right thing to do, and it failed, as it should have. But, Mr. President, there are many good reasons why we disagreed with the decision to send American troops, even while we acknowledged the President's right to do it. First, we did not feel that the administration had made a compelling case that there was a national security interest in Bosnia to justify the deployment of tens of thousands of Americans, with the potential loss of American life. Mr. President, that is an essential element of any mission upon which we would embark with troops from our country. There must be a U.S. security interest for American lives to be at risk. But, more importantly, Mr. President, many of us voiced strong concern that the administration lacked a strategy for removing those troops once they had dug in and become part of the troubled landscape in the troubled country of Bosnia. What made many of us particularly skeptical was the administration's insistence that not only was there an exit strategy, but that the troops would be able to perform their complex mission of creating two nations from one, patrolling rugged mountain terrain, separating hostile belligerents, and ending a 500-year-old civil war in just 1 year. In fact, Mr. President, the Dole-McCain resolution that expressed support for the troops and acknowledged the President's authority to deploy them specifically noted that the Senate support was conditioned on the return of those troops to the United States within 1 year. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues what senior administration officials, including the President, assured us as we wrestled with the question of whether to support sending young Americans to Bosnia: On October 13, 1995, Robert Hunter, the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, told the Washington Post: This is going to be a limited-duration operation-- 12 months max. We're not going to take responsibility beyond that. On October 18, 1995, Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Committee on National Security and the House Committee on International Relations: The implementation force will complete its mission in a period not to exceed 12 months. We believe this will be more than adequate to accomplish the needed tasks that will allow the peace to become self-sustaining. We anticipate the IFOR will go in heavy and, if successful, would begin drawing down significantly far in advance of the final exit date. On October 18, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher told the House Committee on National Security: The force would have a limited mission and remain for a limited period of time, approximately 1 year. On November 28, 1995, President Clinton told the American people in a televised address: Our Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that this mission should--and will--take about 1 year. Mr. President, none of these knowledgeable officials left any room for doubt that the American mission in Bosnia would be limited in scope and duration. Specifically we were told, with no uncertainty, by everyone from the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, to the President of the United States, that our troops would be home within 1 year. Mr. President, we now learn this is not so. December 20, 1996, was the date set as the 1-year mark. That is the date that we have been focusing on since the beginning of this mission. We now learn that this administration has said to our allies that it intends to keep American troops in Bosnia at least until early 1997 and, according to the United States Commander of NATO forces, Gen. George Joulwan, maybe longer. Mr. President, the reason we got into the mission in Bosnia with NATO is because our President told our allies that we would be there with troops on the ground if there was a peace agreement. He told them that a long time ago. Once we make a commitment to our allies, of course, America must stand by the commitment. But now, Mr. President, we have the dilemma of two commitments. We have the President making a commitment to the American people, to Senator Dole, and to the troops that are there, that this would be a mission of 1 year. Everyone connected with this mission and with the leadership of this administration has repeatedly said 1 year. Now, Mr. President, we have the President making a different commitment to our allies, saying it is not going to be 1 year, but leaving it rather open-ended, into 1997. Mr. President, I want to highlight the difference between last year's message from the administration and an April 26, 1996, article in the Washington Post: ``A substantial number of American troops will remain in Bosnia for at least one month after the NATO-led mission ends in December. In a departure from the original plan, NATO commanders have decided to keep a significant force in Bosnia up to the final day of the mission or one year after the peace enforcement began,'' according to spokesman Kenneth Bacon. Earlier officials had said the pullout would begin at least a few months before the December 20 closing date in order to have nearly everyone out by then. Kenneth Bacon said the change in plans stemmed from a request by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is assisting preparations for Bosnia's elections, that NATO keep its full force there until after the elections. And, on April 30, 1996, the London Times reported: The Clinton administration has scrapped plans to withdraw its forces by the end of this year, and may maintain a substantial American presence in the Balkans for months after the deadline set by Congress. Only weeks ago the White House repeated its promise to Republicans that the troops would be back by December 20, the date agreed at Dayton for the end of the NATO mission in Bosnia. The Pentagon, however, under pressure from allies, international officials and its own Gen. George Joulwan, has admitted that it plans to keep a significant force in the region until the end of January, and maybe longer. Those are excerpts from quotes from newspapers. Mr. President, this stunning reversal of a critical policy that affects the lives of thousands of Americans has been made in such a casual way that we must ask if the administration's original commitment to withdraw in 1 year was a serious one. It was so casual, many people were not even aware that all of a sudden this commitment that was made to this Congress to a December 20 deadline by which our troops would be out of Bosnia has now been put off, really indefinitely, into 1997. The President is breaking his promise to the American people to the United States Congress, and, most importantly, to the troops in Bosnia. Moreover, Senator Dole had earlier argued forcefully and persuasively about arming the Bosnian Government and allowing the Bosnians to defend themselves so American troops would not need to be sent in the first place. This would have required lifting the U.N. arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia, for which our leader argued forcefully and persuasively, many times for over a year on this Senate floor. We voted to lift the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia so that the Bosnians could arm themselves and fight to save their country. Senator Dole led the fight to let the Moslems fight for their own freedom with help from legitimate sources so that it would be legal to help the Bosnian people defend themselves. No Member of the Senate has been more outspoken for years about the need for the United States to lead our allies in establishing a policy on Bosnia that would avoid the need for American troops than our leader, Bob Dole. But each time the Congress voted to urge the lifting of the arms embargo, the administration refused to respond. Now, Mr. President, in addition to the total abrogation of his word to the American people regarding when the troops would come home from Bosnia, we now learn that, in fact, while President Clinton was stopping us from lifting the arms embargo, he was allowing another country to provide arms in violation of the embargo. Was it a legitimate ally of the United States? No, Mr. President, it was not a legitimate ally of the United States that was allowed to violate the arms embargo that we in this Congress were trying to lift. No, it was an enemy of the United States, a terrorist country: Iran. Despite widespread rumors that Iranian arms were being shipped to Bosnia in violation of the arms embargo, an embargo this administration said we must support, and despite senior officials' strong denials, we learn we were deceived. Here we have the quotes, Mr. President. On April 15, 1995, a State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns, told the Los Angeles Times, ``We do not endorse violations of U.N. embargo resolutions whatever. We are not violating those resolutions. We don't endorse anyone else who is violating them.'' On June 16, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher said, ``I think you get some instant gratification from lifting the arms embargo. It is kind of an emotional luxury, but you have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of that?'' As late as March of this year, President Clinton himself told Congress that ``Iran continued to engage in activities that represent a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.'' Mr. President, despite all of those statements by senior administration officials and the President himself, we have learned in recent weeks that this was not the case at all. Just 3 weeks after the President's report to Congress on Iran, it has been reported that the administration had given its tacit approval of the shipment by Iran, one of America's most hostile adversaries, of weapons to the Bosnian Muslim government. We are justified in concluding, Mr. President, that the Clinton administration policy on Bosnia has been cynical. What many of us were advocating for so long--arming the Bosnians and allowing them to defend themselves with legitimate sales of arms by people who cared about the people--was, in fact, being opposed by the administration by day, but by night secret arms shipments from Iran were moving forward with the administration's blessing. Now, Mr. President, we are faced with similar cynicism regarding the deployment of American troops. Those troops are there precisely because the administration refused the suggestions by Senator Dole and others in the Senate that arming the Bosnians and letting them fight for themselves was the best way to go. Instead, the administration adopted a half-a-loaf policy of covert arms shipments from Iran, which was too little, too late, from the wrong source. As with arm sales to Bosnia, the American people have been deceived by the Clinton administration on the question of withdrawing American troops from Bosnia. Very simply, the President made a commitment to the American people, and he is now saying he will not honor that commitment. Mr. President, many in the Senate personally have opposed the administration's policy on Bosnia but honored their belief that the President had the authority to deploy troops without permission from Congress. Many people on this floor were torn during that debate because they so violently disagreed with the policy, but they did believe that the President had the right to do it and that the troops needed the support from Congress. Our Republican leader did so at great political risk. He supported the President's right to deploy troops, even though he thought it was wrong, but he did so only after getting a commitment from the President himself that those troops would have a mission of limited duration, limited scope, and they would be home within 1 year. That was the promise the President made to our leader. We now learn this will not happen. The administration's disregard of its commitments to Senator Dole, to the U.S. Congress, and to the American people amount to broken promises. Broken promises--there is no other way you can put it. Today, Mr. President, I am going to ask the President to look at this policy, which is a policy of broken promises, broken commitments, and contradictory commitments to the American people and to our allies. I am going to ask the President to do two things. First of all, to honor his commitment to the American people about troop withdrawals from Bosnia and to tell our allies this commitment was made. If, in fact, he decides that he cannot keep his commitment to the American people, I ask him to come back to Congress and talk to us about this, rather than just announcing very quietly that the troops are not going to be out by December 20 as promised. OK, President Clinton, if that is what you believe, come to Congress, talk to us about it, tell us why you think this is necessary, and let us have the option of working with you if you think you can make the case that we should be there beyond the date you promised in your commitment to the American people. That is what I ask the President to do today. Either keep his commitment to the American people, or come to Congress and discuss it. Mr. President, this is too important. We have a policy now in which the President is going to expand the use of our American troops beyond his commitment to Senator Dole and the American people and this U.S. Congress. We have the second revelation that arm shipments from Iran were being permitted by this administration at the same time that he was keeping us in Congress from lifting the arms embargo, which we voted repeatedly to do so that the Moslems in Bosnia could have arms from legitimate sources. Mr. President, I just ask you, what kind of policy is that? What must the people of the world think when our President would make commitments that he does not keep and when he would keep legitimate arms sources from the Bosnian people while allowing Iran, a hostile nation to our country, a country with a background and history of terrorism against innocent victims, to, in fact, violate the very arms embargo that he would not let us lift? Mr. President, this is not the way our country should be represented. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have been talking for the last 45 minutes about this administration's Bosnia policy. I would just sum it up with ``promises made, promises broken.'' This administration promised: On December 20, 1996, American troops would be gone from Bosnia. The second promise was that the arms embargo would not be lifted by the President, despite repeated attempts by Congress to do so. He refused to lift the arms embargo so that legitimate sources could provide arms for Bosnians to fight for themselves and their country and their freedom, despite the fact they begged us in this Congress to do so. I will never forget the poignant testimony of then-Vice President Ganic, who said, ``Let us die fighting for our freedom. We are dying anyway. Help us die for a cause.'' But at the same time the administration was saying we are not going to allow legitimate sources of arms for the Moslems. Instead, according to news reports, this administration did not object to arms sales from another source which was not legitimate, Iran. What is the result of that? The result is the Iranian mujaheddin is still in Sarajevo. Significant arming and training of the Moslems has yet to begin, and the excuse used is the Iranians are still in Sarajevo, despite the fact that in the Dayton accords they were to have been expelled from Bosnia. And the result is that the December 20 deadline is not going to be met. So we have an administration that would not come to the American people and state a policy that the American people could count on and that our allies and our enemies would know would stay in place. That is the result. The issue of arming and training the Moslems was a key part of the negotiations between Senator Dole and the President when we were trying to support the President's right to deploy even as we were disagreeing with the policy of deployment. I want to quote from Senator Dole's statement on the floor, again, November 30, 1995: In my view, the definition of success of this deployment must include a real end to the war that is only possible with the creation of a stable military balance which enables Bosnia to defend itself. Anything less simply exposes American forces to great risks in order to monitor a temporary interlude in the fighting. In other words, I guess if they all came home next year there might be a temporary interlude to get us through the November activities of 1996, and I am not certain it would last very long. Senator McCain, November 30, 1995, in his statement on the floor: Further, we must ensure that the goals of their mission are clear and achievable and will justify to some extent the risks we will incur. A clear exit strategy is not time-based but goal-based. We must ensure that the peace we enforce for 12 months has a realistic prospect to endure in the 13th, 14th, 15th month, and hopefully for years beyond that. Essential to that goal is a stable military balance. To achieve that balance, we will have to see to it that the Bosnian Federation has the means and the training to provide for its own defense from aggression after we have withdrawn. Therefore, I believe our authorization of this deployment must be conditioned on the concrete assurances that the United States will do whatever is necessary, although without using our soldiers who are part of the implementation force, to ensure that the Bosnians can defend themselves at the end of our mission. It was clear from Senator Dole and Senator McCain that it was a condition of this Senate that the Moslems be armed and trained, to create a stable military balance. The President wrote a letter confirming that. The President said: In the view of my military advisers, this requires minimizing the involvement of U.S. military personnel. But we expect that some individual military officers, for example, working in OSD, DSAA, or other agencies, will be involved in planning this effort. I agree that maintaining flexibility is important to the success of the effort to achieve a stable military balance within Bosnia. But I will do nothing that I believe will endanger the safety of American troops on the ground in Bosnia. I am sure you will agree this is my primary responsibility. That is giving the President his due. We agree with that. The President went on to say in his letter to Senator Dole and Senator McCain: I have given you my word that we will make certain that the Bosnian Federation will receive the assistance necessary to achieve an adequate military balance when IFOR leaves. I intend to keep it. That is what the President said in writing, December 12, 1995. He said the Americans would not be leading that effort, but that we would make sure that it would happen. ``I intend to keep my word.'' That is what he said. It was a condition. It was a condition for the approval of the President's right to deploy. We have a policy. We have a promise that is being broken. Either the President must keep his commitment to the American people that he will withdraw the troops by December 20, as he promised, or the President should come back to Congress and tell us why he is breaking his word. Why does he feel it is necessary to do this? I think he owes us that much. I think he owes the American people that much, and I think he owes our troops on the ground that much. Mr. President, I think it is time for this administration to understand the importance of keeping a promise, whether it is to the American people or to our allies or in general to the world, so that everyone knows that if we say we are going to do something, we will do it. But telling the American people we will withdraw troops by December 20 and telling our allies that we will leave troops on the ground into 1997 is not keeping the integrity of the American word, and I think we have the right to expect that from our President who is representing our country. This is a serious issue, and I hope the President will address it with integrity. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to talk about the tax burden on American families, especially because tomorrow is a red-letter day. Tomorrow we call national tax freedom day because tomorrow is the day that Americans stop working for the government and start working for their families. They will pay their taxes tomorrow, and all of the work they have done between January 1 and May 7 will be money that goes to the Federal, State, or local government. That is about 40 cents of every dollar earned by the American family. To put it another way, 3 hours of every working day goes to pay Federal, State, and local taxes. For most American families, making ends meet is getting harder and harder. After paying the basics--food, clothing, shelter, and taxes-- there is not much left. With ever-higher costs for education, for health insurance, and for retirement, most people have to work today. Many families would like to have mom or dad at home taking care of children, being home when they get home from school, but they cannot afford it because they have to do the extra things to get the extras beyond the taxes, the food, and the shelter. President Clinton has not eased the burden on working families. He raised taxes on seniors who depend on Social Security, on the self- employed, and on everyone who drives a car. His tax increases in 1993 and the resulting slower economic growth has cost Americans $227 a month in earnings. Last year, the Republican Congress tried to do something unusual for families. We tried to let them keep their own money. We believe that with lower taxes, Americans will earn more and they will most certainly keep the money they worked so hard to earn. The Republican Congress did the following things. We cut taxes for families with children by providing a $500-per-child tax credit to help parents raise their children and to offset the erosion of personal exemption from inflation. With this tax cut, 28 million families would pay fewer taxes. In my home State of Texas, 2 million families would pay fewer taxes under the bill we passed last year. We encouraged families in that bill to save for retirement, with my homemaker IRA proposal that I have been working for 2 years to get put forward, and other expanded individual retirement accounts. This Congress believes in the expansion of IRA's because that is people taking responsibility for their own retirement. It is our encouragement for them to do so. I want the homemakers of this country, Mr. President, to also have the ability for their retirement security because I believe the work done inside the home is every bit as important, and probably more so, than the work done outside the home. We should not penalize the hard- working family that has the ability for the mother to stay home and raise the children or the family, if that is the choice. Many people stretch to make that happen. The current Tax Code prevents married couples who rely on the one income from equitably providing for their retirement security by limiting homemaker deductions to $250. I think it is an outrage in this country. In fact, here is what the numbers show. If you work outside the home, you can set aside $2,000 a year. If you work inside the home, you set aside $250 a year. What this means is that under current law, a single-income married couple saving $2,250 a year for 30 years will have $188,000 for their retirement nest egg. With the bill we passed in Congress so that both spouses are able to set aside $2,000 a year, after 30 years they would have a nest egg of $335,000--$335,000, an increase in $150,000 for that working family. We also helped families by permitting tax-deferred savings in an IRA for education costs, for medical expenses, for first-time home purchases, and allowing penalty-free withdrawals during times of unemployment. That encourages savings, and it also helps people with emergency needs that they may have so that they know, if they do set aside for their retirement security but they need a little bit extra to educate their children, or if they become unemployed, or if they have a bigger medical expense than they can afford, or to buy their first home, they can take from that tax-free income that has built up without the huge penalty that discourages them from providing for their retirement. That is what we do in the bill that we passed. And we stopped penalizing young couples for getting married. We increased the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly. In other words, by the year 2005, under the bill we passed, the marriage penalty would be eliminated for couples that do not itemize their deductions. So we encouraged marriage and family rather than discouraging it by saying you are going to pay more if you get married than you would have to pay if you stay single. We cut capital gains taxes to encourage and reward investment. We wanted to create new businesses that create new jobs because we understand that the small businesses create the jobs in this country. It is not the giant corporations; it is the small businesses. A capital gains tax reduction helps them to be able to buy that piece of equipment or make that capital investment that will create the jobs that will get this economy going again. We cut estate taxes. We cut estate taxes so that years of hard work would not be wiped out in a generation so that a family that inherits a small family business or a small family farm will not have to sell these unreadily salable assets in order to pay taxes to the Government. Our tax cuts would reduce the tax burden on the people who actually pay taxes, Mr. President. More than three-quarters of the cuts in the first year in the bill we passed go to the middle class making under $75,000 a year. Who are those people? They are mothers and fathers who will get help raising their children with a $500 child tax credit. They are homemakers who will get the opportunity to contribute the maximum amount to an IRA for retirement security so that, if the homemaker loses her spouse, she will be able to have something that is her own, that will help her in her retirement years. They are married couples who will have the Tax Code's marriage penalty reduced. They are savers who are trying to buy a first home or pay for college for their kids. They are small business owners who have spent their lives building a business and want to pass it to their children without the huge taxes that sometimes require the sale of that small business by the heirs because they do not have the cash to pay taxes. They are investors who provide the capital to start businesses and create jobs. Our tax cuts helped all Americans. It would put more money in people's pockets, and it would increase jobs. Together with a balanced budget, it would lower interest rates and increase the standard of living for millions of Americans. So why do I keep talking about what the proposals would have done? I talk about it as if it did not happen because it did not happen. Congress passed everything I have talked about, and President Clinton vetoed it. That is why I am still talking about it. After running for President in 1992 on a middle-class tax cut, in 1993 President Clinton raised taxes on middle-class Americans while he claimed to only hit the rich. His taxes took what could have been a robust recovery and made it a weak, lackluster recovery. The economic reports came out last week, and they said the economy is getting better. I cannot remember a time when the economic reports were coming out saying things were better when people do not feel it. If you ask someone what their major concern is, they say job security. That is what they say. I do not care what the numbers are showing. It is what is in somebody's gut. They do not feel secure because they sense more taxes, more regulation, and more encroachment on their freedom and independence. They know things are not the way they used to be. So why, Mr. President, do people not feel so good when all the numbers say things are getting better? Big government. Big government. Big government is costing jobs for the American people. A report from the Rochester Institute of Technology estimates the direct cost of complying with Federal regulations to be about $668 billion in 1995. The bottom line is, Mr. President, tomorrow Americans are going to stop working full time to pay taxes. But we have not even talked about the hidden cost of regulations. They are going to work until July 3 to finish their obligation for all of the cost of government--regulations, as well as taxes. So, hopefully, on July 3, we can talk about the cost of government. But today we are just talking about the cost of taxes. I do not think that Americans in general object to taxes. In fact, the Reader's Digest poll taken recently shows that Americans believe they should pay taxes to live in this great country for what this country gives them back in services and freedom. But, Mr. President, they believe about 25 percent for a family of four is the maximum that government should take from them. They believe they should be able to keep 75 percent of what they work every day to earn. In fact, however, they are paying about 40 percent. We are working every day in Congress to bring that number down. If we could just get the President to work with us instead of just talking about it, we could make a difference for the American family. We could put government in the role that it should have, and we could give the people of this country their buying power back. They work for this country. They work for their families. We want them to keep what they earn. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill on behalf of the State of Texas and several major water supply authorities in Texas. It would transfer title for Bureau of Reclamation projects to local control. The purpose of this bill is to give local public agencies the right to make decisions regarding their own local water supplies. In doing so we will reduce the size of the Federal Government and save taxpayers significant amounts of money. Mr. President, I mentioned that I am introducing this legislation on behalf of the State of Texas. Our goal is to create a process to allow the State of Texas or its public agencies to purchase and accept title to the Bureau of Reclamation projects in the State. I submit this measure with the full support of the State of Texas. The State legislature recently passed a resolution, endorsed and signed by the Governor, accepting the responsibility for this process of title transfer. My interest in this effort goes back to the last Congress, when in June 1994, I introduced S. 2236 in an effort to correct a longstanding problem involving the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the city of Corpus Christi. That legislation directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter into and complete negotiations with the city of Corpus Christi concerning the Nueces River project, also known as Choke Canyon Reservoir. A hearing was held on the legislation, but the Congress ended before the Senate could act. This year, with title transfers being encouraged by both the administration and Congress, it makes sense for the Choke Canyon legislation to be included with the broader Bureau of Reclamation legislation as developed by the State of Texas. In 1976 the city of Corpus Christi and the Nueces River authority contracted with the Bureau for construction of Choke Canyon Reservoir on the Frio River near Three Rivers, TX. The primary purpose of the project was to provide additional water to the city of Corpus Christi through the year 2040. Since project completion in 1982, however, subsequent studies have determined that the current supply to the city from the project is less than contracted for, and that additional water supplies likely will be required by the year 2003. The local sponsors are proposing that the repayment agreements be renegotiated to reflect the diminished water supply derived from the project, as well as the unanticipated expenses that the local sponsors have incurred to obtain additional water to compensate for the projected shortfall in the Choke Canyon-Lake Corpus Christi system. I have incorporated the Choke Canyon project into this legislation for two reasons: First, to pursue the intent of the original contract--because the city still is not getting the water it was promised; Second and most important, I have introduced this legislation because the area is facing a very real water shortage. Due to the lower than anticipated yield from the Choke Canyon Reservoir, projections show the 12-county region it serves will be short of water within 10 years. This will affect nearly 400,000 people and numerous major industries. The discount and prepayment conditions which the Corpus Christi is asking be negotiated are extremely important to the city's ability to ensure adequate future water supplies at affordable prices. Congressman Solomon Ortiz has introduced similar legislation on the House side. Also included in this legislation is a project near Amarillo in the congressional district of Congressman Mac Thornberry: the Canadian River project. Construction of the Canadian River project by the BOR was authorized by Public Law 898 on December 29, 1950, to provide a source of municipal and industrial water to member cities of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority in the Texas Panhandle and South Plains. The cities served include Amarillo, Borger, Brownfield, Lamesa, Levelland, Lubbock, O'Donnell, Pampa, Plainview, Slaton, and Tahoka. These currently comprise a combined population of nearly 500,000 persons. The major project facilities include Sanford Dam on the Canadian River 35 miles northeast of Amarillo, Lake Meredith which is formed by the dam, and a 322-mile aqueduct system that transports water from the lake to the member cities. The project was built in the 1960's and has supplied water to the cities continuously since 1968. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the entire complex of municipal water supply facilities, including Sanford Dam, was transferred to the authority on July 1, 1968. The project authorization--section 2. (c)(3)--provides that title to the aqueduct shall pass to the project sponsor upon payment of all obligations arising from the legislation and contract. Total project cost was about $83.8 million, of which about $76.9 million is reimbursable to the United States by the Authority. Non- reimbursable components paid for flood control and fish and wildlife benefits. Including interest during construction, the original reimbursable obligation was $83.7 million, repayable with interest at the rate of 2.632 percent over a term of 50 years. Twenty-six annual payments have been made. Under this bill the outstanding balance would be purchased by the project sponsor, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Title to the aqueduct would be transferred to the Authority. Title to the dam will not be transferred because of its flood-control functions, which need to remain under the supervision of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and title to the land around the reservoir to remain with the National Park Service because it is designated a National Recreation Area. Purchase of the debt would be accomplished by payment of the net present value of the cash stream which would be required to repay the current indebtedness, discounted at U.S. Treasury rates on the date of purchase contract execution, after adjustment to reflect unrealized project benefits and outstanding credits. advantages for federal interests Recent changes in the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation have reduced emphasis on water resource development projects. Now, the BOR's activities are regulatory in nature, for the most part, as they relate to existing projects. Transfer of Federal ownership would eliminate the need for BOR participation in the oversight of operation and maintenance, and relieve the Federal Government of liability related to operation of transferred facilities. The cash payment to the Government would make funds available to support new projects that create, jobs or which cannot be funded from present budget sources. Currently, BOR is considering the prospect of title transfer for selected projects, including the aqueduct system of the Canadian River Project. The debt purchase proposal in this legislation is similar to the process which would result from those activities, without extended negotiations and added administrative costs. advantages for local sponsors Because of the water supply shortfall the Canadian River Project the Authority and its member cities are forced to seek replacement water. The savings that would accrue from purchasing the outstanding debt would allow the Authority and its member cities to finance needed replacement water without undue economic hardship. Replacement supplies capable of providing the lost annual supply of 30,000 acre-feet or more are being sought at a probable cost of $76.5 million. That additional expenditure will be necessary even if the discounted debt purchase is accomplished. Also included in the legislation is the Palmetto Bend project authorized by Congress in 1968. The primary purpose of Palmetto Bend is to provide municipal and industrial water to a broad area along the Texas gulf coast. The project was completed by the BOR in 1985 and includes, as its main feature, Lake Texana. Lake Texana is located near the gulf coast midway between Houston and Corpus Christi. It is operated by the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority. In essence, the reservoir's entire yield has been committed, including more than 42,000 acre-feet/year for municipal use in the cities of Corpus Christi and Point Comfort, and more than 32,000 acre-feet/year for industrial use largely in the regional petro-chemical-plastics industry. The city of Corpus Christi provides water service to a 10- county area. Two of the industries to which Lake Texana supplies water provide more than 3,000 jobs to the local region. Currently, the authority and the Texas Water Development Board are obligated for repayment to the Federal Government of about $70.7 million, at an interest rate of 3.502 percent over a term of 50 years. The board has made 10 annual payments; the authority is scheduled to begin payment in 1996. Under this bill, the outstanding balance of debt would be prepaid, and the project purchased by the authority and board as State project sponsors. Purchase would be accomplished by payment of the net present value of the cash stream required to repay the current contractual debt, discounted at U.S. Treasury rates on the date of purchase, after adjustment to reflect unrealized project benefits and outstanding credits. Title to the Federal portion of the project would be transferred to the State sponsors, the authority, and the board. Two clear benefits of the transfer of title to the State sponsors are avoidance of the cost of Federal oversight of the project and the release from liability of the Federal Government. Transfer of this obligation should result in a reduction in the size of the Federal bureaucracy required to support the projects. Quantified advantages include an immediate infusion of approximately $34 million to the Federal Treasury, annual savings of $250,000 for project operation and upkeep expenses and an annual savings of about $12,000 by avoiding payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to Jackson County. Annual debt service payments for Lake Texana will be reduced by approximately $1 million per year. Currently this cost is borne by the water users, so municipal and industrial water costs would be reduced. It is estimated also that up to $50,000 in costs due to BOR reporting mandates and management assistance would be avoided. More importantly, however, state sponsors will be able to manage their projects to achieve the maximum benefits without the delay, expense and uncertainty which is incurred currently by BOR management oversight. This proposal is a mutually advantageous proposition that will provide economic benefits to both Federal and State interests, while reducing duplicative and unnecessary Government programs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues' strong support for this legislation. It is responsible. It addresses serious local interests. It fulfills the expressed goals of both the 104th Congress and the administration, and it makes sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that recent testimony by a representative of the Texas Water Development Board before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources Subcommittee supporting this legislation be entered into the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill on behalf of the State of Texas and several major water supply authorities in Texas. It would transfer title for Bureau of Reclamation projects to local control. The purpose of this bill is to give local public agencies the right to make decisions regarding their own local water supplies. In doing so we will reduce the size of the Federal Government and save taxpayers significant amounts of money. Mr. President, I mentioned that I am introducing this legislation on behalf of the State of Texas. Our goal is to create a process to allow the State of Texas or its public agencies to purchase and accept title to the Bureau of Reclamation projects in the State. I submit this measure with the full support of the State of Texas. The State legislature recently passed a resolution, endorsed and signed by the Governor, accepting the responsibility for this process of title transfer. My interest in this effort goes back to the last Congress, when in June 1994, I introduced S. 2236 in an effort to correct a longstanding problem involving the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the city of Corpus Christi. That legislation directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter into and complete negotiations with the city of Corpus Christi concerning the Nueces River project, also known as Choke Canyon Reservoir. A hearing was held on the legislation, but the Congress ended before the Senate could act. This year, with title transfers being encouraged by both the administration and Congress, it makes sense for the Choke Canyon legislation to be included with the broader Bureau of Reclamation legislation as developed by the State of Texas. In 1976 the city of Corpus Christi and the Nueces River authority contracted with the Bureau for construction of Choke Canyon Reservoir on the Frio River near Three Rivers, TX. The primary purpose of the project was to provide additional water to the city of Corpus Christi through the year 2040. Since project completion in 1982, however, subsequent studies have determined that the current supply to the city from the project is less than contracted for, and that additional water supplies likely will be required by the year 2003. The local sponsors are proposing that the repayment agreements be renegotiated to reflect the diminished water supply derived from the project, as well as the unanticipated expenses that the local sponsors have incurred to obtain additional water to compensate for the projected shortfall in the Choke Canyon-Lake Corpus Christi system. I have incorporated the Choke Canyon project into this legislation for two reasons: First, to pursue the intent of the original contract--because the city still is not getting the water it was promised; Second and most important, I have introduced this legislation because the area is facing a very real water shortage. Due to the lower than anticipated yield from the Choke Canyon Reservoir, projections show the 12-county region it serves will be short of water within 10 years. This will affect nearly 400,000 people and numerous major industries. The discount and prepayment conditions which the Corpus Christi is asking be negotiated are extremely important to the city's ability to ensure adequate future water supplies at affordable prices. Congressman Solomon Ortiz has introduced similar legislation on the House side. Also included in this legislation is a project near Amarillo in the congressional district of Congressman Mac Thornberry: the Canadian River project. Construction of the Canadian River project by the BOR was authorized by Public Law 898 on December 29, 1950, to provide a source of municipal and industrial water to member cities of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority in the Texas Panhandle and South Plains. The cities served include Amarillo, Borger, Brownfield, Lamesa, Levelland, Lubbock, O'Donnell, Pampa, Plainview, Slaton, and Tahoka. These currently comprise a combined population of nearly 500,000 persons. The major project facilities include Sanford Dam on the Canadian River 35 miles northeast of Amarillo, Lake Meredith which is formed by the dam, and a 322-mile aqueduct system that transports water from the lake to the member cities. The project was built in the 1960's and has supplied water to the cities continuously since 1968. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the entire complex of municipal water supply facilities, including Sanford Dam, was transferred to the authority on July 1, 1968. The project authorization--section 2. (c)(3)--provides that title to the aqueduct shall pass to the project sponsor upon payment of all obligations arising from the legislation and contract. Total project cost was about $83.8 million, of which about $76.9 million is reimbursable to the United States by the Authority. Non- reimbursable components paid for flood control and fish and wildlife benefits. Including interest during construction, the original reimbursable obligation was $83.7 million, repayable with interest at the rate of 2.632 percent over a term of 50 years. Twenty-six annual payments have been made. Under this bill the outstanding balance would be purchased by the project sponsor, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Title to the aqueduct would be transferred to the Authority. Title to the dam will not be transferred because of its flood-control functions, which need to remain under the supervision of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and title to the land around the reservoir to remain with the National Park Service because it is designated a National Recreation Area. Purchase of the debt would be accomplished by payment of the net present value of the cash stream which would be required to repay the current indebtedness, discounted at U.S. Treasury rates on the date of purchase contract execution, after adjustment to reflect unrealized project benefits and outstanding credits. advantages for federal interests Recent changes in the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation have reduced emphasis on water resource development projects. Now, the BOR's activities are regulatory in nature, for the most part, as they relate to existing projects. Transfer of Federal ownership would eliminate the need for BOR participation in the oversight of operation and maintenance, and relieve the Federal Government of liability related to operation of transferred facilities. The cash payment to the Government would make funds available to support new projects that create, jobs or which cannot be funded from present budget sources. Currently, BOR is considering the prospect of title transfer for selected projects, including the aqueduct system of the Canadian River Project. The debt purchase proposal in this legislation is similar to the process which would result from those activities, without extended negotiations and added administrative costs. advantages for local sponsors Because of the water supply shortfall the Canadian River Project the Authority and its member cities are forced to seek replacement water. The savings that would accrue from purchasing the outstanding debt would allow the Authority and its member cities to finance needed replacement water without undue economic hardship. Replacement supplies capable of providing the lost annual supply of 30,000 acre-feet or more are being sought at a probable cost of $76.5 million. That additional expenditure will be necessary even if the discounted debt purchase is accomplished. Also included in the legislation is the Palmetto Bend project authorized by Congress in 1968. The primary purpose of Palmetto Bend is to provide municipal and industrial water to a broad area along the Texas gulf coast. The project was completed by the BOR in 1985 and includes, as its main feature, Lake Texana. Lake Texana is located near the gulf coast midway between Houston and Corpus Christi. It is operated by the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority. In essence, the reservoir's entire yield has been committed, including more than 42,000 acre-feet/year for municipal use in the cities of Corpus Christi and Point Comfort, and more than 32,000 acre-feet/year for industrial use largely in the regional petro-chemical-plastics industry. The city of Corpus Christi provides water service to a 10- county area. Two of the industries to which Lake Texana supplies water provide more than 3,000 jobs to the local region. Currently, the authority and the Texas Water Development Board are obligated for repayment to the Federal Government of about $70.7 million, at an interest rate of 3.502 percent over a term of 50 years. The board has made 10 annual payments; the authority is scheduled to begin payment in 1996. Under this bill, the outstanding balance of debt would be prepaid, and the project purchased by the authority and board as State project sponsors. Purchase would be accomplished by payment of the net present value of the cash stream required to repay the current contractual debt, discounted at U.S. Treasury rates on the date of purchase, after adjustment to reflect unrealized project benefits and outstanding credits. Title to the Federal portion of the project would be transferred to the State sponsors, the authority, and the board. Two clear benefits of the transfer of title to the State sponsors are avoidance of the cost of Federal oversight of the project and the release from liability of the Federal Government. Transfer of this obligation should result in a reduction in the size of the Federal bureaucracy required to support the projects. Quantified advantages include an immediate infusion of approximately $34 million to the Federal Treasury, annual savings of $250,000 for project operation and upkeep expenses and an annual savings of about $12,000 by avoiding payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to Jackson County. Annual debt service payments for Lake Texana will be reduced by approximately $1 million per year. Currently this cost is borne by the water users, so municipal and industrial water costs would be reduced. It is estimated also that up to $50,000 in costs due to BOR reporting mandates and management assistance would be avoided. More importantly, however, state sponsors will be able to manage their projects to achieve the maximum benefits without the delay, expense and uncertainty which is incurred currently by BOR management oversight. This proposal is a mutually advantageous proposition that will provide economic benefits to both Federal and State interests, while reducing duplicative and unnecessary Government programs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues' strong support for this legislation. It is responsible. It addresses serious local interests. It fulfills the expressed goals of both the 104th Congress and the administration, and it makes sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that recent testimony by a representative of the Texas Water Development Board before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources Subcommittee supporting this legislation be entered into the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled vote now occur at 2:45 today under the earlier conditions, and time between now and then be equally divided.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment that Senator Kyl and I will introduce on the bill that is pending before us. I appreciate the argument of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts earlier on the minimum wage, and, in fact, I look forward to debating the minimum wage with the Senator from Massachusetts, because I have great concerns about the impact that this could have on our small business people of this country. But this is not the time to bring up the minimum wage issue. We have been trying for years to make a better law on illegal immigration. This is of great concern to my State and all of the States that are absorbing so many illegal immigrants in our country, because our laws do not do enough to stop illegal immigration. The States that have the illegal immigrant problems are absorbing so much of the costs of these illegal immigrants that it is time for the Federal Government to step up to the line and take its responsibility for closing our borders to illegal immigrants. That is separate from the legal immigrants who have done so much to build our country, and I am very pleased we separated those two in the bill before us today, so that today we are talking about the problem of illegal immigration. The way we treat illegal immigrants reminds me of the distracted mother who says, ``I said maybe, and that's final,'' because when someone does violate our illegal immigration laws, in fact, there is hardly any penalty. They can be deported on Monday, and on Tuesday apply for legal status. That is hardly a clear message from America about our illegal immigrant laws and status. So, what we are trying to do with our amendment is to say very clearly, if you violate the laws of America, if you come into our country without taking the proper legal steps, or if you are in our country legally and overstay a visa by as much as a year, you will be barred from legal entry into our country for 10 years. We have had laws that have penalized employers on the books for several years now. If we are going to say to employers we will penalize you if you hire an illegal immigrant, I think we should also try something else. We should make it a penalty for the person who is violating the law and coming into our country as well. Let us try a new approach. Let us make there be a penalty if you break this country's laws. If you are a citizen of our country and you break the laws, there is a penalty. If you are not a citizen of our country and you break our laws, there should be a penalty. A 10-year ban on legal entry into our country is a penalty. It says to the illegal immigrant: Our laws are serious. We care about the legal status of aliens in our country. If they are legal, we welcome them. If they are illegal, they are breaking our laws. They may be taking jobs from our own people. We need to control our borders. We must have control of our borders. That way, of course, we can make sure that we are using the assets of our taxpayers to help the people who are legal in our country. This addresses a serious problem for border States. In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service returned 1.1 million illegal aliens from the United States--1.1 million illegal aliens from the United States. Of those, 350,000 were from Texas. In California, in San Diego alone, 490,000 illegals were returned. Many of those illegal aliens are caught within 45 days more than once. In fact, in San Diego, one in five apprehended in a 45-day period had been apprehended once before. Mr. President, that just shows you that there is not a penalty that people recognize for coming into our country illegally. So now we want to change the accountability to the person who is breaking our laws. If a person comes into our country and consciously violates our laws, there must be a penalty for that. The amendment that Senator Kyl and I are offering will say there is an accountability. If you decide that you are going to break the laws of this country, there will be a penalty and you will have to acknowledge that. Mr. President, this is only fair. If we do not do something to say that the borders of our country are inviolate, we are going to continue to have problems, especially on the border States where we have infrastructure costs that are sapping our taxpayers of their strength. This is a Federal issue, and the Federal Government must step up to the line. The amendment that we have before us today will add one more option for us to have to make sure that people know it is a serious violation of our laws to come into our country illegally. If we are going to penalize employers, we should penalize the person who is perpetrating the crime. So, Mr. President, I hope that we can clear up the signal that we are sending. We welcome legal immigrants into our country; they have made a huge contribution to our country. But we do not welcome illegal immigrants into our country, and we must stop it. That is what this bill will do. I want to commend Senator Simpson for the work he has done through the years on this issue and Senator Kennedy, working with him, and Senator Kyl, one of our new Members who is from a border State who uniquely understands, as I do, what this costs the taxpayers of a border State. They are providing great leadership on this issue. We have a chance to do something that puts teeth into the laws of this country. I do not want us to get sidetracked on issues that are not