Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue. I was one of the original cosponsors of the moratorium bill. I would like to say to my senior colleague from Texas that I agree with everything he said. But I would just add that a kiss from your sister is better than no kiss at all. I think it is very important that we understand that we are taking a giant first step toward reining in regulators that have gone far beyond congressional intent. Some people say, ``We really do not have the right in Congress to assess what regulators do.'' To them I would say, ``If we do not have the right, who in the world does?'' Why are the regulators out there? They are out there implementing congressional legislation. If Congress does not rein them in and say, ``You are not doing what we intended for you to do in implementing our laws,'' who will? The answer is, no one will. It is our responsibility to rein in regulators to whom we have authorized implementation of the laws that we pass. The buck stops here. With this bill today, we are taking the responsibility that we have to the people of America, to the small business people of America. We are saying ``We are going to look at everything the people we have delegated our authority are doing, and hopefully we are going to bring common sense into the process.'' I hope our colleagues will vote for this today. It will give Members that first measure to say the regulators have gone beyond where we wanted them to go, and we are going to have a say. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to add my comments to those of my colleagues we have heard today on both sides of the aisle. I think it is very clear from the things we have been hearing for the last hour on the floor that Judge Heflin, Senator Heflin, has the deep respect of people from both sides of the aisle. I was not sure what Senator Heflin would do because I knew he had health problems. But I had hoped he would continue to serve because he is such a good person and because I have enjoyed getting to know him. I have gotten to know him through the Senate prayer breakfasts that have been mentioned here earlier, which are a very important time for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and talk about the things that are bringing us together and the things that we ought to remember about doing what is right rather than what is expedient, or rather than something that is of a partisan nature. I have really enjoyed the Wednesday morning prayer breakfasts because it is a time when we can come together in that spirit. Sometimes it seems that is the only time during the week that we have that sense of closeness and bonding here in the Senate. But, as I have heard my colleagues talk who have known Senator Heflin and served with him for years, he and his wife, Mike, who is very much a part of his team, are so well loved. I just want to say to him: Godspeed. I hope he will not be gone after he does retire, but will come back and visit with us on Wednesday mornings, or any other time he is able to do it. I think all of us should respect someone who leaves on their own time, who follows their own compass, and who does what is right for them in their lives rather than staying too long or in any way having someone else decide for them what is right for their lives. So I wish him well. I would like to add for the record my deep respect for this man who has served his country in so many different areas--two branches out of the three of Government. That is very unusual.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am proud to have the Senator from Florida be an original cosponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him to correct this inequity that we have seen occur over the last few years.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conduct morning business and request that the Senate stand in recess following my remarks.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison and Mr. Nunn pertaining to the introduction of S. 635 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that we are introducing today will streamline the process for retirement of military officers who hold 3- or 4-star rank. Under present law, the highest permanent rank that an officer may hold is that of two stars. All active duty appointments to 3- and 4- star rank are temporary appointments made by the President of the United States and must be approved by the Senate. The President must also nominate every 3- and 4-star office for retirement in his highest grade, and the Senate must approve of that promotion again, or, under the law, the officer retires with two-star rank. Mr. President, I am well aware of the historical precedents for the current law, but I feel that it is time that we conformed retirements for officers in the highest flag and general officer grades to those for general and flag officers in one and two star grades. The bill we are introducing today will accomplish that. Once officers in 3- and 4-star grades have served 3 years in grade, they will be allowed to retire in grade without further action by the Senate. This will reduce the administrative work load of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense. Our proposed bill will not, however, curtail Senate prerogative over the confirmation of senior military officers for active duty assignments. The President will still be required to nominate each 3- and 4-star officer for any new assignments. The Senate will have to review those nominations and approve each and every assignment while on active duty. We simply seek to expedite the ability of the Department of Defense to retire officers in grade who have completed a statutorily imposed period of honorable service and bring more equity into the system. In no other area of life does a person retire at a lower level than his or her highest rank. The president of a business does not retire at vice president unless repromoted by the board. The GS-15 doe not retire as a GS-14--he or she retires at the grade last served, with pay based on the highest 3 years of service. I believe our highest military officers should have the same treatment. If a person serves honorably in the last promotion in business, government, or the military--he or she should have retirement at that level. