Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am willing to yield to the Senator from Montana for some period of time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I announce, on behalf of the leader, that there will be no further votes tonight, and that the votes will occur as described in the previous order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct, Mr. President. The floor will be open for debate unlimited tonight, but this will take effect after the debate has finished tonight, and it will be the procedural order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Hutchison-Kempthorne amendment to the Reid amendment at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13, after the Members who are here have had a chance to debate, of course; that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Hutchison and Reid; further, that immediately following that debate, the amendments be temporarily set aside; that immediately following the cloture vote at 2 o'clock p.m., Senator Reid be recognized to make a motion to table the Hutchison amendment; further, if the Hutchison amendment is not tabled, the Senate proceed to a vote on the amendment without intervening action, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Reid amendment, as amended, if amended.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to say how pleased I am to have been able to invite Dr. O.S. Hawkins of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, one of the largest Baptist churches in the whole world, to be with us today. He is a very special person in my life, along with his wife, Susie, whose father I served with in the Texas Legislature. Susie Hawkins was just a girl when her father and I served in the legislature. My husband also served with Susie's father in the State legislature in Texas. Our family ties have gone back a long way. I want to say Dr. Hawkins is one of the great future religious leaders of our country. He already has taken over this great Baptist church of Texas. We are very proud of him. He has been wonderful to my family and to me. I also want to thank Dr. Ogilvie for helping us bring him in for the great honor of opening the Senate. I think it is a wonderful tradition we have to start every day as we do by just taking a moment to thank God for the blessings that we have in this country. I think Dr. Hawkins did it very well today. I commend him. I am proud to be one of his constituents. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and the manager of the bill, Senator Coverdell. Mr. President, the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of four American citizens by Cuban war planes last Saturday is an outrage, an outrage against the United States of America, against international law, and against every concept of human decency. Neither the United States nor the world community can allow these murders to go unpunished. The four Americans who were killed were part of Brothers to the Rescue, an organization that has helped to save countless Cuban citizens who risked their lives to flee oppression and poverty in their country. Without the Brothers' heroic, humanitarian efforts, thousands of Cuban families would have died on the open seas. How did the Cuban Government react to this heroism? How did it reward those who had saved thousands of its own citizens? It carried out the ruthless execution of four of these brave Americans. The Cuban Government can try to argue that its actions were justified as an act of self defense, but the whole world knows the truth--that Cuban MiG's pursued and shot down the crews of two unarmed Cessna aircraft. The whole world was watching, Mr. Castro. It was not self-defense. It was cold-blooded murder. We are shocked by what happened the weekend before last, but nobody should be surprised. Mr. Castro is a brutal dictator with no regard for basic human rights, no respect for international law, and he has an abiding hatred for the United States and everything it stands for. This is a man responsible for the suffering in Cuba--hunger, forced labor, oppression, and worse. This is the man who has exported military equipment and Cuban soldiers to foment civil war in nations in our hemisphere and around the world. This is the man who tried to put his finger on the launch button of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States. Mr. President, he is an evil man. A series of American Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, have understood this and have sought to isolate and individually bring down his government, for the good of the Cuban people and the world. Nevertheless, Mr. Castro always has had his apologists in this country. Until Saturday before last, it had become popular in some circles to see him as ``older and mellower,'' a more ``moderate'' revolutionary Communist. That view of a ``kinder, gentler'' Fidel Castro was evidenced in the recent relaxation of travel and other restrictions against Cuba. The folly of appeasement and accommodation is now tragically apparent. Today, we will act to restore United States policy to its previous and proper direction--to isolate the Castro government, and hasten the day that it will fall. The legislation before us will reinstate and reaffirm United States economic sanctions, it will deny foreign investment and hard currency to sustain this corrupt government, and it will protect the interests of American citizens whose property was seized illegally by the Cuban Government. Without huge Soviet subsidies that propped it up for decades, the provisions of this legislation will inevitably bring the Castro government to the brink of two alternatives: give up power voluntarily, or have it taken away by the long-suffering Cuban people. The goals of United States policy toward Cuba must be: the end of the Castro regime, and the opportunity for freedom and democracy for the Cuban people. Mr. President, we must do more than we are even doing today. This is a