Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just address a question to the Senator from Georgia on my time, and that is I wonder if we have even talked about the impact on other governments of Federal regulations, such as our small towns across America. Our small towns are reeling from regulations that require them to go into their water supply and test for items that do not even relate to their part of the country. I just wanted to ask the Senator from Georgia if he does not think that the lower threshold is also going to be a boon to the smaller towns that might not have the ability to have legal staffs that can come up and talk to Federal agencies?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend the senior Senator from South Carolina and also the dean of the Senate for the statement that he made. Senator Thurmond has been in this Senate a long time. He has seen the evolution of the regulations that have come as a result of the laws that are passed by Congress. I think the Senator from South Carolina is saying that the regulators have gone far beyond congressional intent. He believes, as I do, that we must bring back the regulators, tell them what our congressional intent is, and try to bring some balance into the system. I thank the senior Senator from South Carolina for his leadership in this area and appreciate very much that, with his long experience, he would weigh in on behalf of this bill. In fact, it is a very important bill. One issue about which all Members have heard from our constituents over and over again is the need for fundamental reform of the tortured and increasingly tangled web of Federal overregulation. Congress passes laws. We delegate their implementation to regulators. If the regulators do not do what is envisioned by Congress, it is our responsibility to step in. In recent months, I have spoken on the floor of the Senate offering examples of Federal Government overregulation and unintended consequences of regulatory excess that puts Americans out of work. It usurps our constitutional rights. It saps our productivity. It saps our economic competitiveness. Americans have a right to expect their Government to work for them, not against them. Instead, Americans have to fight their Government in order to drive their cars, graze cattle on their ranches, or operate their small businesses in a reasonable, commonsense manner. I hear this every time I go home, or when I go to other States. The people of this country are tired of the harassment of their Government, and I think that was the message they sent in November 1994. The legislation before the Senate today provides lawmakers with a tool for ensuring that Federal agencies are carrying out Congress' regulatory intent properly and within the confines of Congress and no farther. Agencies have gotten into the habit of issuing regulations which go far beyond the intended purpose of the authorizing legislation. This bill is simply an extension of the system of checks and balances which has served our country so well for more than two centuries. Senator Thurmond has not been here for all two centuries, but we all know that it has gotten out of whack since Senator Thurmond has been in this Senate, and most certainly in the last 10 years, or 5 years, we have seen the balance go in the wrong direction. It is time to put the balance back in our Government and the ability of our Government to regulate our people. In November, the voters sent a message: We are tired of the arrogance of Washington, DC. Nothing demonstrates that arrogance more than the volumes of one-size-fits-all regulations which pour out of this city and impact on the daily life of the American people. The regulators in Washington, it seems, believe that everyone can fit into one cookie-cutter mold. They do not take into account the different situations in each business, in each State, in each city, and the things that might be affecting safety or whatever the regulation is covering in that city. I believe the voters went to the polls because they felt harassed by their Government, the Government that issues regulations without any thought of the impact on the small businesses of this country. You just do not feel the pinch of being a small business person unless you have been there, unless you have lived with the regulations and the mandates and the taxes that our small business people live with every day. Our small business people, Mr. President, are the economic engine of this country. Government is not the economic engine of America. Small business is. They create 80 percent of the new jobs in this country. Sometimes they feel like their Government is trying to keep them from growing and prospering and creating new jobs. If they do not grow and prosper and create new jobs, how are we going to absorb the new people coming into our economic system, the young people graduating from college, the immigrants who are coming into our country? How are we going to absorb them if we continue to force our small businesses to put money into regulatory compliance and redtape and filling out forms, instead of into the business to buy new machines that create new jobs. That is the issue we are talking about today. When I meet with small business people, men and women across our country, complaints about excessive Federal regulations are always at the top of their list. In fact, a few weeks ago the White House hosted a conference on small business and, according to those with whom I spoke who went to the conference, no one issue and no one agency energized the participants more than the need for comprehensive regulatory reform. They talk about taxes, yes. But, mostly, those small business people say, ``If you will get the regulations off our backs so we can compete, that's when we will be able to throw the shackles off and grow and prosper