Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to be a cosponsor of this substitute because I think this is one of [[Page S6796]] the important positive things that we can do for health care reform. This was brought to my attention by Congresswoman Johnson last year when we were afraid that this option for our seniors in the 15 States using it might be lost in the shuffle, and I called Senator Chafee and we worked to try to make sure that this was extended. I am very pleased that Senators Rockefeller and Chafee have now come to an accommodation to not only extend it for the 50 States but to allow all people in all 50 States on Medicare to have the option of selecting Medicare Select. Medicare Select is health reform that works. Since I have been in the Senate, we have spent more time discussing the problems in our health care system than about the models of achievement in the industry. What about the reform that has accomplished savings in health care? Medicare Select is a program we should encourage and promote, not to let die. Medicare Select gives seniors an option to save money. In Texas, more than 8,000 seniors are enrolled in Medicare Select plans and save an average of 15 to 20 percent of the cost of Medicare supplemental plans. This is a significant savings for those on a fixed income. Nationwide, 400,000 people participate in this program in 15 States. If we allowed this program to expire at the end of this year, seniors would be hit with higher premiums. Medicare Select policies are highly rated by Consumer Reports magazine. In its August 1994 issue, Consumer Reports included 8 Medicare Select policies in the top 15 best value MediGap products nationwide. In fact, almost every health care reform bill introduced in this body last year contained a permanent extension of this program to 50 States. The need to extend Medicare Select Program is critical. If this program were allowed to expire, premiums could substantially increase for the current Medicare Select enrollees and, more importantly, would limit options for new Medicare beneficiaries. With the recent report by the trustees of the Medicare trust fund telling us of the dire straits of the Medicare Program, it would be unthinkable to start eliminating cost-effective options for providing care to the Medicare beneficiaries. I appreciate Senator Chafee's and Senator Rockefeller's leadership on this. I think they are taking exactly the right approach. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this substitute. When we talk about improving health care, here is one of the key ways we can do it so that we can provide options for all 50 States for our seniors to have the ability to add to their standard Medicare plan options that they would want at an affordable price. I hope we will adopt this quickly. I hope that the other seniors in the States not now covered will look into this option, because this is the way we can do what this Congress has been trying to do for 2 years, and that is to provide more cost-effective health care availability for our senior citizens. Thank you, Senators Chafee and Rockefeller. 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 now ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 10:15 a.m. Tuesday to file first-degree and second- degree amendments; further, that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 Tuesday for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 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 there then be a period for the transaction of morning business, not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator Thomas, 20 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 20 minutes; Senator Levin, 20 minutes; Senator Santorum, 10 minutes; I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 10:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of John Deutch to be Director of CIA, to be immediately followed by a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Coverdell-Dole amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 10:30 tomorrow morning. The first vote is on the Deutch nomination, to be followed by a vote on the cloture motion on the Coverdell-Dole amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the extradition treaty with Hungary (Treaty Document No. 104-5), transmitted to the Senate by the President today; and the treaty considered as having been read the first time; referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and ordered that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We will also yield back our time, and I will go forward and close.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am always happy to yield to the senior Senator from New York, because I always enjoy hearing what he has to say. Mr. President, the importance of intelligence gathering for our Nation is at a critical juncture. Never has it been as important as it is today that we have foreign intelligence gathering capabilities, particularly because we are now facing a time when weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, are being made in different parts of the world. Even worse, the weapons that transport those weapons are also being developed in different parts of the world. There is an urgent need for us to know where those weapons are and where the capabilities are to transport those weapons, either within their own theater or over to our country. So, there is no question in my mind that we must have a strong foreign intelligence gathering capability. We also have a problem. That is we need a leader and we need a focus and we need a mission for the people who are in our intelligence gathering operations right now. We have had several mishaps. The Aldrich Ames case is one that has been talked about on this floor and it is one that is very troubling to us, even today. Many people feel this traitor was not dealt with in