relevant to the issue of illegal immigration. It is too important to the economy of our country and the taxpayers of our country and to the law-abiding citizens of our country. I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, once again, I thank the Senator from Oregon for completing a very tough job, and I commend him for the job that he has done. Mr. President, I want to talk about my vote, because I voted against this bill on a principle that I think is very important, and I would like to step back and talk about the background. Over the past 20 years, we have greatly improved the environment in the United States. As a Nation, we have spent over a trillion dollars to clean our air, water, and land. We have cleaner air and water than we have had for the past 40 years in our country. Now we are at a crossroads in environmental policy. We can preserve all of the environmental gains that we have made and still move forward to assure our children a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment. But we will not be able to move forward if we continue to rely on the old, top-down command and control solutions from Washington, DC. Instead of orders from Washington, DC, we need to allow communities and businesses to find the best way to meet our national environmental standards themselves. The administration and its leaders on Capitol Hill have used every opportunity to demagog and politicize environmental policy in order to protect the status quo and appease extremist environmental ideologs. They seek to take every opportunity to accuse Republicans of harming the environment, as if we had a separate supply of water and air to breathe. I was accused by one of these groups of being supported by antienvironmental groups. So I asked the question, ``What groups are you referring to as antienvironment?'' And they said, ``Realtors, home builders, electrical co-ops, farm bureaus.'' Mr. President, I am proud to be associated with those groups that give to our economy and create the jobs in our country. They are not antienvironmental. And neither are any of us in this body. The rhetoric is misleading and it is even false in some cases. They claimed that the Senate bill that we passed originally lowered clean air standards. It did not. They claimed that the Senate bill would have increased industrial pollution. It did not. It provided increases in clean water and drinking water programs. They claimed the Senate bill would have ignored toxic waste sites. It did not. In fact, it is time for this administration to stop rhetoric like that and stop dragging its heels on Superfund cleanups, to put aside the red tape and get things done that actually clean our water and air. So what happened tonight? In order to prevent the President from shutting down the Government again, to protect the Washington bureaucrats' power, today's bill cedes to the President too much authority that is our authority to write laws and then to make sure that the regulators are doing what we intended for them to do. I think that is a mistake. Last year this Congress recognized that reform of the Endangered Species Act is long overdue. It called a timeout on new listings and new designations of critical habitat. Congress recognizes that we must protect the environment at the least possible cost to American workers and families. The conference report that was before us today permits President Clinton to suspend the moratorium on new listings at will. The Endangered Species Act has been good. It has focused us on the need to preserve plants and animals. There have been some notable successes. But the heavyhanded means that are being employed now to preserve hundreds of subspecies of bait fish and rats are increasingly counterproductive. The moratorium on listings have kept American workers from losing their jobs. It has stopped narrow-minded interest groups from hijacking the Endangered Species Act and hurting our economy. Timber growers that have worked for years to grow trees to save for their retirement or for their children's education have had to cut trees on the basis of a rumor that their land might be listed as an endangered species habitat. Why? In order to avoid having Washington bureaucrats tell these people that they cannot cut down a tree after they have cultivated it for decades. In central Texas, my home State, the Fish and Wildlife Service limited cutting of cedars to protect habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler. The warbler uses cedar bark to make its nest. Cedars are a weed. They are a weed. Our homeowners and land owners clear the land. If they are not cleared, in fact it hurts health. It also absorbs water that should be going into the Edwards Aquifer which is a water supply to the city of San Antonio and ranches and farms all over the area. If we cannot rely on the support and cooperation of the people who live with the animals that we want to save, I do not think the animals are going to be saved. And that is not in anyone's interest nor is it in the interest of saving the animals. That is why I have made such a high priority of reforming the Endangered Species Act. We need to forge a new consensus about saving endangered species. We need to make private property owners stakeholders, not adversaries in the process. That is why I proposed and the President signed into law the moratorium on new listings. The President says we must go back to the old law that is obsolete that everyone admits does not work. Even the people who are trying to keep it admit it does not work. It puts the power back in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The President should not be able to change what has passed this body twice in the last year with the stroke of a pen and take away the savings, the property, and even the jobs of hard-working Americans. We can set national environmental standards. We can put Federal resources behind environmental cleanup and enforcement. But it must be done in a sensible way. It must take human needs into account. Before we list species again we must put common sense into the law, put control back in the hands of the people. Only then will we be able to assure a healthier, safer environment for all Americans. Mr. President, there is some good in the bill that passed tonight. There are some lower spending levels. That was a step in the right direction in many ways. But the President pushed too far. Economic damage could occur. Jobs could be lost. If the Fish and Wildlife Service acts without considering good science, local concerns, and water supplies for people, there could be untold damage to the people of our country. I feel that I must oppose the compromise that passed tonight on this principle and say to the President, Mr. President, you must assume full responsibility for your administration's actions. If people and communities are not considered in this process, when farmers cannot farm, and water sources for cities are shut down, and when working people lose their jobs, Mr. President, you have pushed too far, and this politicization of the environment must stop. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oregon, Mr. President. I thank him very much. I think that clarification should be a guide for the President if he decides to override what the Senate has passed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman of the committee. There is a high price for leadership, and he certainly has provided the leadership in this body in a very difficult circumstance. I appreciate the courtesies that he has given to me because it has been a very tough vote. I feel very strongly on principle, and I will talk about that later, but I appreciate the integrity of the process and of the Senator from the State of Oregon. Mr. President, today the Senate passed H.R. 3019, the omnibus appropriations bill for 1996. Included in that bill as part of the appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior was a provision that has twice passed the Senate. It puts a moratorium on the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitat in order to permit the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act to go forward without the controversy of new listings and seeks to prevent further unnecessary harm to workers and property owners in the meantime. As reported by the conference committee, the moratorium was revised to include language permitting the moratorium to be suspended if the President determines that it is in the public interest in the protection of naturally or locally affected interests. I certainly agree that it is in the national and local interest to have sound environmental management. But I also believe that it is in the national and local interest to protect agricultural, ranching and timber jobs. We must have the food, clothing, and shelter that our farmers, ranchers and lumberjacks provide. It is also in the national and local interest to protect human access to water for health, safety and economic reasons. We cannot have the people's access to water threatened, as it has been in my State, by environmental laws that were enacted before their effect on the water supply was fully understood. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oregon, is it his intention and understanding that in using this provision, the President shall take into account jobs and people in addition to species?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Senator Thompson and Senator Ashcroft for taking the lead on this very important measure. Mr. President, our Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution that was built around balance. The checks and balances have made this Constitution endure for over 200 years. Part of the balance was that the Federal Government would be limited, that Federal Government would have very narrow responsibilities. It would be strong in its responsibilities, but nevertheless the social programs, the education, the time-consuming, more detailed areas of responsibility were clearly left to the States and to the people. So, Mr. President, our Founding Fathers intended for us to have a small Federal Government, made by citizen legislators, citizen legislators who would come to Washington to do the business of the Federal Government, which was limited, and go home and have professions. The people that wrote the Constitution were not full-time writers of the Constitution. The Congresses in the early days were not full-time Congresses. They were made up of citizens who had vocations, who understood what the problems of the States were, who came together on a limited basis to correct those problems. Mr. President, we have gotten out of kilter. The balance is no longer there because we have a full-time Congress, because we have people who have been here as a career for 20, 25, 30 years, some of whom are wonderful people. This is not a personal attack in any way on those people. They are good people. I think every Member of this Congress is sincere about what he or she is trying to do. But, nevertheless, because it is career politicians who are making the laws, our Government has grown and grown, and the Federal Government is out of control. Part of the reason is because we have a Congress that is out of touch with the real world, with the small businessperson that is trying to make it, trying to make ends meet with all of the regulations and the taxes and the litigation that is complicating our lives today. To bring back the balance, Mr. President, we need term limits because we need citizen legislators. We need small businesspeople who have lived with the regulations and the taxes that keep them from growing and creating the new jobs that will really make this economy strong. We need the working people of this country who know what it is like to go into a workplace and not be sure if they can walk inside the line on the factory floor or outside the line on the factory floor. Mr. President, we need citizen legislators because we need people who have experienced how hard it is to deal with the morass of Federal regulations, with the fines that come from minor infractions. Sometimes our small businesspeople think that Government does not want them to succeed. They forget, people in Government, that the American dream is that you can work hard and do better. The Federal Government should not be there to tamp you down. It should be there to build you up, to let more people have access to the American dream. If we can have term limitations, Mr. President, we can get the balance back in our Government structure because we will have people who have come from the real world and who are going back to the real world. Mr. President, our seniority system is a waiting game. The average number of years of a Senate committee chairman is about 22; a House committee chairman is about 25. So when we talk about all this free access that the voters have to vote somebody out of office, we are talking about giving up this seniority system, and it does become a dilemma because even if someone is out of touch, they are powerful. They are able to produce for their districts. So it is a dilemma for someone going in the voting booth to say, ``I'm going to oust someone who has been there 25 years, who is high in the seniority system, who is a committee chairman,'' or whatever. It is very difficult. It happens when there is a real movement like happened in 1994. The people did rise above that seniority system. But it is very rare, Mr. President. My distinguished colleague from West Virginia, who I admire greatly, talked about Winston Churchill serving in Parliament for 50 years. Yes, but back then and even to an extent now, Parliament was part time, except in the British system, of course. Members of Parliament are also the Cabinet officers, if they are in the front bench, but if they are back benchers, they do something else. Winston Churchill at the time he was a back bencher wrote, gave speeches. That was his vocation. Cicero, the Roman Senator, also wrote a little bit. I think many of us remember many of the things that he wrote. We have had citizen legislators in our best Senates and Congresses through the ages. That is because it works best when the people who are trying to make this country what we want it to be are the people who decide to give a little time for public service and then go back out and live in the real world of business and commerce, working