Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think a doctor is going to be able to easily discern what is caused by not wearing a helmet. I do not think that is going to be a big deal for a doctor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think it would be very reasonable to do that actually. I think whether you have a head injury or do not have a head injury is easily ascertainable. And yes, I think you could devise a----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Well, it is the point. That is absolutely the point.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I appreciate the fact that he wants to be added as a cosponsor of this amendment, because I think it is a good, sound amendment. There was one technical answer that I wanted to give to the Senator from Montana in his request for information, and that is, the underlying helmet law applies to public roads. Private property is really not an issue here. It is a matter of what we do on public roads. I was a member of the National Transportation Safety Board at one time. I am very safety conscious. There is no question about that. I would like to encourage people to wear helmets, because I know that makes a difference in safety. Safety belts make a huge difference in injuries in car accidents. I think that is so well settled that the Senate showed overwhelmingly yesterday that they did not want to lift the safety belt requirement. The issue of helmets is a closer call. I think it really is a States right issue. Yet, I do hope that the States will think very carefully before they enact a law that would do away with the helmet law, because I do think it is a safety issue. We do not want to hamper the rights of States in this instance. In fact, the American College of Emergency Physicians also believes this is a good amendment, because they see the effects of the differences in injuries when a person does not have a seatbelt or is not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. When people choose to ride motorcycles, as my wonderful friend the Senator from Colorado does, and we are proud that he does--when a person chooses to do that, that person is choosing to ride a vehicle that does not have the same protections as an automobile. A person should have that right. I also think that there is an issue of, if you are going to do that unprotected, without a helmet, which we know will not only save lives but have far fewer injuries, I think that there is a responsibility there. I just think that if a State decides that it is going to do away with the helmet law on public roads, that State should also take responsibility. This is not hampering States rights, but it is [[Page S 8759]] saying that when you have the right and you choose to exercise that right, you also take the responsibility for that action, rather than having the Federal Government do it. I think it is a very simple issue. I think it is an issue of States rights and State responsibilities. I am a cosponsor of the amendment that would not allow the Senate to send costs to the States. I think this is just a reversal of the same treatment. If the States decide they do not want to go with a national policy that has been set, they have the right to do it, but they should pay for the consequences of exercising that right. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are saying in this instance we think the State should pick up the responsibility if they are going to exercise their right. It is very simple.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is doing what Senator Chafee mentioned earlier, and that is using a debate tactic. I think it is well within the rights of an insurance company or the Federal Government, under Medicaid, to set standards for when you will receive that care. Absolutely, it is within their rights.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine is asking for a personal opinion when, in fact, there very easily could be Medicaid standards that say if you smoke, you do not get treatment. Now, whether I think that we should have those standards or not is really irrelevant here.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, throughout our history as a nation the White House has served as a public [[Page S 8822]] symbol of the President and the Federal Government. During countless wars and national crises, we have looked to the White House for leadership. The growth of our country, and the growth of its importance in the world, has caused the number of visitors and the demands on the Executive Residence of the President--the White House--to grow substantially. Over 1.5 million people visit the White House annually; it's the only Executive Residence in the world that is regularly open to the general public. Eventually the burden of constant use and the neglect of our historical treasures left the White House in disrepair. Until recently the White House was not maintained as a public building suitable for exhibiting our heritage and culture to the public. In 1961, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy initiated the White House Historic Preservation Program. The program's goals were to restore the historic integrity of the public rooms of the White House; to establish a fine and decorative arts collection; and to establish the White House Historical Association to publish and distribute educational materials describing the White House and its history. Later that decade First Lady Pat Nixon provided new leadership by overseeing the most extensive acquisition of fine and decorative arts in the history of the White House. Her plan for refurbishment of the public rooms remains intact after more than 20 years. The fine and decorative arts donated to the White House during the leadership of Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Nixon, valued today at tens of millions of dollars, far exceed those received during all other modern Presidential administrations combined. With over 1.5 million visitors annually, the Executive Residence's public rooms need constant