a way that will show there is an accountability when a drastic mistake happens. The lack of management accountability did demonstrate, by recent events in Guatemala, the lack of information that the oversight committees had about the situation in Guatemala. The escalation of terrorism all over the world is causing an ongoing need for us to have intelligence-gathering capabilities. So, we do need a person who can take control of our central intelligence-gathering operation, lift the morale of the wonderful people who work there, and put an accountability into the system. We also need someone who can make it more efficient. As we are downsizing our budget we need to make sure that we have a mission, that we are using our assets in the most efficient way. So we need someone to come in and show that leadership. I believe John Deutch is that person. I think the President has made a good decision. There are some issues that must be dealt with. First, I must say I disagree with the President giving Cabinet rank to the Director of Central Intelligence. The National Security Act of 1947 sets forth the members of the National Security Council and then designates others, including the Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as officials who are not members but may attend and participate as the President directs. I believe that is also the appropriate role for the DCI with respect to the Cabinet. Mr. Deutch was asked these questions in our Intelligence Committee hearing on his nomination regarding the Cabinet status of the Director of Central Intelligence. He assured the committee that he would hold to the proper standard of conduct and that he would not allow policy to influence intelligence judgments and not allow intelligence to interfere in the policy process. That is a very important distinction that the new Director has adopted and which I think is very important for us to keep--the separation between intelligence gathering and policymaking. The committee is going to be sensitive to any indication that this standard is not being met, but I believe the makeup of the Cabinet is the responsibility of the President. That is not within our mission in confirmation. And, therefore, I hope the standards that we have discussed will be adhered to, both by the President and by the new Director of Central Intelligence. I brought up two major issues in committee that I thought were important. First, a closer working relationship with the oversight committees in Congress, the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, and the one in the House. I think it is most important when you have a covert operation which, of course, intelligence gathering is, to have an even more strong relationship and communications network with the oversight committees that can assess the judgments that are being made in these covert operations. It is good for Congress and it is good for the intelligence gathering, as well. It is very important that we have an oversight and we have the ability to make judgments by the duly elected officials in the U.S. Congress when we are dealing with such sensitive intelligence matters. So I talked to the new Director-designate about that. And he agreed totally that we needed to have that line of communication, and I think it has been reiterated by every person who has spoken on the floor today, and most certainly every member of the committee. The second issue that was very important to me was complete financial disclosure of every person who works at the CIA and every contractor who is working on CIA projects. I felt this was important because one of the obvious things that was missed in the Aldrich Ames case was a high-living lifestyle by Aldrich Ames and his family, clearly one that could not be shown to have been supported by a person on the salary of Aldrich Ames. If we had the vehicle in place to have total financial disclosure, the CIA could immediately have begun to check on this lifestyle to see if there was something that was not right. Clearly, it was not right the way Aldrich Ames was living. And we found out later it was because he was receiving millions of dollars from the Russian Government for secrets that he was giving to them from our CIA. So we need the basic information. Mr. Deutch said, and promised, that he would make sure that every person who works for the CIA, who willingly comes to work for the CIA, will give basic financial disclosures. I think that is going to be a very important tool for us to show that there is an accountability in the CIA and that an Aldridge Ames case will not as easily be repeated and, if it is repeated, that we will have the ability to go in immediately and see what the assets are that have been disclosed and if something seems to be amiss. So these are two areas that I am satisfied that Mr. Deutch is going to address, and he has already given me his word that there is going to be financial disclosure among the CIA employees and people who are working for the CIA under contract. So in conclusion, Mr. President, I support Secretary Deutch for the role of Director of Central Intelligence. This is one of the most important nominations that we will have before us this year, because this agency needs such direction. I believe Mr. Deutch can provide that direction. I have worked with him as a member of the Armed Services Committee in his capacity as Deputy Secretary of Defense. I find him to be a person of integrity. I respect his judgment, and I think he did a fine job as Deputy Secretary of Defense. I think he is the person to fulfill this mission at this very important time in our intelligence gathering reorganization. I think we must take our responsibility in confirming him, to do this in a swift and timely manner. We have had five DCI's in the last 10 years. This agency needs leadership. We need some reorganization. We need a mission, and we need to make sure that we are using our assets efficiently and well so that everyone in our country is secure so that we have the information that we need to keep that freedom, independence, and liberty that we have. So I am supporting Mr. Deutch for this very purpose. I wish him well. It is going to be a very tough job. I hope that he will work with Members of Congress who want him to succeed, and we do. For all of our country, we must succeed with this new Director. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar en bloc: calendar Nos. 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112; further, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that any statements appear in the Record as if read.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as if in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the time has come for us to put some common sense in our court system. There is no question that we must make sure that every person has a right to go to court if that person has been injured. But we see courts being overcrowded, we see defendants having to settle because it is less expensive to settle than to go ahead and try a case. We have seen research, particularly in the area of women's health, being shut off because the drug companies and the pharmaceuticals just cannot do it. They cannot do it because of the liabilities they are afraid they will incur. This is the eighth consecutive Congress in which the Senate or the Commerce Committee has considered product liability. During that time, the need for product liability reform has grown by leaps and bounds. A study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that from the early 1980's to the early 1990's, the total number of punitive damage awards in Dallas County was 14 times greater and the average award, adjusted for inflation, was 19 times higher. In Harris County, which is Houston, total awards were up 26-fold and the average award was up eightfold, and that is from a House Judiciary Committee report. My State of Texas and the State of California have begun to take steps to control this growth. But this is all over the country. These things are happening all over our country, and it is affecting the price of our products and the ability to do research. how product liability laws force national manufacturers to plan and protect themselves against lawsuits in the most litigious States. He said a State like California or Texas can impose its views of appropriate product design and the penalties for falling short on manufacturers and distributors across the Nation. He found this to be a perversion of federalism. Instead of national standards being set by the National Legislature, national standards are set by the courts and juries of particular States. He was making the case that it is Congress' role at the Federal level to take control of this situation. It is a matter of interstate commerce. It is something that we must deal with. Today, we are talking about an amendment by the majority leader--and I am a cosponsor of this amendment--to provide the same protection from excessive punitive damage awards that this bill provides for manufacturers and retailers, to civic groups, to charities, to churches, and to local governments. Our courts are being misused. People who have not done anything wrong are being held up for settlements, and now this applies to Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, to our Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Congress must take control. We can lower prices, we can lower insurance premiums, we can have new business starts, we can get new products and drugs on the market, we can increase jobs, and we can free the people who want to volunteer to do that without fear of retribution by a lawsuit. We can keep cities and towns from being bankrupted by lawsuits over playground accidents. We can keep volunteers helping the needy by maintaining a proportionality between compensatory and punitive damage awards in tort actions. We must expand the product liability bill to protect all Americans from unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits, from excessive damages for injuries they did not cause. This bill, under the leadership of Senators Gorton and Rockefeller, goes a long way in the right direction to try to bring these abuses to heel. It is time to end the judicial lottery and put common sense back in the courts. If we are going to do that, Mr. President, I think we must apply it to the cities because, after all, it is the taxpayer who always foots the bill when there is a lawsuit that gets an award that the city's insurance does not cover. Who pays? You know. We all know. It is the taxpayers of this country. When it is the Girl Scouts selling cookies and they have a frivolous lawsuit because it is just assumed they would have deep pockets, who pays? It is all the good deeds and the leadership qualities that Girl Scouts give that will suffer. It goes on and on, Mr. President. We must take control of the situation. I hope the Senate will not let this bill go by the wayside. I hope we do not argue and bicker so that we are not able to get a good bill out of this body, so that we can go to conference and work with the House and send something to the President that I hope he will sign. If we can do that, we will be able to reopen research that has been left out of the game right now because people are just not able to afford to do it, because they cannot protect themselves from the litigation attempts. So I am hoping that we will take action so that we can open up the research capabilities and open up our playgrounds and swimming pools. Personal responsibility is a new theme in America that has been rejuvenated from the past. I think personal responsibility is part of what we are about. We are not talking about legitimate issues of a person being injured. We are not talking about the right to have economic damages, some damages for pain and suffering--absolutely not. I have heard stories on the floor for the last week that are heart wrenching. There is no question that some people are entitled to damages. But we have to curb the excesses. We have to bring common sense back into the mix. That is what this bill will do. I urge my colleagues to support the Dole amendment so that everyone will have the same coverage as the corporations do. I urge my colleagues to look at the big picture and try to make the decision to get a good bill out of the Senate so that we can send something to the President that I hope he will, in the name of responsibility, be able to sign. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today is the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1995 [CRTC]. This legislation will encourage business investment in economically distressed areas. It will create jobs; expand economic activity; improve the physical appearance and increase property values in these areas. My bill would provide a targeted, limited tax credit to businesses to help defray their costs of construction, expansion, and renovation. Currently, such an incentive is lacking. This credit would fill a gap in the range of tools that States and localities need to make declining neighborhoods good places to do business, to work, and to reside. Martha Murphree, executive director of the Houston chapter of the American Institute of Architects said it very well: This legislation would ``give small businesses leverage to expand and/or improve their facilities, thus adding value to their establishments and allowing them to hire more employees.'' In fact, the American Institute of Architects is one of the prime reasons that this bill came to my attention and I applaud them for taking this initiative. Mr. President, this tax credit will help businesses form a partnership with the Government to help revitalize areas of our country that have, in some cases, long suffered from neglect. I firmly believe that we must reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. I also firmly believe that there are compassionate ways to aid our cities without adding more Federal Government bureaucracy. Expanding tax incentives to enable the private sector to create real jobs in the economically depressed areas of our country is an excellent way to combat poverty, crime, despair, and the physical deterioration of our cities. This legislation encourages empowerment at the local level. It builds on the empowerment zone/enterprise community program that is now unfolding in 109 communities across the Nation. My own State of Texas has five of these specially designated areas in these cities: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Waco. The legislation could also benefit additional communities which have had previously approved and designated economic revitalization areas and which now receive Federal funds under the Community Development Block Grant Program. I have always been a supporter of the pro-growth ideas that are at the foundation of the enterprise zone concept. But what was enacted in 1993 did not include the broad based incentives for capital formation that former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp had envisioned. These specially designated zones primarily encourage wage- based tax credits to employers who hire an individual to work for a business within the zone. But there is no existing incentive for a business within the zone to expand so that larger numbers of people could be hired. Increasing and upgrading buildings and infrastructure is a necessary part of improving our cities and combating cycles of poverty and crime. This is the part of the equation that has been missing. This is not intended to be a panacea. I do not anticipate that the tax credits will be the primary reason for going forward with such an expansion. However, I do think it can be an important, positive factor that would give the business man or woman the push needed to go forward with construction, renovation, or expansion. The credit will mitigate the inherent risk in business decisions to locate in areas experiencing a variety of social and economic troubles. The credit will provide an incentive to invest in these areas, and the result will be new sources of tax revenues and new jobs. We have seen how other targeted tax incentives can achieve such goals. Two excellent examples are the historic rehabilitation tax credit and the low-income housing tax credit. The historic rehabilitation tax credit provides a 20-percent credit to the owners of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places to restore their properties for commercial purposes. According to the National Park Service, the credit has definitely created jobs. In fiscal year 1994, the credit produced almost 21,000 jobs, among 524 projects, and leveraged $483 million in private investment at a Federal cost of $97 million. Over the previous 4 fiscal years, $509 million in tax credits leveraged $2.5 billion in private investment. In the 17 years since Congress enacted the credit, it has generated almost $17 billion in private investment, in more than 25,000 projects. Moreover, this credit has preserved thousands of this Nation's most precious architectural treasures. It has also sparked tourism The low-income housing tax credit is the residential housing construction and rehabilitation partner to the CRTC. It provides a tax credit of up to 9 percent per year for up to 10 years against the cost of developing or renovating housing affordable to low- and moderate- income people. Since its creation in 1986, it has financed 700,000 new and rehabilitated housing units. At an annual credit amounting to about $320 million, the low-income housing tax credit attracts about $975 million in private investment a year. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, for every 100,000 new housing starts, 170,000 jobs are created. Of these jobs, 40 percent are on-site and another 20 percent are in trade, transportation, and services that come primarily from local markets. The National Association of Homebuilders reported that, for fiscal year 1992, the 92,000 units built or rehabilitated spun off more that $1.6 billion in wages and taxes. Clearly, Congress has found that targeted tax credits can serve a valuable public purpose. My proposal will do the same for economically depressed communities struggling to attract new business investment, just as the historic rehabilitation tax credit has done for historic properties and the low-income housing tax credit has done for affordable housing. According to the National Association for Counties' report on business development incentives, it is important to ensure that tax incentives are crafted to encourage new activity which might not otherwise occur. Also, the credit must be carefully targeted and used judiciously. There must be safeguards to ensure accountability. The tax credit must fit within a State or locality's overall economic development policy. It must also be designed to stimulate the local economy, and to promote job growth in economically depressed areas. My proposal meets all of those standards. This tax credit will be a cost-efficient instrument of Federal policy. It will require a minimum of Federal bureaucracy. Most of the work will be done by the State, which will allocate the tax credits, and monitor projects to make sure that the proposed benefits are realized. It will engage the private sector in addressing the economic development needs of low-income communities. The Government cannot and should not do the job alone. Private sector involvement helps ensure success. Because their own funds will be at risk, private investors will rigorously assess the feasibility of ventures before undertaking them. This is not a charity or a Government give away program. The credit will attract additional private lending. Lenders want to see the kind of private equity investment generated by the CRTC before they will consider a loan, particularly in an economically distressed community. The CRTC is flexible. It will work for a wide range of retail, industrial, health care, and other facilities which are crucial to making their communities good places to live and to do business. The CRTC is based on the principal of paying for performance. Tax credits can be claimed only after the investment is made; the project completed; the assets remain in use; and income is generated. That ensures that the taxpayers will get what they are paying for. The tax credit I propose has the following major features: The credit may be applied to construction, amounting to at least 25- percent of the basis of the property, which takes place in specially designated revitalization areas, including enterprise communities, empowerment zones, and other areas specially designated according to Federal, State, or local law. Qualified taxpayers could choose a one time 20-percent tax credit against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation. For instance, if the expansion of a supermarket in the El Paso enterprise community cost $150,000, the tax credit against income would be $30,000. Alternatively, the business owner could take a 5-percent credit each year over a 10-year period. Annually, the credit would be allocated to each of the States, according to a formula that takes into account the number of localities where over half the people earn less than 60 percent of the area's median income. Localities would determine their priority projects and forward them to the State for allocation of credits according to an evaluation system which the States establish. The CRTC would provide $1.5 billion in tax credits over 5 years, in amounts as follows: $100 million in fiscal year 1996, $200 million for fiscal year 1997, and $400 million each year from fiscal years 1998 to 2000. Mr. President, the legislation I offer today is designed to attract over $7 billion of private sector investment to the most troubled neighborhoods and communities of this Nation. It will create jobs, generate tax revenue, and improve the physical appearance of these specially designated revitalization areas. With a minimum of bureaucracy and through a proven tax mechanism, my initiative will make a difference to the people and the economies of hundreds of communities and thousands of neighborhoods across this country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to recognize the leadership of a small business person in my State who is being honored today by the Small Business Administration as the Small Business Person of the Year in Texas. Mr. Oscar Trevino, Jr. is president of J.L. Steel, Inc. He is what America is all about, Mr. President. He took a company, J.L. Steel, from $400,000 in revenues in the first year, in 1989, and built that company to over $13 million in revenues last year. It is the fifth fastest growing Hispanic-owned company in the United States. I am really proud of this Texan. He has really added to the economic vitality of our community in that he now has 140 employees that are working and paying taxes and are good citizens of our State. I am very pleased to honor him today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his biography be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Under the previous order, leadership time is reserved.