and create the new jobs for our country.'' So, Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. This bill is necessary to get the regulatory process under control. The Republican majority of this Congress recognizes that the problems that business owners face are hurting our country and we are committed to doing something about it. We are committed to regulatory reform legislation that will establish a flexible [[Page S 9651]] decisionmaking framework for Federal agents, so they know what the parameters are. We need to make our congressional intent very clear. Some of the regulators might have gotten out of control unwittingly. Maybe we were not clear enough. Congress has passed broad, general sorts of guidelines in the past. Maybe it is time we pass laws that are specific, so the regulators have no doubts. I think that is our responsibility, and this bill will take a step in that direction. We need to increase public participation in the regulatory decisionmaking process. That is what this bill will do. It will bring in peer groups to talk about the effects of the regulations so the regulators will know if there is a scientific basis for this regulation, if we really need it, how does it affect the workplace, the marketplace, worker safety, worker harassment--that is what this bill will speak to. It will require political and judicial accountability. If you do not have judicial accountability, there will not be any teeth in this law. So we will have the ability to have judicial review, to see if the regulation meets the test of the law that is passed. This bill will require the regulators to ask and answer the questions, ``Is the regulation worth the cost?'' And, ``Does this approach maximize the benefits to society as a whole?'' That is what the basic concept of this bill is. We have heard a lot about food safety. That is something the press has really talked about in the last couple of days. They have shown meatpacking plants and talked about the E. coli virus and the things that might happen if we have regulatory reform that will require the things we are talking about. The fact is, food safety is exempt from this bill. It is not spoken to. It is exempt because no one wants to worry about the safety of our food. So it is very important, as we look at the press that is going to be coming out of this bill, that we realize there are some very important exceptions because we want to make sure we do not do something that is going to hurt the health or welfare of the people of this country. No, the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 is trying to put balance and common sense back into the system. We have survived in this country for 2 centuries with a balanced approach. It is only in the last 5 or 10 years that we have gone so far in the direction of excesses that we must now say to our business people, ``We are going to try to put some common sense into this equation. We are going to put people ahead of blind salamanders.'' That is the purpose of this act. The key principle embodied in this bill is cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth it? The premise is simple. Before an agency promulgates a regulation, it systematically measures the benefits of the regulation and compares those benefits to the costs. This analysis allows a full and complete understanding of the regulatory burden imposed on consumers by the Federal Government. Is the price increase, necessitated by the regulation, to people who are in the grocery store, worth the benefit to be gained? And, further, will the benefit actually be gained? That is a question that is not asked. Will the regulation actually achieve the purpose that it is supposed to achieve? That is a very important, basic concept, and that is what a cost-benefit analysis does. I want to talk more about cost-benefit analysis because there have been some studies done that show that we can spend $900 million to possibly save one life when we could take the same $900 million and assure that we would save hundreds of lives in other ways. So it becomes a matter of how we spend our resources. How will it benefit the most people? And that is what bringing common sense into the system will do. Risk assessment is an important complement to cost-benefit analysis. The problem with the current regulatory process is that it often focuses on minor risks while ignoring far greater threats to public health and safety. There are many risks to public health and, without effective risk assessment, funds available to address these risks will be needlessly squandered on questionable programs that do little to really promote public health and safety and environmental protection. In my home State of Texas we had the incredible experience of having a new mandate put on the citizens of Dallas and Houston and El Paso and Beaumont--cities that were in nonattainment areas for air quality, cities that are trying desperately to do something about it. El Paso has tried in every way to clean its air. But, because there is smoke coming across the border from Juarez, they are not able to do anything. And it is not their fault. Nevertheless, they were put under a mandate to have a vehicles emissions test by a certain specific machine that would possibly, we are told, have cleaned the air maybe 0.5 percent--maybe, rather than with other types of machines that are much cheaper, that would not have required the hassle to every consumer in those cities, and which would have done much the same but at much less cost. And it was not even proven that was the only machine that would be able to detect these emissions. Yet we had the requirement that we had to go to certain centers with just that machine, and the cost was in the hundreds of millions of dollars to the consumers of Texas. We were faced with doing that because of dealing with the