people that understand best what it takes to get this country going in the right direction. They are the people that have the values. They are the Sunday school teachers. They are the people that go to PTA meetings, that work with their children in their schools. They give back to their communities. Those are the kind of people that we want in Congress. That is why we are trying to have term limitations, so that we can bring back the concept of a citizen legislator; so that we can meet a few months every year, go home and be in a real vocation, so that we will not have new laws with new regulations and new things that bureaucrats can dream up to do to tamp down the spirit of entrepreneurship that built this country. That is why we are fighting so hard today. It is why we have to have a constitutional amendment, because we cannot do it by State law, because States have tried and the Supreme Court said last year that will not work. You have to amend the Constitution. This was not Senator Thompson's first choice. He would love to have gotten 51 votes because we could pass it with 51 votes, but we will probably not be able to have the two-thirds vote required to amend the Constitution. That is why it is so important for the people of this country to understand that the fight is going to continue. We will try to get cloture today. If we do not get cloture, I have a bill I have introduced that I will try to put on some other measure coming down. It is going to be a national referendum on this issue. Let the people speak. Let the Congress hear. Let people ask their Member of Congress that is running for reelection, or their Senator that is running for reelection how they feel on this issue, so that they get committed. We are going to have to keep working at it. I hope I can get a national referendum, if we do not get cloture today, to do what we ought to do. That is, amend the Constitution. This is a basic tenet of the balance of powers in our Government. A citizen legislator is a basic part of the balance that is necessary to keep the Federal Government from getting so big and overblown that they start encroaching on States rights. The government that is closest to the people at the State level--this is part of the balance. It is part of reform that is necessary to get this country back on track, so that more people can realize the American dream, so that the immigrants who come to our country, because it is the beacon of opportunity anywhere in the world, they come to this country for the American dream, which is if you work hard and you start a small business you can keep the fruits of your labor. In America, success that is gotten from someone by the sweat of their brow or by their hands or by their brains-- working, writing--we want those people to succeed. We do not look down on success. We want everyone to have that opportunity. If we are going to keep the American dream, Mr. President, it is going to be with people who are understanding that the Federal Government is limited and those people are going to be citizen legislators, not career politicians. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Thompson and Senator Ashcroft for bringing this to us. This is the first step in a very long march, Mr. President. This is not going to end today, but we are going to be there with the American people to fight for what we know will bring back the values and the dreams and the opportunity of this country through citizen legislators that will work with us to do it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Mr. President, today all Americans will stop and remember the terrible tragedy that occurred 1 year ago today in Oklahoma City. We extend, all of us in the U.S. Congress and all over America, our prayers and our thoughts to those who lost family and friends in that senseless tragedy. Last week, Congress passed laws to make it harder for criminals to inflict the kind of terror we saw in Oklahoma City and at the New York World Trade Center before that. This antiterrorist law is just one small step toward taking back our cities, our towns, and our communities. Taking them back from dangerous and predator criminals who have made us afraid to walk the streets at night, who have forced us to put bars on our windows, and who have caused us to place metal detectors in our Federal buildings and in some public schools in our country. Mr. President, one thing the law we just passed does is make it harder for prison inmates to file years and years of appeals that tie up our courts for years, dulling the sword of justice. Often, to many Americans, it seems as if our court system cares more about criminals' rights than the rights of law-abiding citizens. But there is more the American people expect of us. They have had enough of liberal judges who think it is their responsibility to turn dangerous criminals out to society, when society would like to keep them behind bars. They are tired of a revolving-door justice system. According to a recent study by the Bureau of Justice statistics, an incredible 94 percent of State prisoners are violent criminals or repeat offenders. I introduced legislation this year that is on its way to the President. It will permit the States to take back control of their prison systems away from Federal judges who are out of touch with the everyday concerns of working, law-abiding families. In my own State, one Federal judge has taken it upon himself to say that prison cells in the State prisons are too small and there is not enough recreation space. What is his remedy? His remedy is to release prisoners early. As a result, in Texas, violent criminals serve 6 months of every year of their sentences. Mr. President, what we need is judges who understand it is not cruel and unusual punishment for a criminal who has a victim to endure a hot, uncomfortable jail cell without color TV, without his or her favorite foods, without indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. Mr. President, Americans are ready for a prison system that does not more for prisoners, but less for prisoners and more for law-abiding citizens. No prisoner should be eligible for early release or parole who is not drug free, able to read, and trained in a skill that will enable that person to get a job outside. If you cannot function in society outside, you should remain inside the prison if you have not served your time. We should say very clearly to those who commit crimes and end up behind bars, we want you to learn to cooperate with society. We want to give you a chance. You are locked up because you did not cooperate with society and you have a victim. The Speaker of the House said, ``We ought to require prisoners to work 48 hours a week and study 12 hours a week. If we kept them busy 60 hours a week doing something positive, I think they would be different people when they go out into the word. Recidivism would fall and victims would be spared.'' Mr. President, what is the first and foremost responsibility of Government? The first and foremost responsibility is to provide law- abiding citizens the conditions to live freely. But for too long, the Federal Government and Federal judges have interfered with the responsibility of States to meet their first responsibility to their citizens. Texans and Americans all over this country have had enough. They are tired of politicians and judges that blame society for crime. They blame criminals for crime. They would like for Government to do the same thing. There were 10 million violent crimes in America in 1993. Those were the ones that were reported. Mr. President, 100,000 criminals were sent to prison to serve time for violent crimes. What has happened to a criminal justice system that imprisons 1 person in 100 for every violent crime committed in this country? Mr. President, we can put barricades in front of the White House, but too many Americans do not have that luxury. Ordinary citizens are faced each day with the threat of violent crime. They have had enough. They want their streets back. They want their communities back. Mr. President, I want to end with a recollection that I had 1 year ago today. It was from a victim of the Oklahoma tragedy. I will never forget watching television, as so many of us in this country did, and I saw this man, bandaged, his eyes swollen shut, you could not see anything else on his face, and a news reporter put a camera and a microphone in front of this victim. He was a man who had gotten up and gone to work that day. His life had blown up in front of him in just a few short minutes. The reporter said, ``How do you feel?'' This man, through his bandages and his swollen eyes, said, ``I feel like I live in the greatest country on Earth, and I'm going to have to work harder to make it better.'' Mr. President, that victim's spirit will do more to return this country to its bearing than any laws that Congress could pass. Our Nation's leaders must strive to do what is legally possible to give our citizens a society in which they can go to work and raise their families freely. But, Mr. President, even more important, our leaders should never forget the victims' spirit from Oklahoma City and all the people who came to help after that tragedy in the great spirit of this country. We must remember that spirit is what will rebuild this country, that is the spirit on which this country's future is based. We will provide the laws. We have done that. We have done that this week and we must do more. But we must also come back to our bearings. What made this country great was people who love this country no matter what victimization they have had. They are going to work harder to make it better. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the chairman's generosity in letting me talk on this very important issue. I wanted to speak on two points on the amendment. First, the deductibility for the self-employed is such an important step forward that the people who are self-employed will be encouraged to get health care coverage for themselves, and that is what we are trying to do here. It is what we have been trying to do for 2 years. To increase the tax deductibility for them to 80 percent from 30 percent is a big step in the right direction to encourage more people to get health care coverage. The issue of medical savings accounts--``patient choice accounts'' is a great name for it because it really will make a difference for so many people and so many small businesses in this country, giving them an opportunity they would not have had. Senator Kennedy's bill in 1994 had language saying that they hoped there would be medical savings accounts included in the health reform bill passed by the Senate. This is not a partisan issue. Congressman Jacobs and Congressman Torricelli today wrote the President of the United States asking him to support MSA's. Let me give you some examples of companies that have benefited from MSA's, medical savings accounts, patient choice accounts. Dominion Resources in Richmond, VA. Since 1989, the company's health care costs have risen less than 1 percent a year while other health care costs all over this country have risen over 10 percent. Here we are at 1 percent a year. Not only have their costs come down, but their employees are happy because they have had improved and expanded medical benefits under their medical savings accounts. Knox Semiconductor in Rockport, ME. Their president says they have saved the company $100,000 over 3 years. That is with just 42 employees. The National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, TX, has been on the leading edge of giving their employees the choices. They have been able to contain their health care costs, and their employees are happier with their coverage. Mr. President, medical savings accounts are a key part of the reform that is necessary to give more health care coverage to more people, more working people, in our country. That is why it is important to keep this amendment, the medical savings account, in the bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in response to the number of repeat crimes that are committed by convicted sex offenders, Senator Gramm and I are offering legislation to require all such individuals to register with the FBI. Society needs to know where these predators are at all times. Individual States are creating registries of convicted sex offenders and devising other measures to address the problem--my home state of Texas has moved forward aggressively on this front. Unfortunately, for my State and others, there is a continuing worry despite such progress: individuals convicted of 1,000 cases of child molestation scheduled to be released in Texas this year alone. Currently, 47 States have registry laws which apply to sex offenders, but these track such felons only within the individual State. There is no national registry. There is no formal network for law enforcement agencies to communicate with each other about know sexual predators. As a result, a convicted rapist or child molester released in Texas can move to, say, Vermont--which has no registry law--and disappear from law enforcement records. This ability to move from one State to the next unmonitored has provided tens of thousands of sex offenders with the opportunity to commit yet more deviant acts. The legislation Senator Gramm and I are introducing would close this immense loophole by creating a national computer registry to track convicted sex offenders. Our bill would: Require all sex offenders to register with the FBI for 10 years following their release from prison, drawing on State registries. Authorize the FBI to register and track offenders living in States with no registry program. Require the FBI to ensure that local authorities are notified every time a sex offender moves into or out of their jurisdiction. Allow private and community organizations access to the sex offender files through their local law enforcement agencies; Preserve State authority in determining whether (or how) the public at large will be notified of the presence of sex offenders in a community. Provide penalties for those who fail to register. This will provide a tracking program nationwide. It is an appropriate function of the Federal Government to keep tabs on such offenders--and help to arm communities with information that might well prevent future, similar, horrifying crimes. We know