step in the right direction, and I am pleased that we are going to pass this important legislation. I am also pleased that the President has thought better of his earlier opposition to this legislation. But we must also address another urgent problem, and that is the threat posed by Cuban construction of two nuclear reactors. These reactors are fatally flawed--Chernobyls in the making. In the event of a meltdown, lethal radioactivity would threaten the entire southeastern United States. These two reactors cannot be allowed to go online. This is a matter of direct and vital national security interest to the United States. Our allies and the Cuban Government must understand that we cannot permit the existence of this threat to our country. So I call on the President today to take the lead in coming to grips with this impending crisis. I extend my sympathies to the families of the four brave men who lost their lives in the name of freedom. Nothing can replace the husbands and fathers they lost. But it would be a fitting testament to the sacrifices of these American patriots if the tragedy strengthened American resolve and thereby hastens the day that the Castro dictatorship crumbles and freedom is restored to the people of Cuba. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am here today to celebrate the achievements of the 27 schools from my State that were awarded the Department of Education's prestigious Blue Ribbon Award. The Blue Ribbon Award signifies excellence in education and calls attention to remarkably successful public and private schools. Blue ribbon schools display the superior qualities that are necessary to prepare our young people for the challenges of the next century. The recognized schools serve as models for other schools and communities seeking to provide high quality education for their students. This year 266 secondary, junior high, and middle schools will be presented with the Blue Ribbon Award. After a vigorous screening process by each State Department of Education, a panel consisting of 100 outstanding educators and other professionals reviews the nominations, and selects the most promising schools for a site visit. After the schools have been visited, the panel considers the reports and forward its final recommendations to Secretary Riley, who then reveals the names of the schools selected for recognition. It is my honor and privilege to identify the following 27 Texas schools selected to receive a Blue Ribbon Award: Klein Oak High School, Plano Senior High School, Renner Middle School, Forest Meadow Junior High School, Strickland Middle School, Forest Park Middle School, Mayde Creek High School, Groesbeck Middle School, Lawrence D. Bell High School, Grapevine Middle School, Spring Forest Middle School, Spring Oaks Middle School, Northbrook Middle School, James E. Taylor High School, Westwood High School, Noel Grisham Middle School, Travis Middle School, Socorro High School, Lubbock High School, Lackland Junior- Senior High School, Georgetown High School, Coppell Middle School West, Edward S. Marcus High School, Booker T. Washington High School for Performing and Visual Arts, Crookett Middle School, Carroll High School, and Carroll Middle School. They are clearly among the most distinguished schools in the Nation with a persistent commitment to excellence in education. I am elated that of all the schools selected from the entire United States, 10 percent are in Texas. Their achievements stand as positive testimony to the dedication, pride, and devotion to responsibility of the students, teachers, administrators, and parents at each of these blue ribbon schools.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this month marked the sesquicentennial of the end of the Republic of Texas. But I rise this morning to celebrate the beginning of our Republic, not its end. One hundred sixty years ago Saturday, March 2, a band of Texans gathered in Washington-on-the-Brazos and declared our Independence from Mexico. Around them raged a fierce war for that Independence. I would like the Senate to remember the many brave Texans who gave their lives in that war as I read the last letter sent from the Alamo on February 24, 1836. In reading this letter, I continue a tradition begun by my late friend, Senator John Tower. Here then is the letter of Col. William Barrett Travis, from his fort at San Antonio. To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world: Fellow citizens and compatriots--I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor and that of his country. Victory or death. P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted house 80 to 90 bushels and got in the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. William B. Travis.--The Alamo, February 24, 1839.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the week of February 18-24 has been designated ``National Engineers Week.'' It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in appreciation of the contributions of the engineering profession's 1.8 million members. It is fitting that we celebrate National Engineers Week around the time of George Washington's birthday. Our first President was, in many respects, the country's first engineer. Trained as a surveyor and engineer, President Washington encouraged private initiatives for invention, technical advancements, and education. He also promoted the construction of roads, canals, and docks and ports--often with private capital. He also sought appropriate designs for the new Nation's public buildings. The engineering disciplines have had a tremendously positive and pervasive influence on our society. Their achievements are represented in bridges, roads, harbors, canals, and ship channels, and also in our architecture, manufacturing, scientific technology, industrial design, transport, and the delivery of various forms of energy to the Nation's factories, farms, schools, businesses, and homes. Creative engineering is manifest also