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Dorgan is not ready yet, so I am going to go forward. First, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I am regulatory reform task force that is trying to put some common sense into the regulations of our country, trying to bring them under control. Senator Bond and I are having a good time, actually. He has given some of the examples that we have found from ordinary citizens and small business people who are fed up to here with the overregulation of our country, and I applaud him for his efforts. I appreciate the fact that he has just read all of the regulations that are stacked on his desk. I am sure it was great bedtime reading. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles regulatory review substitute bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Senator Bond and I and Senator Nickles have been working for months, really, trying to see what we could do to give the business people and the individuals in our country some relief. In fact, Congress passes laws and they delegate the implementation to the regulators. But if the regulators do not do what is envisioned by the Congress, it is our responsibility to step in and to say, ``No, this is not really what we intended. In fact, Congress intended for you to go in this direction.'' This bill will inject some democracy into what has been an increasingly arbitrary regulatory process. Americans have the right to expect that their Government will work for them, not against them. Instead, Americans have had to fight their Government to drive their cars, graze cattle on their ranches, build a porch on their homes, or operate their small businesses in a reasonable, commonsense manner. This legislation would provide lawmakers with a tool for ensuring that Federal agencies are, in fact, carrying out Congress' regulatory intent properly and within the confines of what Congress intended and no more. Agencies have gotten into the habit of issuing regulations which go so far beyond the intended purpose we hardly recognize them anymore. 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. In November, the message came loud and clear from the voters of America: ``We're tired of bigger Government; we are tired of business as usual in Washington, DC, and we are tired of the arrogance that we see in our Federal Government.'' 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 lives of American people. The voters went to the polls because they felt harassed by the Government that issues these regulations without considering the impact on small business. The egregious stories about the enforcement of some of these regulations have become legendary, and the people are asking us to call a timeout, and that is what we are doing today. Common law has always relied on a reasonable-person approach. The standard behind our laws should be what would a reasonable person do in these circumstances? But many of our Federal regulations have been designed to dictate the way in which a person, reasonable or otherwise, must act in every single situation, something that is impossible to do. In short, we must make reasonable persons not an oxymoron in this country. We have literally taken the common sense out of the equation and completely failed to allow for the application of common sense. It is for that reason that this debate is dominated by example of Government regulators out of control. When you have the city of Big Spring, TX, being forced to spend $6 million to redesign its reservoir project, to protect the Concho snake, which they are told is endangered, only to find out that the Concho snake is not really endangered after all, but after they have spent the $6 million, you find the unreasonable man coming to the forefront. When you have a plumbing company in Dayton, TX, cited for not posting emergency phone numbers at a construction site, and the construction site is three acres of empty field, and OSHA actually shut the site down for 3 days until the company constructed a freestanding wall in order to meet the OSHA requirement to post emergency phone numbers on that wall. Or when the Beldon Roof Co. in San Antonio, TX, is cited for not providing disposable drinking cups to their workers, despite the fact that the company went to the additional expense of providing high- energy drinks free to their employees in glass containers, which the employees in turn used for drinking water. In this case, you have a company going the extra mile and being cited because they did not meet a lesser standard. What about when the EPA bans the smell of fresh bread from the air and forces bakeries, like Mrs. Baird's, to spend $5 million for a catalytic converter to take that smell out of the air? Or the case of Mrs. Clay Espy, a rancher from Fort Davis, TX. She allowed a student from Texas A&M to do research on plants on her ranch. He discovered a plant which he thought to be endangered and reported his findings. The Department of the Interior subsequently told Mrs. Espy that she could no longer graze her cattle on the ranch on which her family had grazed cattle for over 100 years because her cattle might eat this particular weed. It