Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for understanding the importance and the long-range importance of space research and NASA. They accompanied me to NASA in Houston. And we were able to sit in one of the modules. I am happy to say that we survived the distinguished chairman piloting the space module. It was a very important trip because we saw what is on the cutting edge of the space station research. We saw how you cannot do certain things with gravity in the research that you can do if you are out in space where you do not have the pull of gravity. So I appreciate the time and effort that Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have put into understanding NASA, and the importance of this for those of us on Earth who are very committed to keeping the new technologies and the growth that are provided. This country's venture into space has represented America at its best--forward-looking and inventive, committed to the advancement of mankind and of science, creator of technologies, applying them to products that to make life [[Page S 14195]] better, so much better that our grandparents and our great grandparents could never have really dreamed of; the differences that we have now because of the space research that we have done in the past 10 or 15 years. The essence of what we are debating today when we take up funding for the space station is whether we will summon the vision to continue this quest in cooperation with other nations, or will we instead clip the wings of civilization and hunker down right here on Earth. Mr. President, let us come back to Earth for a minute. NASA and the space station have not been exempt from budget cuts. It is not like there is a massive spending program out there that has been unfettered. The space station has in fact offered up more than its fair share of budget reductions. In 1993, a reduction and redesign in the program resulted in the space station being $2 billion more cost efficient. Unlike a number of other Government agencies, budget reduction has been addressed head on by NASA which recently put itself through a vigorous analysis called the zero-based review under which every mission, every element of its operation, was scrutinized for savings and efficiency. I watched this process very closely and commend Dan Goldin for his bold approach. Every agency, including Congress, should benefit from the same kind of scorched-Earth review of its own operations. NASA was able to achieve a 35-percent budget reduction--saving the taxpayers a total of $40 billion over the future of NASA, and the space station-- and continue with its mission. Another important item to remember in this debate is that Congress and the administration in their long-term balanced budget plans both include the space station. In fact, the committees in both Houses of Congress have reported measures fully funding the space station for fiscal year 1996. In light of this, I can only conclude that opponents who are playing the budget card are really just engaging in another attempt to derail the space program--a program that, since the Kennedy administration, has paid back an incalculable return on the American investor. First among those returns are the advances in medicine that this program has brought right back here to Earth. As its predecessors did, the space station has the potential to provide us with powerful weapons in our ongoing battle against diseases, especially breast cancer and osteoporosis where we can only do the research in the nongravity situation. A permanently manned space laboratory is critical to providing researchers with more extensive facilities in a controlled, microgravity environment. Most significantly, extended human space flights will allow scientists to modify their experiments in orbit and take advantage of the unanticipated results. This is the kind of flexibility that has historically shown that we can get our greatest breakthroughs. The question we are asking today is, Are we going to pursue the knowledge? The space station will allow us to continue to benefit from the multiple economic benefits space exploration has provided us to date. America and American jobs have grown because of space-based advances in transportation, data processing, communications, and countless other high-technology advances that have made our standard of living the envy of the world. Laser surgery--if you have had the ability to have laser surgery, you know what a great benefit this has been in our medical development. Operations that used to take weeks to heal now are done in half a day in a doctor's office. That is because laser surgery has provided the opportunity to have safe, efficient surgery that heals almost instantly. If you have of used velcro--velcro closures, that came from space. If you have had the opportunity to have a hearing aid put in your ear, and if you remember what our grandparents used to use for hearing aids, they used to have big batteries in their pockets and wires that ran up to big ear plugs that you could see a mile away, and now you can put that device in your ear. And most people do not even know that you have a hearing aid. That kind of technology was made possible by space research and our commitment to space research. Not only is it a quality of life issue, but think of all the jobs that have been created making the lasers that do the surgery, making the hearing aids that fit into your ears, the velcro lining, from coats to tennis shoes, to everything else that has made life so much easier. It also has created jobs because people are making those products. I urge my colleagues to vote with me to keep fueling this kind of research. It benefits everyone on Earth, and it continues to bring those new technologies that create the new industries that keep our economy vibrant, that keep it growing, that allow us to continue to offer the people coming into our system the new jobs. While the specter of war hovers over Eastern Europe an other parts of the globe, the space station is poised to serve as a catalyst for global cooperation on a scale previously unimagined. As the largest most ambitious international scientific and technological development project ever undertaken, the space station brings together resources and some of the best scientists from the United States, Russia, Japan, member nations of the European Space Station Agency, Canada, and Italy. The Russians, who are old hands in space, have a wealth of experience and expertise to bring to the table in this cooperative endeavor. Having the Russians on board will provide the United States and