in the spirit of invention and exploration. From the development of new oil drilling equipment to the space program, engineering is a key source of our prosperity. Indeed, engineering's achievements are so widespread we tend to take them for granted, but we must not. By acknowledging the accomplishments of the Nation's engineers we also generate support for engineering education and interest in pursuing careers in the profession. Mr. President, the finals of the National Engineers Week Future City Competition are held during this commemorative week. The competition features seven teams of seventh and eighth grade students who present their designs for cities in the 21st century using computer simulations and scale models. I want to congratulate all the engineers, teachers, and students from each of the regions competing in this demanding process, and wish each of them well in this contest and in their future endeavors. I would also like to particularly salute the more than two dozen prominent engineers among the 1996 all stars of the profession who are leading others in a variety of activities, from school visits to media forum events. Among the 1996 all stars are: Ron Haddock, president and CEO, Fina Oil and Chemical Co.--Dallas; Tommy Knight, president and CEO, Brown and Root--Houston; John Murphy, CEO, Dresser Corp.--Dallas; Stephen D. Bechtel, chairman Emeritus, The Bechtel Group, Inc.; Dr. Mary Cleave of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; John H. Gibbons, assistant to the President for Science and Technology; PBS' Bill Nye, the science guy; Dr. Arati Prabhaker, director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and John F. Welch, chairman and CEO, General Electric Co.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the cloture vote so we can enact a farm bill not only this year, but in time for farmers to make the decision about what they are going to plant. Right now, our farmers are in a most precarious position. In my State of Texas, it is planting season, and yet they do not know if the freedom-to-farm provisions are going to be available to them, or whether they are going to have a 1949 law to comply with. Mr. President, that is not reasonable, and it is not responsible for Members of Congress not to take up this bill and offer their amendments, but to refuse to take up the bill is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues not to do that to the farmers of America. Their lives are tough enough. The last thing they need is to make the wrong guess and have a disastrous year. That is what is going to happen. The bill is very clear. It is a freedom-to-farm bill, so that you will have the ability to make your own decisions based on your soil and what you think is your best ability to farm the commodity that you like the best. That is new and it is very important. It also eliminates the costly, timely paperwork required to comply with current regulations. It eliminates the need for most of the regulations now necessary to govern current programs. The freedom-to- farm portions contribute to the deficit reduction by reducing agriculture spending by more than $12 billion over 7 years. What happens, Mr. President, if we do not invoke cloture and pass this bill today? Reversion to the permanent law, which is what will happen if we do not enact this bill, would be disastrous. First, it would give farmers a parity price based on 1914 economic conditions. That would result in domestic prices double or triple the world price, which would, of course, erode our carefully cultivated export markets. We have just passed GATT, which is supposed to break down the barriers in our agriculture exports, and yet this bill would be a reversion. That is, if we do not pass this bill, it will be a reversion to the old ways of doing things which are not best for today. It would mean that the USDA would have to buy all the excess wheat that was not taken up on the world market. It would obliterate our ability to have a balanced budget. Reversion to permanent law, by USDA's account, would cost taxpayers an additional $2.3 billion in the first year alone. I share the concerns that my colleague from Minnesota has just stated about the dairy portions of this bill. I do not like it. That Northeast compact is going to hurt other dairy markets around the country. I do not think that is right. We will have a chance to vote on that because amendments will be in order if we invoke cloture. There is no reason that I can see that a Member of this body can responsibly vote against cloture to allow us to debate this bill and pass something that will give our farmers the ability to plant according to their own needs in time for them to do it. It would be just like Washington, DC, which is out of touch with everything else, to finally pass this bill in March or April when the planting season has passed for many of the farmers in our country. Mr. President, we cannot do that. It is not responsible. I am speaking for the farmers, the hard-working small business people of my State and all the States for which agriculture is so important for their economies and for their families. I urge my colleagues, vote for cloture. There is no reason to fear debate on this bill. There is every reason for us to do the responsible thing so that our farmers and ranchers have the ability to make the decisions that they need to make in a responsible way. It is the least they can expect from the U.S. Congress. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution commemorating a very special event in the history of my State. This resolution is almost identical to one passed by the Texas State Legislature on March 7, 1995. Just last month, on December 29, 1995, Texans celebrated the sesquicentennial of their statehood. Unlike all other states ever admitted, we gave up the sovereignty of an independent republic to join the Union. On March 1, 1845, Congress passed a resolution inviting the Republic of Texas to join the Union, and a special convention of Texans met to consider it, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson Rusk. The convention accepted the offer on July 4, and its decision was ratified by the people in October. We submitted a constitution, which Congress accepted on December 29. Rusk went on to become the first United States Senator from Texas, and I, the great granddaughter of his law partner, now hold his seat. Taylor and Rush had signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836. Texans mark the 29th, quietly, as the commencement of our statehood, although we didn't lower the Lone Star and post the Stars and Stripes until February 19, 1846. We must have been happy with statehood in 1955, because we expressly renounced the right to fly the flag of our old Republic at the same level as that of our Union. Our legislature mandated that it fly in a subordinate position, in a manner followed by all other states. Although independence remains the signal day in Texas history, Texans look upon their statehood with pride, as a means of ``conferring blessings upon the people of all the States.'' When Old Glory was raised for the first time in Austin, Anson Jones, the last President of the Republic of Texas, stated with eloquence: The lone star of Texas, which ten years since arose amid cloud, over fields of carnage, and obscurely shone for a while, and following an inscrutable destiny has passed on and become fixed forever in that glorious constellation which all . . . lovers of freedom in the world must . . . adore--the American Union. Blending its rays with its sister stars, long may it continue to shine, and may a gracious heaven smile upon this consummation with the wishes of the two republics, now joined together in one.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Ralph W. Yarborough of Austin, who died last weekend. Ralph Yarborough was reared in Chandler, TX, attended West Point and what we know as Sam Houston State University. He worked as a teacher, a trade emissary, a National Guardsman, a lawyer, an Assistant Attorney General, a judge, an Army officer in World War II, a writer, and a U.S. Senator. In the Army, he served on the staff of Gen. George Patton. He was among only three southern Senators to support the 1965 Voting Rights Act and was a key supporter of the National Cancer Act. Senator Yarborough and I share a common background. We have deep east Texas roots. We attended the University of Texas law school. We both held this seat in the U.S. Senate, which both of us reached through a special election in the spring after the resignation of a Senator in January. Like me, he reached this Chamber less than 2 years before the term was up, and probably felt, as I did, envy for Members of the other body, who have a full 2 years between campaigns. Mr. President, on behalf of all the citizens of Texas, I offer to Mrs. Yarborough, his widow, the rest of the Yarborough family, and his many friends, our deepest condolences. May he rest in peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a very special event in the history of my State. This recognition is almost identical to one passed by the Texas State Legislature on March 7, 1995. Just last month, on December 29, 1995, Texas celebrated the sesquicentennial of their statehood. Unlike all other States ever admitted, we gave up the sovereignty of an independent republic to join the Union. On March 1, 1845, Congress passed a resolution inviting the Republic of Texas to join the Union, and a special convention of Texans met to consider it, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson Rusk. The convention accepted the offer on July 4, and its decision was ratified by the people in October. We submitted a constitution, which Congress accepted on December 29. Rusk went on to become the first U.S. Senator from Texas, and I, the great-granddaughter of his law partner, now hold his seat. Taylor and Rusk had signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836. Texans mark the 29th, quietly, as the commencement of our statehood, although we didn't lower the Lone Star and post the Stars and Stripes until February 19, 1846. We must have been happy with statehood in 1955, because we expressly renounced the right to fly the flag of our old Republic at the same level as that of our Union. Our legislature mandated that it fly in a subordinate position, in a manner followed by all other States. Although independence remains the signal day in Texas history, Texans look upon their statehood with pride, as a means of conferring blessings upon the people of all the States. When Old Glory was raised for the first time in Austin, TX, Anson Jones, the last President of the Republic of Texas, stated with eloquence: The lone star of Texas, which ten years since arose amid cloud, over fields of carnage, and obscurely shone for a while, and following an inscrutable destiny, has passed on and become fixed forever in that glorious constellation which all . . . lovers of freedom in the world must . . . adore-- the American Union. Blending its rays with its sister stars, long may it continue to shine, and may a gracious heaven smile upon this consummation with the wishes of the two republics, now joined together in one. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, along the Lower Rio Grande from Laredo, TX to the Gulf of Mexico, are found resources of immense economic, natural, scenic, historical, and cultural value. On both the United States and Mexican sides of the Rio Grande, important historical themes and resources of local, State, national, and international importance characterize the river communities and counties along the Lower Rio Grande. These include early 16th- and 17th-century Spanish and French explorations, 18th-century river settlements founded under the Spanish Crown, 18th-century ranches where the first American cowboys rode, Texas independence and establishment of the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840, the first battle of the Mexican-American War in 1846, the last land battle of the American Civil War fought near the mouth of the Rio Grande in 1865, a thriving steamboat trade in the late 19th-century, and the development of the Rio Grande Valley as an agricultural empire. Today, the Lower Rio Grande is one of the most complex ecological systems in the United States, with a remarkable variety of species including 600 different vertebrates, such as the plain chachalaca, the only member of the curassow family found in the United States, and 11,000 different and unique plants, like the Texas strawberry cactus. Given the remarkable diversity and international importance of this area, local and regional governments, Federal and State agencies, businesses, private citizens and organizations in the United States and Mexico have expressed a desire to work cooperatively to preserve the most significant components of the natural and cultural heritage throughout the region, while accommodating sustainable growth and development. Mr. President, in conjunction with these efforts, I am pleased to introduce today the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996. This act will designate the Lower Rio Grande as a congressionally authorized national heritage area, thereby recognizing the unique and binational importance of the Lower Rio Grande region. The Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996 recognizes the special importance of the Lower Rio Grande region as a living historical legacy of the United States and Mexico. Los Caminos del Rio will create partnerships between public and private entities to finance projects and initiatives throughout the Lower Rio Grande while requiring local governments and private entities to share costs with the Federal Government. Furthermore, it will promote cooperation between Mexico and the United States while enhancing the economies of the many Rio Grande communities. Mr. President, in a time of fiscal constraints, national heritage areas are fiscally sound, budget-conscious alternatives to the traditional national park designation. That is why Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has introduced legislation to encourage such partnerships as an alternative to the traditional national park designation and why I am now introducing the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996. Additionally, I should like to point out that my bill pays particular and close attention to the rights of private property owners. I have listened to and worked with various property advocacy groups in order to craft a bill that specifically addresses concerns through concrete protections preventing property rights infringement and diminishment of value. For example, my bill prohibits conditioning of Federal assistance on enactment or modification of any land-use restrictions, mandates quarterly public hearings within the heritage area, and specifically states that nothing in the bill shall modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, or local government to regulate any zoning or use of land, including fish and wildlife management. I hope to continue working with these property groups as this legislation moves toward passage. The Los Caminos del Rio heritage project, which began in 1990 with a grant awarded to the Texas Historical Commission, has become a crucial unifier of the Lower Rio Grande region, facilitating contacts between small communities and their State and Federal Governments and with private philanthropy. That same process has occurred in Mexico, where border communities that have traditionally felt abandoned and overlooked have been able to take advantage of Los Caminos del Rio. Because they are part of a regional project, they are now part of national and State tourism and conservation programs. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Campbell and others in passing this legislation to designate Los Caminos del Rio as a National Heritage Area, to establish guidelines for the designation of other such areas, and to offer security for owners of private property within such areas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, along the Lower Rio Grande from Laredo, TX to the Gulf of Mexico, are found resources of immense economic, natural, scenic, historical, and cultural value. On both the United States and Mexican sides of the Rio Grande, important historical themes and resources of local, State, national, and international importance characterize the river communities and counties along the Lower Rio Grande. These include early 16th- and 17th-century Spanish and French explorations, 18th-century river settlements founded under the Spanish Crown, 18th-century ranches where the first American cowboys rode, Texas independence and establishment of the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840, the first battle of the Mexican-American War in 1846, the last land battle of the American Civil War fought near the mouth of the Rio Grande in 1865, a thriving steamboat trade in the late 19th-century, and the development of the Rio Grande Valley as an agricultural empire. Today, the Lower Rio Grande is one of the most complex ecological systems in the United States, with a remarkable variety of species including 600 different vertebrates, such as the plain chachalaca, the only member of the curassow family found in the United States, and 11,000 different and unique plants, like the Texas strawberry cactus. Given the remarkable diversity and international importance of this area, local and regional governments, Federal and State agencies, businesses, private citizens and organizations in the United States and Mexico have expressed a desire to work cooperatively to preserve the most significant components of the natural and cultural heritage throughout the region, while accommodating sustainable growth and development. Mr. President, in conjunction with