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it is a phenomenal thing that happened in America. In the last 3 months, the people asked for something different. And in the last 3 months, we have done exactly what the people asked. If you ask a person to bring down to one or two words what the last 3 months mean, I would say ``promises kept.'' I think the people of America were despairing that ever again, a politician would promise something and deliver. That is what is happening right now in the Congress of the United States. I commend the House of Representatives for giving themselves a very heavy load and then succeeding in doing what they said they would do. There are those who disagree with what the House did. Probably no one agrees totally with what the House did. But if you look at the spirit and the intent and the strain of what they did, I think the people of America agree that they did what they said they were going to do, and I think the Senate of the United States will agree with many of the concepts that the House has put forward. If we are going to let the people of this country know that in fact their voices did make a difference in 1994, that the signal was received in Washington, DC, that the people want a different Congress and a different Government, then I think we are going to have to continue into the second and third 100 days going in the same direction that we are now going. What does that mean? First and foremost, Mr. President, it is what you just talked about on the floor of the Senate a minute ago, a balanced budget. First and foremost, we have to start showing that we are serious about balancing the budget. Last night, we started on that road. We took some very serious and tough steps right in this 1995 budget, and we cut almost $16 billion that will not be able to be spent between now and October 1 of this year. So that is a beginning. It is a very small beginning when you look at what we really must do. We must get on a track that says between now and the year 2002 we are going to go toward a balanced budget, that the $5 trillion debt that is sitting out there will not be increased but in fact we will start whittling away at the deficit so that in the year 2002 we can start looking at the long-term solutions to bringing down the actual debt. A lot of people do not realize that when we get to the balanced budget in 2002, we still have the massive debt that we have to decide exactly how much of which we are going to pay down. But that is for the second phase. The first phase is to come to a balanced budget every year, and that is our first commitment. The second commitment is a reform of Congress. If we are going to look at the long term, if we are going to look at the future, we are going to have to look at the reforms of Congress that will keep from happening what we have seen over the last 30 years, which is a buildup of this massive intrusion of the Federal Government on our States, on our local governments, and on the lives of our people, especially our small business people. If we are going to do that, it is going to be not only bringing down the bigness and vastness of Government, not only bringing down the arrogance of Washington, DC, but it is bringing down the power base of Congress. I think the most important first step that was made by the House of Representatives was on the first day--hardly any press about it, but the reform of their leadership when they voluntarily voted themselves term limitations on chairmanships and the Speaker of the House himself. That began the process of bringing down the vast power that has accumulated in these Halls and really caused the massive increases in spending in the Federal bureaucracy. So when the Speaker says voluntarily I am not going to serve more than 8 years, and when committee chairs say I am not going to serve more than 6 years, you have really taken away a lot of the incentive to do things that build power bases and instead have given the incentive to do what is right from the public policy standpoint. The Senate is now looking at just such changes, and I think it is going to be healthy for us to also in this body look at ways that we can pass the leadership around. It is a very important reform. It is internal. It will not be that well known outside the beltway. But it is a very important internal reform that will have far-reaching consequences. The third area that I think is most important to get our country back on track is regulatory reform. If we are going to free our businesses to compete in this new global marketplace, we must have the harassment of Federal regulatory excesses stopped now. Stop right now. By every standard, the cost of complying with Federal regulations is holding down our small business and our large business from growing and expanding and creating the new jobs that will get this economy going again. costs of regulatory compliance are about $430 billion a year. If you add the cost of regulatory compliance of States and local governments, it is about $900 billion a year. To put that in perspective, Mr. President, the income tax brings in just under $800 billion a year. So as you are getting ready on April 15 to send your tax bill in, when you sign that tax bill, you should remember that what you are giving to the Federal Government is less than the stealth tax of regulatory compliance. That is the cost that is holding our business down, from growing and creating the new jobs. So if we are going to free our business to compete, we must take off those regulatory excesses. Does that mean we are going to stop striving for clean air, clean water, protection of endangered species, safety in the workplace? Heavens no. Of course, not. What we must put in the equation is common sense. We are getting horror stories every day about some silly, stupid thing a regulator does that is unnecessary, that does not help the Government and most certainly hurts business. And it is the business that is the economic engine of America. So if we can stop that regulatory excess, that will be the most important thing we can do to get this economy going once again. So these are the areas that I think we must address in the second 100 days. These are the areas that I think are going to be very difficult