care and complete refurbishing every 8 to 10 years. To maintain the collection of fine arts, historic pieces must be acquired, loaned works must be acquired, reproductions need to be replaced, and repairs need to be made. First Lady Barbara Bush established the White House Endowment Fund in 1990 to create a permanent endowment of $25,000,000 to maintain the public rooms and collection of the White House. Although substantial contributions have been received from the public, additional funds are needed to complete the endowment. Over the past 2 years we have lost Jacqueline Kennedy and Patricia Nixon, who were among the finest First Ladies that have served our country. In recognition of their service in preserving and improving the White House, and in their memory following their recent deaths, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a memorial grant to the White House Endowment Fund to continue preservation activities at the White House. First Ladies Jacqueline Kennedy and Patricia Nixon devoted much of their service to preserving and improving the White House. They made it a national showplace of American history, fine arts, and decorative arts. Bestowing this honor on Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Nixon would be in accord with the well-established congressional precedent by which a grateful nation recognizes noteworthy and enduring contributions to the public interest with memorial gifts. I hope all Senators will join me in recognizing their work and in preserving it for the future by supporting this bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I did not know the Senator from Rhode Island had come back to the floor. I had mentioned him before, but I could not have asked for more cooperation in getting these two amendments through than I have seen from the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island. He is doing a terrific job in shepherding this very important bill through. This bill actually is going to enhance our infrastructure in this country. It is going to create jobs. It is going to lower costs and increase productivity. It will improve air quality. There are so many side effects for this bill that are going to be good for everyone. I do appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Rhode Island in getting it through.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment would extend high- priority corridor 18 from where it currently ends in Houston, TX, all the way to the Mexican border in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, corridor 18 now extends from Indianapolis, IN, through Evansville, IN, Memphis, TN, Shreveport/Bossier, LA, terminating in Houston, TX. Corridor 18, along with corridor 20--from Laredo to Houston--are together popularly referred to as I-69. Extending corridor 18 to the Rio Grande Valley will expedite the shipment of goods traded between Mexico, the United States, and Canada by providing a direct link from the Canadian border to the Mexican border through the heart of the United States. Eighty [[Page S 8607]] percent of United States trade with Mexico is land-based. Because of geography, economic development, and commerce on both sides of the border, Texas is the funnel through which the majority of land- based United States-Mexico trade must pass. More than 50 percent of that traffic crosses the border at the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo; that number is expected to increase to almost 75 percent over the next decade. This amendment would give the growing traffic on the high-priority corridor system convenient access to the entire United States-Mexico border. Currently there are 9 existing border crossings in the lower Rio Grande Valley, with a total of 30 lanes. In 1994, they handled approximately 28.3 million crossings. Given the number of existing and planned bridges, the lower Rio Grande Valley is an increasingly significant center for cross-border commerce. Extending corridor 18 to the lower Rio Grande Valley will provide a direct link for the eight States along the I-69 corridor--which accounted for $50.6 billion or 38 percent of the dollar value of United States trade with Mexico and Canada in 1993. It will maximize the use of our border crossings. It will create a first-rate extended route that will distribute border traffic over several entry points, allowing for cost-efficient cross-border movement of goods. Extending corridor 18 to the lower Rio Grande will create an infrastructure that will enable the United States to maximize economic development through all of the States that I have just mentioned, as well as our ability to move goods and better capitalize on international trade. Finally, the development of corridor 18 to the lower Rio Grande Valley will link up with infrastructure development in Mexico. Currently, the Mexican State of Tamaulipas is advancing plans to construct a gulf highway corridor from the industrial center of Mexico City to the Rio Grande Valley. I want to say how much I appreciate the assistance of the chairman, the ranking minority member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, and the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the subcommittee, from Virginia, in this matter and say that this is truly going to enhance our ability to capitalize on NAFTA. It will affect all of the States that are going to have the ability to have the traffic and increase the trade between Mexico and the United States and Canada. This is a win for everyone. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Montana, in allowing me to put forward these amendments that I think will increase the economic benefit to all three countries that are participating in NAFTA.