these efforts, I am pleased to introduce today the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996. This act will designate the Lower Rio Grande as a congressionally authorized national heritage area, thereby recognizing the unique and binational importance of the Lower Rio Grande region. The Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996 recognizes the special importance of the Lower Rio Grande region as a living historical legacy of the United States and Mexico. Los Caminos del Rio will create partnerships between public and private entities to finance projects and initiatives throughout the Lower Rio Grande while requiring local governments and private entities to share costs with the Federal Government. Furthermore, it will promote cooperation between Mexico and the United States while enhancing the economies of the many Rio Grande communities. Mr. President, in a time of fiscal constraints, national heritage areas are fiscally sound, budget-conscious alternatives to the traditional national park designation. That is why Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has introduced legislation to encourage such partnerships as an alternative to the traditional national park designation and why I am now introducing the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996. Additionally, I should like to point out that my bill pays particular and close attention to the rights of private property owners. I have listened to and worked with various property advocacy groups in order to craft a bill that specifically addresses concerns through concrete protections preventing property rights infringement and diminishment of value. For example, my bill prohibits conditioning of Federal assistance on enactment or modification of any land-use restrictions, mandates quarterly public hearings within the heritage area, and specifically states that nothing in the bill shall modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, or local government to regulate any zoning or use of land, including fish and wildlife management. I hope to continue working with these property groups as this legislation moves toward passage. The Los Caminos del Rio heritage project, which began in 1990 with a grant awarded to the Texas Historical Commission, has become a crucial unifier of the Lower Rio Grande region, facilitating contacts between small communities and their State and Federal Governments and with private philanthropy. That same process has occurred in Mexico, where border communities that have traditionally felt abandoned and overlooked have been able to take advantage of Los Caminos del Rio. Because they are part of a regional project, they are now part of national and State tourism and conservation programs. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Campbell and others in passing this legislation to designate Los Caminos del Rio as a National Heritage Area, to establish guidelines for the designation of other such areas, and to offer security for owners of private property within such areas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding the rest of his time, because I want to talk about the very important issue that I think all Americans are looking at right now, and that is the balanced budget and what is going to happen here and what will be the result after we finish the negotiations. The great philosopher, Yogi Berra, once said, ``When you come to a fork in the road, take it.'' We are at a fork in the road in this country, and I think the American people are beginning to see how very difficult it is when you have a President and Congress on very different tracks, on very different tracks about what they believe is the right course for our country. We in Congress believe that we must change the direction of our country, that we have been hurling, in deficits upon deficits upon deficits, our economy into oblivion. So we promised in 1994 that we would change the way they do business in Washington, that we would stand firm for a balanced budget. And now we have put forward a very responsible plan to do exactly that. Our balanced budget is over 7 years. Many of us go around the country talking about 7 years. Why 7 years? Why not 5 years? Why not 10 years? Would it be easier if it were 10 years? Seven years is very important, because 7 years was what we reasonably believed we could achieve with numbers that we could estimate with a prediction that would be reasonable. We believe that we can predict over 7 years. Any more than that would be very hard. There will be changes in Congress. Will there be the same commitment? Will the promises be the same? Those would be the questions if we went beyond 7 years. Why not shorter? Why not 5 years? We believed that cutting spending and cutting the rate of growth of spending in such a drastic way might hurt our economy by causing a recession, having some sort of drastic impact. That is why we believed 7 years was achievable by slowing the rate of growth rather than cutting spending in such a harsh way that we might have a recession, but yet to be predictable. That is why 7 years. Now we have the nugget of the problem. The nugget of the problem is what we are going to do with Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and the tax cuts. I think you have heard people speaking on the floor in both Chambers of the Congress for the last few days about the tax cuts. Some people think they are terrible. Some people think it is awful to consider giving money back to the people who earned it. I do not subscribe to that theory, but it is one of the nuggets upon which the President and the Republicans in Congress disagree. So let us talk about these nuggets. The President says we can come together on the numbers if we can just put aside welfare reform, Medicaid reform, and Medicare reform. I think the President of the United States knows that if you put aside those three items, you are not going to be able to talk about taking