our other partners a very valuable asset. As an indicator of the level of commitment that Russia has given the space station, this year the Russian space agency was granted an increase in its budget, including its science budget. This represents the strong support that the space program receives from the Russian Government. And the Russian space program, like ours, has been a constant source of pride to the Russian people. It enjoys the broadest spectrum of political support in Russia. Our venture into space is teaching us important lessons in how to live together through cooperation on Earth. However, our cooperative activities with Russia--encouraging democracy, supporting a market economy, nuclear arms dismantlement, scientific collaboration--also advance our own national interests. During this critical period of transformation in Russia, we should continue this cooperation, not undermine it. Failure to fund the space station would break our partnership with Europe, Japan, and Canada. These countries have expended over half of their $9 billion commitment to the $15 billion space station program. It would cause them to conclude that they can no longer count on a United States commitment to build, launch and operate the space station. Mr. President, it would be unthinkable for America to be a bad business partner. We have given our word to these other countries. They have invested based on our word. It is the word of Congress as well as past Presidents and the present President. We cannot walk away after they have relied on that. We cannot do that. Congress has voted in support of the space station more than 20 times since 1987. This program is a reality. If we were to stop the program now, the cost of terminating the station would take out all the savings that would be projected in the 1996 budget. Our investment of $14.5 billion in the overall program would be thrown out the window. That would be a foolish thing for us to do. None of us want to be in a Congress that is remembered for displaying the failure of will--good will--that abandoning the space station project would signify. Grounding the space station would be the moral equivalent of grounding the American dream. The American people know and appreciate what the space station has done for the past 40 years to enhance our lives. They know the sacrifices that have been made by the early pioneers. Our national pride soared when our first manned spacecraft orbited the Earth. Who will ever forget watching the first man step on the Moon and plant the American flag in the Moon dust? Mr. President, we have led this space race, but in the big picture we have really only taken the first small step for man. The giant leap can only come [[Page S 14196]] with the commitment over time. The giant leap of mankind must be pursued. We are the leaders, and we cannot let down our people who have invested so much, our partners who have invested so much. It would be unthinkable. I urge my colleagues to support the space station and NASA once again, just as we have 20 times before. This is not the time to walk away from a commitment. I hope that we will do the right thing and hopefully we will put this issue to rest so that there will never be a question of our commitment to the future and the future jobs for our country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of the North American Development Bank, which was created to assist border States and local communities in coordinating, designing, and facilitating border infrastructure projects. It is a unique binational financial institution which acts as a catalyst for private and public capital investment for projects certified by its sister organization, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC]. Established through a joint agreement between the United States and Mexico, the NADBank also establishes the United States and Mexico as equal partners, under which both the United States and Mexico contribute equally to the Bank's resources. Importantly, each government's capital subscription is not an operational expenditure. It represents an investment in a sound financial institution which will appreciate with the Bank's earnings and may eventually be returned to its investors--United States and Mexican citizens. The NADBank's role is a crucial one; it acts as the lead bank, like an investment bank, financing border environmental infrastructure projects as a complement to other public and private sector financial sources. It also has an important private sector orientation. Unlike other multilateral development banks which lend primarily to public entities, the NADBank may provide financing to any entity--public or private. What will NADBank capital be used for? Well, 90 percent will go to border infrastructure projects. Ten percent will be used to fund separate domestic programs in the United States and Mexico beyond the Mexican border. Clearly, the role of the NADBank is an important one not just to border States but to any community. Mr. President, pollution does not require a visa. Border pollution impacts both Mexico and the United States, and growing public health concerns and a lack of adequate clean water prevent economic growth extending out and beyond the border regions. Growing health concerns due to the inadequacy of municipal infrastructure are a potential time bomb. If the health risks associated with lack of adequate infrastructure are not addressed, the border will face even more severe health problems over the next decade. The NADBank, in its efforts to address growing infrastructure needs, will benefit the entire border region's health standards. The proper use of the Bank's capital will be guarded carefully, therefore, as if it were a trust for our children. Properly planned and developed border infrastructure will help United States-Mexico trade to flow freely.