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer another amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is indeed a technical amendment. It just adds Tarrant County to the list of what counties may be included in this rural access projects. The reason is because a little bit of work needs to be done in Tarrant County for the Parker County project that was already approved. ISTEA section 1106(a)--rural access projects--contains a project to upgrade an existing highway to four lane divided highway in Parker County, TX. In order to complete this project as envisioned, some work must be undertaken in neighboring Tarrant County. However, ISTEA makes no mention of Tarrant County in the project authorization and there is a question at TXDOT as to whether it can complete the project through Tarrant County with the ISTEA-authorized funds since Tarrant is not specifically named in ISTEA by virtue of oversight. I am offering a technical amendment to ISTEA which extends authorization to complete the project as intended in Tarrant County. This amendment does not authorize any additional funds. Passage of this language has become critical because work undertaken under the ISTEA rural access authorization has reached the Tarrant County line and Congress must clarify that it may continue so that the Texas Department of Transportation may complete the project. The House has included this technical correction in every original legislation in 1991. It also was included in last year's NHS bill and will likely do so again in this year's version. I thank the chairman and ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their support in rectifying this small, but important, problem in Tarrant County.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to know what the status of floor action is, because I have two amendments that are technical and have been agreed to by both sides, which I would like to propose.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will just add to the two points that have been made by the Senator from Virginia that I think we also should inquire about exactly what flights we are going to participate in and if we are going to take some action to make sure that we either take out the missiles which had been suggested by NATO and vetoed by the United Nations earlier in this process, or if we should stop participating in those overflights, over that disputed territory, before we get into a situation where we have another of our young men shot down, as we witnessed. Thank goodness we had a good result, because we now have Captain O'Grady back safe and sound. But I think these are very important points that the Armed Services Committee should look into before any kind of authorization is given, and I think there are a lot of questions to be asked. I thank the Senator for his leadership in this effort. The Senator from Virginia has really been a wonderful conscience for this conflict. I appreciate the work he has done on the Armed Services Committee.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, before the Senator from Georgia leaves the floor, I would like to address a question to him along the lines of my colleague from Virginia. I, too, was at the hearing they were discussing earlier and I, too, raised questions about the emergency help that was being discussed and perhaps being offered by U.S. forces--the Senator from Georgia must catch a train and will not be able to stay, but perhaps I can talk to my colleague from Virginia, because I know he has some of the same concerns that I do. I raised a question about the emergency nature of what our commitment would be: Would it be only in conjunction with the evacuation, or would it be any emergency that might arise in a reconfiguration effort? It was my understanding in the hearing that we really were looking at any emergency, and I worry about that description because I believe that leaves us open to any conflict on the ground in Bosnia. But then the Senator from Georgia also raised the issue of the air flights in which we do now participate, and I am concerned that we are not doing everything necessary to protect our forces in those overflights. For instance, the question was asked at that hearing--I am sure the Senator from Virginia remembers--the question was asked: Are we going to take out the missiles, or are we going to stop the overflights until there is cover? I would like to ask the Senator from Virginia if he, too, is concerned about the continuing flying efforts if we do not at least have an understanding about what our role is going to be, if we are going to take out the missile sites before we go forward, or if we are going to continue to put our flights in jeopardy?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on Wednesday a team from my home State, the Houston Rockets, won their second consecutive NBA Championship, defeating the Orlando Magic four games to none. The Rockets overcame everything from injuries to midseason trade to, finally, one of the toughest playoff schedules over. To understand the full significance of Wednesday night's victory, Mr. President, you must understand the history of Houston's two star players, Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. Both attended the University of Houston in the first part of the 1980's. In 1983 and 1984, Olajuwon and Drexler took their University of Houston team to the NCAA National Championship game. Soon after, they both went their separate ways. But this past Valentine's Day, in a trade many sports critics called unnecessary, the Rockets put Drexler back with his old college teammate Olajuwon. Wednesday night, the critics were proven wrong. The Houston Rockets set an NBA playoff record by winning seven road games in a row. On their way to the NBA title, they won 11 out of their last 13 games. In the Western Conference Finals, they defeated the team with the best record in the regular season, another treasured Texas gem the San Antonio Spurs. As a team that never got the respect that it deserved when it won the title last year, Houston can now celebrate a title that will long be remembered. For most of the team, the second one is so much sweeter; but to Clyde Drexler, after 12 years in the NBA, this is the sweetest. Mr. President, to repeat as champions with a four-game sweep is unprecedented. Five times the Rockets faced elimination and five