that 40 percent of convicted sex offenders will repeat their crimes. We must begin acting on that information. Mr. President, Senator Gramm and I are not asking that any money be appropriated for this purpose--the FBI can create such a tracking system with existing resources. And this is how Federal agencies should be spending the taxpayers' money: on protecting them and their children, and making their communities safer, less threatening places to live. One of the ultimate responsibilities of Government is the protection of its citizens--especially its youngest and most vulnerable. This measure does not seek to impose additional punishment on sex offenders--but it is aimed at providing society at large with an element of self-defense that it does not enjoy now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today is April 15, the day of reckoning for millions of Americans. After a year on the job, and hours and hours of paperwork, today American moms and dads must file their income tax return, and send a check to Uncle Sam. The IRS's favorite day of the year is everyone else's least favorite. Working families in America are getting squeezed between ever-rising expenses for necessities and higher taxes. Last year the Republican Congress tried to do something unusual for taxpayers--we tried to let them keep their own money. We cut taxes for families with children by providing a $500 tax credit for each child, to help parents raise children and to offset the erosion of the personal exemption from inflation. With this tax cut, 3.5 million families wouldn't have to pay taxes any more. In Texas, it would save 285,000 families over $167 million. Some big-city liberals don't think $500 is real money--they say ``it's only pennies a day.'' But with the children's tax credit, a parent with two children would be much better off today. Instead of writing a $500 check to the IRS, she could be getting a $500 check back--that's real money for families with kids. We also encouraged families to save for retirement--with my homemaker IRA proposal, and with expanded individual retirement accounts. The homemaker IRA would allow women who work at home to get the same opportunity to save for retirement that all other workers do. The current tax code prevents married couples that rely on one income from equitably providing for their retirement security by limiting the homemaker's deductible IRA contribution to $250. To end this unequal treatment of women and men that work inside the home, and to promote retirement savings, we would have permitted deductible IRA contributions of up to $2,000 by spouses that work inside the home. What would this mean for homemakers? Under current law, a single- income married couple saving $2,250 each year for 30 years would have $188,000 for retirement. With the bill's $4,000 annual contribution limit, after 30 years they would have $335,000--an increase in savings of almost $150,000. We also helped families by permitting tax-deferred savings in IRA's for education costs, medical expenses, and first-time home purchases, and allowing penalty free withdrawals during times of unemployment. We stopped penalizing young couples for getting married. We increased the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly. By 2005, the marriage penalty would have been eliminated for couples that don't itemize their deductions. We cut capital gains taxes to encourage and reward investment, and to create new businesses and new jobs. And we cut estate taxes, so that years of hard work and success won't be wiped out in a generation. Our tax cuts reduce the tax burden on the people who actually pay taxes. More than three-quarters of the cuts in the first year go to the middle class, those making $75,000 a year or less. Who are those people? They are mothers and fathers, who will get help raising their children with a $500 tax credit. They are homemakers who will have the opportunity to contribute the maximum amount to an IRA for retirement security for the first time. They are married couples, who will have the Tax Code's marriage penalty reduced. They are savers, who are trying to buy a first home, pay for college for their kids, or retirement for themselves. They are small business owners who have spent their lives building a business, and want to pass it on to their children. They are investors who have provided the capital to start new businesses and create jobs. Our tax cut helped all Americans--it would put more money in people's pockets, and would increase jobs. Together with a balanced budget, it would lower interest rates and increase the standard of living for millions of Americans. So why do I keep saying here is what our proposals would have done? Because President Clinton vetoed it. He vetoed tax relief for all of us paying taxes today to the IRS. Instead of getting a refund, many are writing a check to the Treasury. After running for President in 1992 on a middle class tax cut, in 1993 President Clinton raised taxes on middle class Americans while claiming he was only hitting the rich. He overlooked his tax increase on seniors, which raised taxes on Social Security benefits from 50 to 85 percent for seniors earning more than $34,000--for marrieds, it's $44,000, and his gas tax on everyone. His taxes took what could have been a robust period of economic growth and made it a weak, lackluster recovery. I cannot remember any time in America when our economy was growing, but people have had more reason to worry about their jobs. Big government is one of the big reasons. Big government regulation costs jobs, too. A report from the Rochester Institute of Technology estimates the direct cost of complying with Federal regulations to be about $668 billion in 1995. That's about $6,000 for every American family in higher prices, diminished wages, and increased taxes. Another way to look at it: The cost of regulation is about the same as the entire amount of individual income taxes! So when you're writing your check today, double the check you write to get the real cost of big government. Last year, when the Republican Congress was preparing our tax cut bill, President Clinton admitted that he and the Democratic Congress had made a mistake in 1993 by raising taxes. Nice talk--but then he vetoed the bill that would have cut taxes for Americans today. If he hadn't vetoed the bill, instead of turning your money over to Uncle Sam today, you would be keeping your money in your own pocket. With the tax cuts and balanced budget, we would get 1.2 million new jobs, $75 billion in new investment, and lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, and higher disposal income. Everyone in America would have been better off. I don't think most Americans object to taxes in principle; we all know some taxes must be paid to provide for a national defense, for health regulations, for police and schools, and for other services. But its how much we pay and what we get in return that bothers us. President Clinton's new budget will spend $1.572 trillion--with a $146 billion deficit. The problem with the deficit isn't that we aren't paying taxes--its that we're spending too much. The problem has always been spending. If Congress in the 1980's had just limited the growth of domestic spending to the rate of inflation--if Congress had just restrained spending the way that every American household does--we would have ended the last decade with a budget surplus. What happened? Where is that surplus? It is buried in the huge buildings all over Washington. Instead of limiting spending increases to the rate of inflation, Congress went on an unprecedented spending binge. And when the decade of the 1980's ended, there was no surplus, there was not even a balanced budget--there was more debt to pay interest on. This administration refuses to abandon the irresponsible policies of past Congresses. This administration has dealt itself out of the fight to save American's future. The majority in Congress will not change our principles for a few inside-the-beltway bureaucrats and editorial writers who don't want the era of big government to end. We will not offer a Band-Aid to past the next election. We promised to offer real, long-term solutions for the next generation and we did. The people know they don't get the money's worth from Washington; we waste money foolishly all the time--on small things like the Tea Tasting Board, and on big ones like the Davis-Bacon law, which adds millions of dollars to every government construction project, while leaving entry-level workers unemployed. We must go through the budget, line by line, agency by agency, and ask, ``Is this worth it? Do we need it? Should the Federal Government do it? ``Last year we cut outdated or duplicate programs, like the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, and cut our own budget, too. Finally, we will make fundamental changes to prevent us from the old tax and spend ways. Today, in the other body, they will consider for the first time an amendment to the Constitution that will change the balance of power between taxes and spending. Right now, when Congress cuts spending, it only lasts for a year. We have annual appropriations, so its easy to replace old spending with new spending. But when we increase taxes, they are permanent changes to the Tax Code. Taxes are paid year after year, until we repeal them. Not only that, it takes only half the body plus one vote to increase taxes. In 1993, President Clinton's tax increases were passed by one vote in the House, and a tie was broken in the Senate by Vice President Gore. Despite the fact that half the Senate opposed the taxes, they were imposed on the public. I believe that this was wrong. We shouldn't be able to make such a fundamental change in how Americans are governed by their representatives in Congress without the support in Congress that a super majority vote for a tax increase requires. It should be hard to increase taxes. It should be harder to increase taxes--to take the people's money from them--than it is to cut taxes. Mr. President, what the public is asking for is leadership. It is not leadership to increase taxes on the elderly and everyone who drives a car, and claim you only hit the rich--which the Democrats did in 1993 without one Republican vote. It is not leadership to veto tax cuts for American families, and then propose tax cuts again in the next election year. It is not leadership to propose a budget with a $200 billion deficit, and then veto a balanced budget. And it is not leadership to propose a budget in the following year that balances only with huge spending cuts after the year 2000, when the President is sure to have moved back to Arkansas. It is leadership to confront our fiscal problems head on, to show the people what we must do to preserve Medicare, to help families, to create jobs, to reform welfare, and to balance the budget. That is what the Republican Congress did. America has led the world through the most tumultuous century of all time--from the age of horse power to the age of atomic power. Now that the threat to our liberty from communism is gone, and freedom is spreading throughout the world, it's time to return the government's power to the people. We can start by giving them their money back.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will have 3 or 4 more minutes. Mr. President, here are the things that I would like to see done to change the regulatory harassment from Washington, DC. Let us put some common sense into the regulation. Let us do a thorough review of the environmental regulations that are now in place to determine what we need, what we do not, and make sure we do not add any new unnecessary, unproductive regulations. Washington should be required to disclose the expected costs of current and new environmental regulations. I think the public has a right to know how much they are going to cost, and whether they are going to get their money's worth. Three, in trying to make regulatory decisions involving the environment, the Federal Government should use best-estimate and realistic assumptions, rather than worst-case scenarios advanced by environmental extremists. Fourth, new regulations should be based on the most advanced and credible knowledge available--in other words, good science. We have a situation where we have seen the devastation of the timber industry in the Northwest. It has cost thousands of people their jobs. Their families and their livelihoods have depended on the timber industry. It has cost every person in America that has built a new home more because timber prices have increased. Why? To protect a spotted owl. Mr. President, what has happened is that reports have come back that, in fact, the spotted owl is not going into extinction, that it has been spotted in places nearby. So we have had a devastation of an industry, a devastation of people's lives and their livelihoods, their jobs, and whole communities have been ruined, when we did not even have good, sound science. In Texas, in the city of Big Springs, 15,000 people had to move a reservoir to protect a conclo snake that was later determined to be prolific in a county nearby. They spent $6 million in taxpayer money-- the money of hard-working people--to move a whole reservoir in order to accommodate a snake that was not really endangered. So, Mr. President, it is time to restore common sense to environmental law. This is how we would move forward for a cleaner, safer future for our country, and to protect private property rights and jobs as we do it. We can work together to keep endangered species, to clean air and water, and clean hazardous waste sites. We can do all of these things and still have a thriving economy. Mr. President, that should be our goal, and that is why we are trying to reform Superfund, reform the Endangered Species Act, and make the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act good for people as well as animals and the environment. We need to work together so we can live together in safety. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, over the last 30 years, we have greatly improved the environment in the United States. Our air and water in this country is the cleanest it has been in 40 years. Now we are at a crossroads in environmental policy. We can preserve all of the environmental gains of the past three decades and move forward to assure our children a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment. But we will not be able to do it under the old top-down, command and control solutions from Washington, DC. This approach is outdated and counterproductive. Rather than advancing our important environmental goals, the Washington bureaucracy and its extremist allies are actually harming the environment. Timber growers have been known to cut trees on the basis of even a rumor that their property might have an endangered species to be listed. Why? In order to avoid having Washington bureaucrats tell them they cannot cut down a tree that they have spent their lifetime harvesting. In central Texas, the Fish and Wildlife Service originally suggested setting aside an area the size of the State of Rhode Island to protect the golden-cheeked warbler. In order to do that, they told the property owners they could not cut cedar trees. Now, cedar trees have another harmful impact on the people who must have water for our cultivation of lands and to drink, because cedar trees absorb water to a greater extent than most other trees. If you do not cut cedar trees, which our farmers and ranchers are trying to do as much as they can, the water supply dries up, and it affects the water supply of the city of San Antonio and affects the ability of farmers and ranchers to use their land. The size of the area is a ridiculous amount--the size of the State of Rhode Island for one bird, when we could have set aside a reasonable number of acres for its preservation. In the Texas Panhandle, protecting a bait fish called the Arkansas river shiner may keep both the agricultural producers and municipal utilities from being able to have access to an adequate supply of water, even though there is a thriving population of the Arkansas river shiner in the State of New Mexico. Now, many of my constituents are a little fed up with a Government that gives snakes and salamanders priority over human beings and constitutional rights. The Endangered Species Act has worked well as a means of focusing attention on the need to preserve plants and animals from extinction. There have been many successes for high-profile species, but the heavyhanded means that are being employed to preserve hundreds of subspecies are increasingly counterproductive. If we cannot rely on the support and cooperation of the people who live with the animals that we want to save, I think those animals chances of survival are not very good. That is why I am making a priority of reforming the Endangered Species Act. We need to forge a new consensus about saving endangered species and making private property owners stakeholders, not adversaries in the process. The Superfund was created to identify and clean up hundreds of hazardous waste sites around the country, but the regulations written in Washington to govern cleanup are so complicated and cumbersome that almost no cleanup is getting done. Only 291, or about 25 percent, of the 1,238 worst hazardous waste sites have actually been cleaned up. Where is the money going? Billions of dollars have gone into this. The money has gone to lawyers, consultants, and bureaucrats in Washington. That is where the money has gone that should have been going to clean up these hazardous waste sites. Companies contributing to the cleanup have spent 39 percent of their money on lawyers, 20 percent on negotiations, 9 percent on studies, and 15 percent on cleanup. It is not just business that is being sued. The Catholic Archdiocese of Newark has been sued for a landfill in New Jersey. The archdiocese purchased land to expand its Holy Name Cemetery and inadvertently became potentially responsible for its cleanup. One landfill site in New York has 600 defendants, including an Elks Club, an exercise gym, two nursing homes and a kennel, which has a septic tank that needs to be cleaned. Something must be done. We must put the money where it will benefit the public and the environment. This waste will go on and on unless we reopen the Superfund law and put some common sense back into it. Hazardous waste sites are local problems. We want to have a voice at the local level to be sure that the waste site in a town is cleaned up and made safe. Unlike other major environmental laws, it is all handled by Federal bureaucrats, not the State and local representatives. While the lawsuits have gone on for years and years and the consultants and the bureaucrats argue endlessly about how many parts per million is acceptable, our children are at risk. The Clean Air Act requires States and localities to meet a series of ambitious new pollution reduction targets in the years ahead. Achieving these goals will make the air we breathe cleaner and healthier. But the Washington bureaucrats have not been content just to set the standards. They are also trying to dictate how to achieve the goals, down to the smallest detail. In order to reduce auto pollution, emission testing requirements are part of the Clean Air Act. Rather than allowing States to decide, Federal regulators have been using threats to force States to set up entirely new automobile inspection networks, completely separate from the existing State auto inspection systems, and it is costing our consumers millions of dollars. What we need to do, Mr. President, is achieve better protection of human health and the environment by regulating smarter. The fact is, businesses-- big and small--private property owners, and commuters, are spending too much time, too much money, trying to comply with too much paperwork and too many regulations from too many Washington bureaucrats. If we are going to move forward for a safer, cleaner, healthier future, we must change the way Washington regulates. States and communities should be allowed and encouraged to take a greater role in environmental regulations and oversight. But the improvements we need in Washington go far beyond State and local involvement. We need to plan for the future, not just for today. Science and technology are constantly changing and improving, but the Federal Government is not keeping up with these changes, and the old regulations are outdated. Extremists in the environmental lobby are trying to keep the status quo. What we want are some immediate changes that will give us better regulations for the environment, to preserve it, and allow people the freedom to use their private properties and cultivate the land at the same time. Mr. President, I know my time has expired.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend the Senator from Georgia. He really talked about the effect on people of wasteful, big Federal Government. He did not just talk about numbers on a page that do not relate to anything. He talked about how much it costs to have a bureaucrat waste taxpayer dollars, how many Georgia and Texas families it takes to pay for the waste in Government, families that do not have the ability to waste money because they are working so hard to do the things for their children that they would hope to do. So I thank the Senator from Georgia for bringing this into a debate about people and the effect on people's lives. Balancing the Federal budget is not about the runaway Federal deficit, or the debt ceiling, or even about temporary Government shutdowns. It is about the future of our country, about what America will be like tomorrow and the next day and a generation from now. Most Americans believe they are better off than their parents. But it is amazing how many Americans do not believe their children will be better off than they were. The American dream has always been about progress, about growth from one generation to the next, about generational improvements, that our children will have more opportunities, more choices, better lives than their parents. Why is it, for the first time in history, that a generation of Americans have lost hope, have lost confidence in our future? The answer is that too many people are in Washington, DC, making decisions about how to spend our money. For too long, Washington has spent more than it takes in. I was listening to the radio this morning, and a man called in and he said, ``I remember a quote about Thomas Jefferson.'' Thomas Jefferson was brought the Federal budget, and his budget advisers put it on his desk. Thomas Jefferson had one simple question: ``Do we take in more than we spend? That is the only question that matters because if we do not take in more than we are spending, take it back, do something with it, that is the only question that you have to answer right.'' Thomas Jefferson said what we should be saying today instead of too many people in Washington spending our tax dollars the way they see fit and many times for the wrong reasons. The President's budget proposal asks for $600 million for increased audits and enforcement and $850 million, on top of the $4 billion already spent, to improve tax collection procedures. Americans want the Federal Tax Code to be made simple, fair, and uniform. But they really do not want billions more to be spent on IRS bureaucrats. The President's budget fails to institute real work requirements for welfare recipients. It also guarantees that illegal immigrants will be able to receive food stamps. By refusing to sign the welfare reform legislation that Congress has sent to him twice, the President guarantees that welfare dependency will continue in the country and that the American people will continue to foot the bill. The working American will continue to foot the bill. I believe that is why Republicans were elected in 1994--to end politics as usual. For decades, politicians came to Washington and put Band-Aids on a bad situation until the next election. That is not what we are here for. We were sent here to offer real long-term solutions--not for the next election but for the generation. That is why we are trying hard to do what we said we would do and balance the budget. It is why we sent a balanced budget to the President. But he has vetoed that balanced budget. The balanced budget is not about numbers. It is about people just as the Senator from Georgia was just saying. I think of parents with children in high school afraid their children will not be able to attend college because they cannot afford the interest rates for college loans. I think of the newly married couple that wants to buy their piece of the American dream--a new home--but they are not going to be able to afford the interest rates on the mortgage. I think about working people in their forties and fifties who are trying desperately to set aside that little bit of extra money they are earning for their retirement security. And yet in the budget that the President has submitted it does not even allow homemakers to set aside $2,000 a year for IRA's like those who work outside the home are able to do. They are not even thinking about one-income earner couples that are sacrificing so that one spouse--the homemaker--will stay home and raise children. And I think of senior citizens who are depending on Medicare but are afraid that it may not be there when they really need it. These are real people with real concerns and real fears. Unfortunately, instead of hope, President Clinton hyped the status quo. Instead of inspiring Americans to have confidence in their future, instead he incites fear. It is wrong to ask that American people live within their means but not ask the Federal Government to do the same. Is it wrong to demand that Washington stop wasting taxpayer dollars? Is it wrong to demand an end to politics as usual? That is what we are demanding--a return to principle instead of politics; a commitment to the next generation instead of the next election. We are 4 years away from a new millennium. The year 2000 should be a new beginning. Where will we be in the year 2000? As we look forward to the year 2000, where will we be starting with what we need to do today? As that ball drops in Times Square, and people all over our Nation are celebrating a new beginning, will we be firmly on the path to a balanced budget, and a growing economy? Or will the deficit still be eating away at the working people's livelihood in this country? Will we have reformed the welfare system, or will it continue to undermine the work ethic destroying families and ruin the very lives of people who are receiving welfare? Will we have reduced the excessive tax burden on the American family leaving them with more of their money in their pockets or will we continue to have taxes that takes people's extra money so they cannot put it away for saving for their retirement? Will we have reformed Medicare so that our future generations will know that it will be there for them so that it will be stronger? Or will we have continued on the path that we are on now? And will Medicare be 2 years away from going out of business so that seniors in this country really will have to fear whether it is going to be there for them? In short, Mr. President, will we have continued business as usual for these 4 years that we have been elected to make change, or will we have kept the promise that we made to the American people? I hope that in the year 2000 we will have said this year there is no more politics as usual, no more excuses, that we kept our promises in 1996 so that in the year 2000 when we are celebrating a new beginning we will indeed have a strong and thriving economy, and that we will have American families with the hope that their children will be able to have a better life than they have had just as so many generations in the past have been able to hope. Mr. President, the time to prepare for a new beginning in a new millennium is right now, and we are missing that opportunity with a budget by the President that does not speak to tax fairness and equity for the working families of this country. We are trying to make a difference. The President has vetoed welfare reform. He has vetoed a balanced budget. He has vetoed middle-class tax cuts. All of the things that he promised and all of the things that we promised--and we are trying to deliver--have been vetoed by the President. The time is now for us to put partisanship aside and do what all of us said we would do for the American people--balance the budget. That is our commitment. And, Mr. President, we have a chance to keep our promise. And that is what we are trying to do. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.