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that when we take this major step to end welfare as we know it, we will owe a great deal of the thanks to our majority leader for putting together this bipartisan coalition. We are making an important policy change in America today. Welfare will be a hand up but not a handout. Welfare will be there for a transition, for people in trouble, but it will not become a way of life. There will be a 5-year lifetime limit on able-bodied people getting welfare, so that family that is working hard to do better, to educate their children will know that they are not paying a bill for someone who is able but not willing to work. In our bill, block grants replace entitlements for seven AFDC programs. We will be saving $60 billion in welfare costs, the most ever cut in welfare in our country's history. What could have killed this bill was the inequity in block grants among the States. The States could have said, ``Well, if I don't get this for my State, I'm walking away from welfare reform.'' But many of us were able to get together and say each State is different. What we have done in the past is different, what we are going to do in the future is different and, therefore, we must accommodate each State. Everyone has given so that we will have parity over the next 7 years. That is the hallmark of this bill: States rights, State flexibility to provide the programs that fit their needs. In fact, it is the policy set by the Congress that States can become more efficient and responsive if Washington, DC, will just get out of the way. And today, Mr. President, Washington is going to get out of the way. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader because this Senate is getting ready to take a major step to end welfare as we know it. The majority leader has put together a coalition that is bipartisan.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator's amendment because I think this is a very important part of the Federal Government's responsibility to control our borders. I am one of the States that is affected by the illegal aliens that come across the border, and they do take not only from our State and local coffers, but from the Federal coffers as well. This is something that we must stop. I think the Senator from Nebraska has a very good amendment, and I think it should be part of an overall illegal immigration reform measure that the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, are working on. But until that time, it is very important that we speak in this welfare reform bill to the cost of illegal aliens. So I appreciate what the Senator from Nebraska has done, and I support his amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield 1 minute to me?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Has our time expired?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the junior Senator from New York.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from New York.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes from our 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the welfare reform bill tomorrow morning. Under a previous consent agreement, there will be a rollcall vote at 9:10 a.m. on or in relation to the Moseley-Braun amendment No. 2471. Following that vote, there will be a lengthy series of rollcall votes on amendments with a minimal amount of debate time between each vote. All Members, therefore, can expect a large number of rollcall votes during Wednesday's session of the Senate beginning at 9:10 a.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 13, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill, as under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that an additional 10 minutes of debate be allotted tomorrow on the Domenici amendment No. 2575, with that time equally divided between Senator Dole and Senator Daschle, or their designees.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered and agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 170, submitted earlier today by the majority leader, Senator Dole.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to, en bloc, and I move to lay that motion on the table. So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2511

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to call up and adopt the following amendments, en bloc. These amendments have been cleared by both the majority and the Democratic managers of the bill. I further ask consent that any statements accompanying these amendments be inserted at the appropriate place as if read. Those amendments are as follows: Abraham amendment No. 2511; McConnell amendments Nos. 2674 and 2675; Domenici amendment No. 2574; Stevens amendment No. 2585; Bryan amendment No. 2555; Leahy amendment No. 2570; and Feingold amendment No. 2480.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct. That could be a result. That is exactly correct. You see, there is another point here. When we are talking about the underlying bill, we are talking about redistributing $887 million over a 5-year period. So we are holding everyone harmless. Every State is held harmless. And the low-benefit, high-growth States that need that extra help are going to divide the $887 million. But the Graham-Bumpers amendment does not redistribute $887 million. It redistributes $17 billion. It takes the entire pot of $17 billion, and it says, OK, we are going to put it on a 5-year plan, and at the end of 5 years every person in America is going to have the same amount. When you do that, someone has to pay. Let us look at what happens. New York loses $4.6 billion. In a $17 billion redistribution, one State loses $4.6 billion to pay for the redistribution to the other States. California is the biggest loser. California would lose $5.4 billion. So really you are talking about almost half of the entire amount-- actually more than half the amount of the entire amount--which is going to come out of two States. Madam President, we are a country. There is no State that can stand to lose that kind of money and make it. So that is why it is very important that we look at realism. What do you think is going to happen if this amendment passes? If this amendment passes, there is no welfare reform. The bill comes down. It is over. So I ask my colleagues as they are looking at this amendment, which I would love to vote for, and 35 States come out better. But the price when the pound of flesh comes straight out of the heart is too high. And I think if we are not serious about welfare reform that we can go blithely along and say, ``Oh, sure. Let California sink into the Pacific. Let New York go into the Hudson River. And, sure. We will have welfare reform that everybody can live with.'' Well, everybody except New York and California, and anyone who has a conscience. It is like the child who is going after the big bubbles. When the child gets the bubbles the child finds that there is only air in its place. So the difference between the two bills is really the difference in whether we have welfare reform or not. Let me say that I sympathize with Florida, and I sympathize with Arkansas. The biggest winner in the Graham amendment is Texas. The biggest single winner of any State in the entire Union is my home State of Texas. We gain over $1 billion. But I did not come here to get a big