times--with poise, determination, and character--they prevailed. The championship was a total team effort and everyone contributed. Mr. President, I am sure that my colleagues will be glad to join me in congratulating the 1995 NBA World Champion Houston Rockets. For a team that started the playoffs with the sixth seed in the tournament, they are the lowest seed ever to win a World Championship. The Rockets showed their most adamant critics that they were not about to give up. In the words of head coach Rudy Tomjonavich, ``Never underestimate the heart of a champion.'' Mr. President, I just wanted to make sure that we recognized this great team effort, and the heart of these champions. And I am very proud of the Houston Rockets today, as last year, for their repeat world championship in basketball Wednesday. I yield the floor, and I thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, the intent of the subsection to which you refer, which authorizes fees in lieu of franchise fees, does not apply to the direct-to-home satellite industry. However, nothing in section 203 is intended to affect whether direct-to-home satellite services are otherwise subject to other taxes or fees under current law.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been listening to the speeches on the floor from the different committee members of the Commerce Committee, and it sounds like a funeral from time to time on the floor of the Senate. There are so many accolades and potential eulogies. But, in fact, I have to say that the accolades are really warranted, and it is because this bill has been so tough and so hard fought. And it has lasted for so long. What we have seen on the floor is the tip of the iceberg. The work has been going on in committee nonstop for so many months that it is correct for the committee members who are so aware of all that has been done to be able to say job well done. It is a job well done not because anyone feels victorious. It is a job well done because nobody feels victorious. It is a job well done because it has been a tough battle. It is because people that we respect so much, the entrepreneurs in the cable industry, the entrepreneurs in the long-distance industry, the local providers, the Bell companies that have been in business a long time but have made huge capital investments based on a regulatory scheme that now is going to be taken away--everyone in this business I respect because they are providing jobs. They are doing what we must do to continue to provide jobs in our country. But what we are trying to do here is open the door even more. We are trying to provide more job opportunities. We are trying to provide more opportunities for the entrepreneurs in this country to go out and improve the technology and become a competitor throughout the telecommunications field. So it has been a tough thing to balance the needs of all of these people who are out there on the front line spending their money for capital to go out and try to build a business that will make a difference for the consumers of America, that will add to the quality programming, add to the quality of telecommunications and telephone systems and video programming, and to also provide lower prices for those consumers. So the fact that there are no victories here is a victory in itself. I think that if we look at the overall, we are only one step, but there is a finish line that we have not yet crossed. After we vote this bill out of the Senate--and I believe we will in a very short time--we are going to go to the House. The House is going to pass a bill, and there will be differences, and those are going to have to be worked out in conference. And once again, all of the entrepreneurs and all of the people who have built businesses on a regulatory scheme are going to come in and say, ``We have been treated in an unfair way.'' And we are going to have to once again do a balance between the House and Senate versions of this bill. But we must do it because technology has leapt over the regulatory environment that we have in our telecommunications industry, and we have a lawsuit that has caused deregulation by a judge, and in fact it is just not the right way to have deregulation. It does not cover enough of the area to be fair to all people concerned. The only way that we can be fair is to have everyone at the same table and everyone give and everyone take a little bit. So while I do not agree with everything in this bill and while probably no one who is voting on it agrees with everything in it, I wish to commend the chairman, the ranking member and the members of the committee who have put their small differences aside to do something that would move forward this very important step that I think will be able to bring as much as $3 billion, maybe more, into our economy with new jobs and new opportunities and new technologies that we can then export all over the world. It is an exciting bill. It is an exciting time. It is an exciting opportunity for this Senate to take that one step forward. Let us do what we can now and be ready to continue this fight until it is finished. Mr. President, I commend those who have worked on it, and I thank you and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question and comment? I just wish to say that I did not mention this because I was talking about the level playing field of all of the competitors, but the other element here that the chairman and the ranking member have worked so hard on is the protection of our cities and our State regulatory boards. Our cities have rights-of-way that they must control, and that is something that we worked very hard to make sure was not encroached on. We would have chaos if someone came in and said, Well, I now have the right to dig a hole in the middle of your street, without the city maintaining that control. So I wish to say that that is another element of this bill that is protected, [[Page S8432]] and the cities of America owe a great debt of gratitude to the chairman and the ranking member. I thank the Chair.