the first step to a balanced budget, because if you do not reform the two basic entitlements, Medicaid and welfare, you will not have a balanced budget. It is not a matter of how much we spend, it is a matter of who makes the decisions. Is it going to be the Federal Government dictating to the States, or is it going to be the State's right to decide what is best for the people of that State and to have the money from the Federal Government without the strings so they can do it more efficiently? That is the only way it will work. But the President believes that we must keep welfare and Medicaid with the Federal strings. He will not allow entitlement reform, and that is the crux of the disagreement between the President and Congress. We cannot set those things aside and have any predictability. So we are saying, give Medicaid to the States to produce their own programs in the most efficient way, and we are giving the President the ability to change our welfare system in a most responsible and unique way. And that is to turn it back to the States with very few strings, and the strings are that there will be limitations on how long an able- bodied person can receive welfare. It would be 18 months and a lifetime limitation of 5 years. I know a number of people who are barely making ends meet. It is very important for these hard-working, taxpaying citizens to know that if they are going to work hard to do something for their families that they are not supporting people who can work but do not. Mr. President, that is the welfare reform package. The President vetoed our welfare reform package, but we have not seen a substitute from the President. If he is going to take off the table that we would have entitlement reform, then we will not be able to have welfare reform because it will continue to grow out of control, just as it has for years in this country. Tax cuts--that is the other major issue, that and Medicare reform. Let us talk about Medicare reform because that is the third piece of the reform package. We are trying to save the Medicare system. The President's own Cabinet officers have said publicly we start this year going into a deficit in our Medicare system. This year we will spend more than we take in, and we will use up the trust fund by the year 2002. Now, that is the fact. So what can we do to save it? In fact, we are slowing the rate of growth of Medicare at an even slower rate of growth than the President presented himself in his own health care plan. We are going to save the Medicare system if the President will work with us. So far, he has refused to do that. Now let us talk about tax cuts, the other issue upon which we disagree so strongly. I think it is a legitimate question, why tax cuts when we are trying to bring down the deficit? It is all part of the package that would ease the impact on the economy. If we are going to slow the rate of growth of spending, that is going to have an impact on the economy. It is going to stop spending in some areas to which people have become accustomed. People who provide these services are going to get less. So in order to ease that transition, we have decided to put money back in the system, not by more Government programs but by giving people back the money that they earned. We are letting them have the right to spend their money. And by allowing them to do that, we will spur the economy, where we have slowed it down in the slowing of the rate of spending. So we now have tax cuts that will go to the middle- income families of this country--a $500 per child tax credit. So a four-person family with two adults and two children will get $1,000 back in the mail. Now, that is going to help them be able to spend that money for their families. Capital gains tax relief. We are trying to spur the economy by allowing people to sell assets and trade assets, and that is going to put more money into the economy. All of the economists agree on that. It will put money and investment into our capital, so that we will be able to have the jobs that that will create. We are going to spur jobs by having capital gains tax relief. The third area is one that I have worked on since I came to the U.S. Senate, and that is equity for our homemakers in this country for their retirement security. We talk about the importance of the work done inside the home. Mr. President, I think the work done inside the home is more important than the work done outside the home. Yet, we say to a homemaker, ``You cannot set aside $2,000 a year like those who work outside the home are able to do.'' So the homemaker, who is sacrificing to stay home and raise children will have the added disadvantage of not having the security in retirement that can be built up with the full $2,000 set aside; or if the homemaker loses his or her spouse after 15 or 20 years of marriage, there he or she is without that security in his or her own name that would allow that security to be there for their futures. Mr. President, that is why we have tax cuts, so that we can provide more of an incentive for people to save. We have a new IRA that would apply to homemakers, as well as those who work outside the home, so they could put money aside that will build up tax free, and when you take it out, you will not have to pay taxes on any of that income. Now, that will be a spur for retirement security for our seniors. When you put that incentive in, now you are going to have the ability for people to take care of themselves better in their retirement years. Mr. President, that will make for a more stable America. So we are fighting for a strong and stable America. We are really fighting for what made this country strong in the first place. Strong families built this country. If we are able to give tax breaks to families and more incentives to save for retirement security, that is going to strengthen the American family. That is one of the good results of tax cuts and allowing people to spend more of their own