EPA and not being able to have the flexibility to do what we could in a cost-beneficial manner. We are all trying to clean up the air. Of course, we are. But how much is going to be the cost to possibly get a 0.5-percent benefit to the air quality? And we are not even sure that it was necessary just to have that one machine. We find that there are also infrared rays that will pick up at an entry ramp the emissions that do not meet the test. We have an experiment that is in the works right now that would give us the ability to buy some time and in a much more cost-efficient way with much less hassle for the consumers of the cities all across America that are in the noncontainment areas. We could have something just as effective for them at a much less cost. That is what risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis will do for our country and for the regulators. Judicial review. Without judicial review, there is no way to ensure that the Federal agencies will use the risk assessment and the cost- benefit analysis to write the regulations. I mean, that is what we have to have. We have to have the leverage that is out there so that we will be able to go to the judges and say, ``Did we meet the standard that is required under the law?'' And Congress is being specific about congressional intent. Good science, open science. It is important that we have the scientific basis for these regulations because we do not know for sure in many instances that there really is good, sound science in the sunshine in the regulations that are put forth. This we assured in the bill with peer review. In most cases today, the scientific and technical assessment on which regulations are based are not subjected to independent external peer review. As a result, the scientific and technical underpinnings of agency actions that may have enormous consequences often are not adequately tested. Regulation reform is necessary to assure that there will be an independent external peer review. We can get many of the scientists that understand these issues to be on a peer review panel to make sure that we have the ability to say absolutely for certain this regulation will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish. So regulation reform will reduce the burden of unnecessary Federal regulation. Requiring cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, judicial review, and the threat of congressional action will go a long way toward ensuring common sense in the promulgation of Federal regulations. There will be the ability in this bill for Congress to have 60 days to review any regulation and turn it back. That is a very important point. It is very important that Congress will be able to come in and say to regulators that they have gone beyond what we intended. That is the ultimate responsibility of Congress, and it is one that we must take. So, Mr. President, we are beginning now to set the framework in this debate. There has been a lot of hot air in the last week about what might happen if we do not have this ability to come in and put checks on the system. A lot has been said about what will happen if [[Page S 9652]] we put some checks and balances in the system. Mr. President, I think this is a great step for the small business people of this country, and I am proud that the sponsors of the bill have done such a terrific job on a bipartisan basis to help the small business people of our country compete. Mr. President, I will stop here because I know that at 9:45 they are going to propose another amendment. But I just want to thank the managers of the bill, the sponsors of the bill, and the leadership for taking this very important step to free our businesses to compete in the international marketplace and for our small businesses to be able to grow and prosper and create the jobs that are going to keep this economy vital for the new people and to keep the young people graduating from high school and college employed. That is the goal, Mr. President. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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, I yield myself 8 minutes from the majority's time. Mr. President, this is a watershed day for America. Finally we are at the crossroads. The question is simple: Do we put America on course for a healthy, prosperous future? Or do we once again, as we have done year after year after year in this Congress, mortgage our future, our children's future, and our country's future with more and more debt? America has prospered because our parents and grandparents saved their money and invested it in businesses and farms to create jobs and to give their children a better life. We can pass the American dream on to our children by saving for tomorrow--not by spending and borrowing for today. America is finally going to have the promises kept. We promised in 1994 that we would be different, and we are keeping our promise. The old Congress never proposed a balanced budget. It was always tax, borrow, spend. If that did not work, they taxed some more. The taxers and spenders think that if they can just squeeze one more dollar out of the taxpayers of this country, that Americans will somehow be better off. It is time for Congress to look to the future for our children and grandchildren. The deficit will be over $200 billion a year again, unless we change. Under President Clinton's first budget, the debt would grow to $23,000 for every man, woman, and child in America by the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office said the President's second budget was a little better, but not much, and it continued deficit spending. We have a chance for change now, with a budget that does some very important things. It saves Medicare from bankruptcy. It keeps a safety net with more money for Medicaid, school lunches, and food stamps. This