as we go forward. I have heard Democrats in the Chamber here, I have heard Democrats on radio programs talk about starving the children. The people of America are smarter than that. The people of America understand that we are not starving children when we give the States the responsibility for school lunch programs instead of running it from the Federal Government. The people of America are tired of silly, ridiculous statements like that that underestimate their intelligence, because I think the people of America who are raising our children understand that if our children are going to have a future at all, it is only if we begin to act responsibly in getting this huge Federal debt off the backs of those very children. If they are going to have jobs in their future, if they are going to have education in their future, it is going to be only if we get this economy going again. We cannot do it if we have a program of spend now and pay later. That is what our program has been for the last 30 years in this country, save 1 or 2 years of responsibility. Mr. President, I think the people of America need to listen very carefully. As we are going home for the next 2 weeks in the Senate, 3 weeks in the House, I hope that the people of America will listen carefully to what their elected representatives are saying because the messages could not be more different. Our message is one of providing for the future, of trying to make sure that there is a healthy America for our children, of trying to get the 10th amendment back in place, which says the powers not specifically given to the Federal Government will be left to the States and to the people. We must return the 10th amendment and we must let the States do what they know best, which is the needs of their people, rather than somebody in Washington sitting in an office who may not have ever been to Iowa or New Hampshire or Texas or California or Utah deciding what the priorities in that State should be. My Governor, a Yale graduate, said, ``You know, I'm beginning to be a little offended by those people up in Washington. Do they think I'm going to serve potato chips to the children of Texas? Come on. I think the people are smarter than that.'' So, Mr. President, I think we have had a very exciting beginning. I think the people of America can say one thing right now and that is: things are changing in Washington. Their voices are being heard. Is it easy? No. It is going to be very tough. But is it a commitment on our part to do what is right, not necessarily for tomorrow but for the long-term, for 3 years, for 5 years, for 10 years? That is the commitment that the people of America must see and that is what we must talk about as we go home and get the input from our constituents. I hope that every one of us will take this opportunity to do that, because I think we have had a great beginning. I think the people of America should be assured that things are changing inside the beltway. And, with their support, we are going to keep right on plugging and try to make sure that the small business people of this country are able to grow and create the jobs that will let every American family see a better future for their children. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Friday, April 7, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on 1995 Board of Trustees annual report of the Social Security and disability trust funds.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senate Resolution 100, a resolution submitted by me proclaiming April 5 as National 4-H Day; further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. The Democratic side has agreed to this request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was pleased to submit Senate Resolution 100 proclaiming today, April 5, 1995, as National 4-H Day. As part of the Cooperative Extension System, 4-H is a program of informal education for youth. It is open to all interested young people, age 5 through 19, regardless of race, sex, creed, or national origin. The mission of 4-H is to help youth acquire knowledge, develop life skills, and form attitudes that will enable them to become self- directed, productive, and contributing members of society. This mission is carried out through the involvement of parents, volunteer leaders, and other adults who organize and conduct educational experience in community and family settings. 4-H gives young people the opportunity to contribute to food production, community service, energy conservation, and environmental protection. In addition, they learn about science and technology and participate in programs that help them with employment and career decisions, health, nutrition, home improvement, and family relationships. In the process, 4-H youth apply leadership skills, acquire a positive self-image, and learn to respect and get along with others. As a result of international cooperation with 82 countries, 4-H is also contributing to world understanding. 4-H. The program has almost 50 million alumni. The 4-H's are: Head--clearer thinking and decisionmaking; knowledge useful throughout life. Heart--greater loyalty, strong personal values, positive self- concept, concern for others. Hands--larger service, work-force preparedness, useful skills, science and technology, literacy. Health--better living, healthy lifestyles. The 4-H pledge is: I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world. The 4-H motto is: ``To make the best better.'' Mr. President, this organization provides positive and nurturing experiences for our country's youth. Many of our Members have served in 4-H. I am pleased to inform you that 4-H'ers from all over the Nation are visiting Washington today. Senator Heflin, a cosponsor of this resolution, and I would appreciate passage of this resolution in acknowledgment of the fine contribution members of this organization make to our society.