money. So, Mr. President, we are at a fork in the road and we have a choice. We are standing for getting this country back on the right road so that we will have a strong America and the opportunity that a strong America will give for our children. Mr. President, that is what the budget fight is about. That is why it has been so difficult, because our vision for the future of our country may be the same as the President's vision, but our ways of getting there differ greatly. We believe that the only way we can make our country strong again is to stand firm for a 7-year balanced budget, with help for our families, giving incentives to people to save and invest, and giving people back the money they worked so hard for. Mr. President, we are standing for the hard-working, taxpaying, middle-class people of this country that deserve a break, and we are trying to give it to them. That is what this impasse is all about. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I just wanted to ask about the House resolution that will cover veterans.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct several inadvertent results from recent rulings by the U.S. Treasury Department changing over 50 years of law and practice in the U.S. regarding spices. This legislation will exempt these products, as well as coffee and tea, from proposed new regulations that would needlessly and inadvertently require their containers to be individually marked with country of origin. These labeling requirements are unnecessary because the coffee, tea and spices under consideration, with one exception, are not manufactured in the United States and therefore do not offer consumers the option to purchase domestically-grown alternatives. The one exception is not processed in such a way as to fall under the new regulations, so it will be unaffected by this legislation. This bill, supported by the House Ways and Means Committee, was included in the House's version of the budget reconciliation bill, but was excluded under Senate rules. The legislation is also supported by the U.S. Treasury Department, which issued the regulations but requires legislative language to except these three areas. Finally, my bill is supported by coffee, tea, and spice importers. Without this legislation, regulations calling for country of origin markings ultimately would require extremely costly record keeping and marking of individual jars and canisters of products which are often mixes of nearly identical products from different countries and different parts of the world. The countries of origin vary quite often due to market prices and availability. Marking requirements under the new regulations would ultimately cost consumers millions of dollars in higher coffee, tea and spice prices while providing no useful information. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important and bipartisan technical correction.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct several inadvertent results from recent rulings by the U.S. Treasury Department changing over 50 years of law and practice in the U.S. regarding spices. This legislation will exempt these products, as well as coffee and tea, from proposed new regulations that would needlessly and inadvertently require their containers to be individually marked with country of origin. These labeling requirements are unnecessary because the coffee, tea and spices under consideration, with one exception, are not manufactured in the United States and therefore do not offer consumers the option to purchase domestically-grown alternatives. The one exception is not processed in such a way as to fall under the new regulations, so it will be unaffected by this legislation. This bill, supported by the House Ways and Means Committee, was included in the House's version of the budget reconciliation bill, but was excluded under Senate rules. The legislation is also supported by the U.S. Treasury Department, which issued the regulations but requires legislative language to except these three areas. Finally, my bill is supported by coffee, tea, and spice importers. Without this legislation, regulations calling for country of origin markings ultimately would require extremely costly record keeping and marking of individual jars and canisters of products which are often mixes of nearly identical products from different countries and different parts of the world. The countries of origin vary quite often due to market prices and availability. Marking requirements under the new regulations would ultimately cost consumers millions of dollars in higher coffee, tea and spice prices while providing no useful information. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important and bipartisan technical correction.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority whip for those comments and just say that Senator Warner, Senator Simpson, and I, and many others, have been very concerned about many aspects of this. Those veterans who have served our country cannot be left at the gate. We could not go through Christmas without making sure that these people know they are covered, that they are not worried about it. Let me just say that tonight, leaving from Fort Hood is a reserve unit on its way to Bosnia. For those people and the many others who are going to be veterans very quickly by serving in Bosnia, it is very important that they know that this body will always act responsibly when it comes to them. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished majority whip.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I did want to clarify with the distinguished majority whip to ask if this does, in fact, pass in the next few minutes, can the veterans of this country and those receiving AFDC, people who work for the District of Columbia Government, people who are receiving foster care and adoption assistance and Medicaid be assured that they are going to, in fact, get their payments? Is that what this means?