budget shrinks big Government. We start that very tough process by cutting overhead and bureaucracy, by cutting Congress' budget, and by freezing Congress' pay. The budget terminates outdated programs. It protects the taxpayers from the excesses of past Congresses and the President. This plan does not cut overall spending. It does not cut overall spending. Spending rises at the rate of inflation. That is what we try to do in our homes. That is what we try to do in our businesses. If we are lucky enough to get pay raises or more sales, we often spend the increase on inflation just to stay even. And that is what we must do in the Federal Government. Then, after we have done the first work of cutting the budget, we are going to give the profits to the American people, the taxpayers. We are going to give the tax cuts to the American family, for homemakers to have IRA's, because their work is every bit as important as anyone else's work in this country. It is about time that they were recognized for their efforts with their own opportunity to save for retirement security. There will be other savings for people, too. Because if we balance this budget, interest rates will go down so your home mortgage interest rate will be lower. Your car loan will be lower. It will help small businesses borrow so they can continue to prosper and create new jobs to keep this economy going. The people, not the Government, built this country. We must stop spending the people's money and their children's money and their grandchildren's money if we are going to keep the prosperity that our grandparents gave us and our parents gave us. Thomas Jefferson said it is immoral for one generation to rob the next by spending more than it has today. It was wrong in his time and is wrong today. We have the chance to be responsible leaders in this country, and that is exactly what the majority party is doing. Look at this budget resolution. Do you agree with everything in it? No. Do I agree with everything in it? No. I would like to have had more spending for defense. There are some important programs that I would like to expand further. But, just like we do in our families, we have to make priority choices. That is what this budget resolution does. We have taken the first responsible step of leading. We have done something very different from Congresses of the past by keeping our promises. If you do not agree with everything we have done, we understand that, but look at the big picture. Look at the long term. Think of our parents, who said we are going to do what is right, even sometimes when it is harder for our families to make ends meet. That is what my father always did. That is what he taught me. Even if it was not in the best interest of his small business, he would act for the good of the community because he knew in the end a healthy community would be better for all of us. I hope my colleagues will put aside their partisan differences, put aside the small differences that we might have on the specifics of this budget resolution. Let us do what is right for America. Let us do what is right to give to our children and grandchildren the same kind of America that we have been able to grow up in and have the benefit of-- and that we love. That is our responsibility. That is the crux of the vote we are about to take.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, one of charities' most important sources of funds--charitable gift annuities--is threatened. Ever since the American Bible Society entered into the first planned giving arrangement in the 1830's, charitable gift annuities have been a traditional method of giving in America. Typically, the donor gives property to a charity and receives some of the investment income for the rest of her life. After the donor's death, the charity keeps the property to help with its charitable mission. Donors establish charitable gift annuities to help feed and clothe the neediest among us, to provide relief for disaster victims, to heal the sick, to educate our children, and to bring culture to our communities. The threat to charities comes from the misapplication of laws to protect consumers from securities fraud and unfair competition to charitable giving. A lawsuit filed in Federal court in Wichita Falls, TX, challenges the ability of charities under Federal securities laws and antitrust laws to engage in planned giving with donors. The lawsuit alleges that the American Council on Gift Annuities--an educational organization sponsored by more than 1,500 charities to assist them in issuing gift annuities--violated antitrust law by providing actuarial tables to charities to assist them in determining the interest they should pay on annuities. The lawsuit also alleges that commingling of more than one charities' trust funds in a pooled income fund is a violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and other securities laws. The plaintiff--a disappointed potential heir of the elderly woman who made the charitable donation--says that it is price-fixing for the council to suggest what charities should pay in interest on gift annuities. She overlooks that gift annuities aren't trade or commerce in the first place. Congress recognized this fact in the Technical Corrections Act of 1988 when it excepted gift annuities from the definition of commercial insurance. Instead of getting the best possible return on her investment, a charitable donor is trying to help the charity. If she wanted investment return, she would go to a bank or a brokerage house, not the Red Cross. Lawyers for the plaintiff are seeking class action certification to expand the suit to charities from every State. The lawyers ask for the return of all charitable annuity donations plus treble damages--damages that would have to be paid from endowments or unrelated donations. Such an award