windfall for Texas when I know that if I went for that beautiful bubble what would happen is we would go back to welfare as we know it, which no one in good conscience can say is right for this country. We must persevere to have welfare reform. All of us must give a little. And the underlying Hutchison-Dole formula does give Florida growth. We worked very hard to make sure that the 19 States that have-- actually, it is 20 States--that have low benefits and high growth do not suffer to such a great extent that they would be in jeopardy. And I do sympathize with Florida. Florida is like Texas. We have illegal immigration that costs our States dearly. There is no question about it. However, the Graham-Bumpers amendment is not the answer if we care about welfare reform. If we care about welfare reform, we will all give a little so that there is a fairness in the system, and we will all win a lot because the people of America will have welfare reform that is going to allow States to have time limits for able-bodied recipients to have welfare, that is going to provide for child care and job training. But it is going to require work for welfare for able-bodied recipients, and it is going to have caps on spending in welfare so that the hard- working American family will know that someone is not staying on welfare generation after generation having things that the hard-working family is not able to buy for its own children. No longer is that going to be tolerated in this country. That is what welfare reform does, if we are all willing to give a little for everyone to win. That is why the underlying formula is balanced. It is why no one is completely happy with it and why it is easily subject to attack. But [[Page S 13358]] I worked very hard with many other Senators who were concerned about the original Finance Committee bill to try to come up with something that was fair to everyone--not everyone's total liking but fair so that no one would go home saying they did not get something. They either get welfare reform that is good for every taxpaying family in this country, and they get either a benefit in the beginning if they are a big welfare State, or a benefit toward the end if they are a low-benefit, high-growth State. I think we have accommodated the needs of every State in a reasonable manner, and that is the bottom line. It is balance. It is fairness. It, above all, is keeping the goal of welfare reform so that everyone knows that it is not going to be welfare as we know it. It is not going to be business as usual. It is going to be better for every American if we can persevere and do the right thing. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I want to talk about the underlying formula, the Dole-Hutchison formula that is in this bill. The key to our formula is balance. When we looked at the monumental problem of welfare reform, the main goal we had was to keep the reform in the bill but not penalize any State too much. So what we did was take the high- payment States, the high-welfare States, and we froze them. That is a big gain in the beginning for those States because we felt that we could not go to a State like New York or California and say next year you are getting a cut. So we freeze them for 5 years. When you are talking about a 5-year block grant, you have to be very careful. You have to be careful about year 1, but years 3, 4 and 5 are just as important, especially if you are a growth State. And, if you are a low-benefit growth State, you do not have the margin of error that would allow you to absorb growth with a very low benefit in the outyears. So we took this problem, and we said how can we do a 5-year block grant so we can plan for the budget, so that we can balance our budget responsibly without hurting any State too much? That is what the Dole- Hutchison formula does. It leaves the high benefit States whole. They never lose anything that they had in 1994 and beyond. No State loses anything they had from 1994 on. But we took $887 million and we allocated that for low-benefit high-growth States so that in the outyears, 3, 4, and 5, we knew what the budget would be but we allowed them a modest growth. It is modest. It is 2.5 percent per year for a low-benefit high-growth State. So our goal is to slowly reach parity. It is slower than many of us would like to see because many States start very low like the Senator from Arkansas who was just speaking. He is one of the States that is going to grow slowly. But, if you put food stamp and AFDC together--and they do go together--most States will eventually reach parity. But they will do it gradually. They will do it without hurting any other States. What is wrong with the Graham amendment? We have heard Senator Graham and Senator Bumpers talk about the merits of their formula. If I were the dictator, I would say sure, let us start next year, and let us say everybody is going to be equal in America. What is the problem with that? The problem is this is the United States of America. We have 50 States that have to come together to make collegial decisions. We have to do it in a responsible way so that one State is not such a big loser that it could put that State in severe financial straits from which they really could not recover. That is what is wrong with the Graham- Bumpers amendment. It is totally fair. There is no question about it. But if you do totally fair on paper and do not take into account that someone has to pay for this, then it is just what you have--something on paper because it will never be a collegial decision that is fair enough that all of us could feel in good conscience that we could adopt it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, no further votes will be held tonight because of these unanimous consents, and Members are reminded there will be 10 rollcall votes beginning at 9:10 a.m. with a few minutes in between each vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask unanimous consent that the same parameters as outlined regarding the Domenici amendment apply with respect to debate time in the usual form, voting option, and length of rollcall votes to the following additional amendments: Daschle, No. 2672; Daschle, No. 2671; DeWine, No. 2518; Mikulski, No. 2668; Faircloth, No. 2608; and Boxer, No. 2592.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Graham amendment, there be 10 minutes for debate, to be equally divided between Senators Domenici and Gramm on the Domenici amendment No. 2575, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to that amendment, and the rollcall vote be limited to 10 minutes in length.