could financially disable thousand of charities, including hospitals, relief organizations, arts groups, museums, universities, and every religious denomination in the country. One of the plaintiff's lawyers in this case has boasted that this is a ``billion-dollar lawsuit,'' because it will extract huge sums of money from our Nation's noblest institutions--and earn him a big contingency fee. Today I am introducing legislation to prevent the financial security of American charities from being undermined. The bill exempts charitable organization's annuity activities from the antitrust laws. It also codifies current SEC policy for irrevocable trusts by clarifying that charities may make collective investments under the securities laws, such as investment in pooled income funds. For revocable trusts, the bill provides a 3-year window for compliance with the securities laws, termination of revocable trusts, or conversion of revocable trusts into irrevocable trusts. Similar legislation was unanimously passed this spring by the Texas Legislature to clarify that charities issuing gift annuities are not required to be licensed as insurance companies or incorporated as trust companies. Charities in America have a consistent track record of honoring their promises and commitments to donors, and will remain liable for fraudulent acts--although none are alleged in this lawsuit. My bill does not exempt charities from liability for fraud. The persons responsible for the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy ``Ponzi Scheme'' would still be held responsible for their acts. Charities are not harming anyone--the only harm being done is by this lawsuit to America's charities. We must act now to protect charitable giving from harm, and to protect our laws from being misapplied. Returning charitable annuity gifts and opening up endowments to pay treble damages will harm all of us. Every dollar lost is a child unvaccinated, a baby unfed, a sick person with no medical care, a Boy Scout troop that will cease to exist, a house for a poor family that will not be built, and a scholarship that will not be granted. I urge all Senators to protect their most important institutions and pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in a way, we do that in many instances. I think it is well settled that the U.S. Congress has the right to make laws as they affect our public roads and highways. If a State gets Federal funding, then we have certain laws that we must comply with. There are safety laws in the way we construct highways. Insurance companies do have standards that are adopted by States, very often, on who can get insurance and who cannot. I think we have to take everything on a case-by-case basis. I certainly think the Federal Government has the right and has made laws that are contingent upon receiving--Federal funds are contingent on those laws for States to receive those Federal funds. I sort of messed that up, but basically there are standards that have been set. I do not think it is out of line at all. I think we have a Federal law. We have set a Federal standard. We are giving States the right to go against that standard, just like we did on the speed limit yesterday. So I think we have just said if the States exercise the right, they take the responsibility.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is raising a red herring here because the issue is, if we are going to provide the service, we have the right to set the standards. If we are going to say the States can exercise their rights, we have a right to also give them the responsibility. I am glad we are going toward eliminating unfunded mandates to the States, but I think if we are going to give States the rights to do these things, they are going to have to pick up the responsibility, coming the other way, just as we are giving them the right not to have unfunded mandates from the Federal Government.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it depends on what the State does. I think the State has a right to say that you need to wear a helmet on a highway but private property is exempt, or the State can also require it on private property. I doubt it would apply on private property. But that is a State right. And I would think that probably private property is exempt.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask if the Senator will yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If a helmet would have prevented the injury, absolutely, and that is the purpose of helmet laws.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it would be very easy to determine if the person was injured by not having a helmet on or not.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The underlying----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No, it is my understanding of the amendment, if the injury is attributable to the person's failure to wear the motorcycle helmet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I voted not to table the Snowe-Campbell amendment because I do believe in States rights. But I also have a concern about the States lifting this helmet law and then expecting the Federal Government, through Medicaid or through other public grants, to pay for the cost of their lifting. I am a States righter. I think this should be a State issue. But I also think that with the right comes the responsibility. So, if the States decide within their rights to lift the laws requiring the use of helmets on motorcycles, I then think it is incumbent on the States to take the responsibility if the person does not have private health insurance. The statistics show that 64 percent of the inpatient charges for motorcycle-related accidents are provided for by private health insurance. But that leaves 19 percent for public, and 17 percent from other sources, including Medicaid. So you can see that there is a large percentage of these injuries that could be publicly paid for. I think people do have the right to enact State laws that govern how people on highways perform and how they protect themselves and what kind of safety issues you should have. I am a believer in States rights, and I also think with that right goes responsibility. So I am cosponsoring the amendment, and I appreciate the work that everyone has done on this issue. I thought this might be acceptable to both sides. But I think maybe it is not. I would like to reserve a little time at the end of the debate to finish in closing. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The State has the option. This is not something we are forcing them to use. The States have the option. They can decide to not have a helmet law and take the responsibility for the injuries, or they can have a helmet law and try to prevent those injuries. It is just a matter of whether the Federal Government is going to pay for this State right. You know, I am very much for States rights. I am very much against unfunded mandates. But I think it is very important when you are dealing with the highways and safety on the highways, which we do with seatbelts and helmet laws, if States are going to take the responsibility to make the decision, which I think they have a right to do, I think they should have the responsibility to pay for it rather than send the bill to the Federal Government.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct. But we are putting the responsibility on the State, if they decide not to have a helmet law.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. It goes toward the State that decides to make that decision to also take the responsibility for injuries caused by making that decision.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I would say so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. I think you are obviously making something that is not there because you do not think this is a good amendment, which is your right. But I think the issue here is, if a State wants to pass a law that says people do not have to wear motorcycle helmets, they have the right to do it. All we are saying is, they also have the responsibility to pay for it. I think that is fairly simple. I think it is fairly clear.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I think so. We are talking about the States taking the responsibility for not having a helmet law for what might happen for people who do not use them.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The reason that some States do have helmet laws--and this is, of course, I believe, a State issue--is because it is a protection. Whether you are hit or whether you fall or whether you are thrown from a motorcycle, the purpose is to try to keep down the injuries because you do not have the protections of a car. So regardless of fault, if you are injured because you did not have a helmet on, yes, you would fall under this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, more than 100 years ago, cattle drives made their way across the Texas plains toward the railhead of Abilene, KS, along what came to be known as the Chisholm Trail. Within a span of only 2 decades, the Chisholm Trail not only transformed settlements and towns, like Fort Worth, into major centers of commerce, it also produced one of our Nation's most enduring folk heroes--the cowboy. Since 1976, the Chisholm Trail Roundup has been held in the historic stockyards district of Fort Worth, TX. The roundup celebrates the Western spirit of adventure and perseverance and honors the cultures of tribe and nation that forged a new way of life on the American frontier. From native American dances to cowboy gunfights, the roundup displays all aspects of frontier life and creates an atmosphere in which learning about our history and enjoying the festival come together. As one of the country's largest annual festivals, the Chisholm Trail Roundup is nonprofit and benefits Western heritage organizations. This past weekend, Fort Worthians gathered once again to celebrate the city's rich heritage and to relive one of the most memorable times in American history. Mr. President, as the junior Senator from Texas, I would like to recognize the Chisholm Trail Roundup and its efforts to remind us to our pioneering heritage. I appreciate the thousands of hours of work that went into planning this event and am looking forward to many more roundups in the years to come.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes to finish and answer just a couple of things that were said. First, in relation to what the Senator from New Jersey said, I do not think that we need to talk about what other areas might arise from some innovative approach to this amendment. This amendment is very simple and very straightforward. We are not talking about penalizing the States. We are talking about letting them do as they wish, do something that could add to the medical costs because we know this is a safety issue, and if they decide to exercise that right that they take the responsibility for it. I think it is pretty simple. I think that Members are going to start seeing as we go down the road pursuing the unfunded mandates theory, and as we are turning things back to the States, the States are going to take responsibility for what they do. That is part of returning the power to the States, which I think is right thing to do. So I support the underlying amendment. This is not a gutting amendment at all. It is an amendment that I think is the correct thing--that, if the States decide that they are going to opt out from the Federal helmet laws, they take the responsibility for doing that. I think it is very simple and straightforward. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.