took a lawsuit and an expenditure of over $10,000 before the Department reversed its ruling and declared that the weed was in fact not endangered. And then there is Rick's High-Tech Auto Motive Service in Katy, TX; they have eight employees. Ten months ago, he spent $30,000 purchasing a console analyzer and an additional $3,500 in training. But new EPA regulations came out for inspection and maintenance which pulled the rug out from under him, and he will now have to fire at least two employees. And Howard Goldberg in El Paso, TX, owns Supreme Cleaners. Two years ago, he bought all new equipment. When the State implementation program mandated that he install recovery dryers, it cost him an additional $19,000 and rendered his new equipment totally useless and also unsalable. He is a dry cleaner. He is a small business person. These numerous horror stories which have come forward since we began our efforts for regulatory reform provide evidence of a Government out of control. It demonstrates the need to introduce common sense and reasonableness into the system where these qualities are sorely lacking. That is why one of the messages sent by the American people in 1992, and again in 1994, was: We have had enough. Fix this. The question is: Have the people in Washington heard the message? Will it take this time? I am not sure, because I am not sure some people in Washington yet realize the frustration level of people in America. With this bill, we are sending a message to America: Signal received. It is going to be difficult, but we are going to reverse this disastrous trend. Our goal must be to put the Federal Government's financial house in order, decrease the size of the Federal Government, return Federal programs to the States, reauthorize the 10th amendment of the Constitution of this country, which said that the Federal Government will have limited powers and everything else will be left to the States and to the people. The Federal Government was supposed to be a strong, but small, efficient Government, with very limited powers, and I think we have gone in the other direction. What are the stakes here? Mr. President, if we are going to be able to compete in the new global economy, we must change the regulatory environment and the litigation environment so our businesses can compete. To put this in perspective, for business, the cost of complying with current Federal regulations is $430 billion a year. The overall cost to the economy of regulatory compliance, if you put the mandates on State and local governments, is $900 billion. Now, to put that in perspective, our income tax brings in approximately $700 billion. So when you are writing out your taxes in the next few weeks, look at the stealth tax that is on top of the bill that you are paying, and that is going to be double--double--what you are writing the check for, and that is the real Federal encroachment on your life. We need to let people manage their own lives and their own money instead of having Washington do it, I think we people. We need to turn the regulatory engines around. The Nickles substitute is an important first step on the road to regulatory reform in this process. I have been working on this legislation with Senator Nickles and Senator Bond for years. I hope my colleagues will side with the American people, who have called on us to get the bureaucracy under control and vote in favor of a bill that will begin to tell the American people that we got the message in November 1994, and we are going to do something about it. Mr. President, that is the mission. That is what we must do. We must show the people of this country that things are changing in Washington, DC, that they are getting the message inside the beltway and relief is on the way. That is what this bill will do. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Davis, a Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 219.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, one issue about which all of us 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. Perhaps more than in any other area of Federal Government regulation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] has come to symbolize what is wrong. Today I offer a bill to reform the laws that were originally intended to ensure workplace safety. I have spoken on the floor of the Senate on numerous occasions in recent months on examples of Federal Government overregulation, of the unintended consequences of regulatory excess that puts Americans out of work, usurps our constitutional rights, and saps our productivity and economic competitiveness. OSHA problems are always at the top of my constituents' concerns. For example, in my home State of Texas, an OSHA compliance officer from the Corpus Christi area office, stated under oath that OSHA area directors are under enormous pressure to produce high numbers of citations and penalties--that OSHA employees' job performance evaluations apparently depend on meeting de facto quotas. This same OSHA compliance officer also testified that his supervisor directed him to cite companies, even when both the supervisor and the inspector knew full well a company did not violate any regulation and did not warrant a citation. In the words of this conscientious officer, his supervisors told him to hit the employer. In otherwords, Mr. President, one regulator can carry on a vendetta against an innocent business, thus jeopardizing that business and everyone who depends on that business to support themselves and their families. This sort of thing is not supposed to happen in America, and it is Congress' job to make sure it does not. Congress originally established OSHA to protect Americans from the threat of injury in the workplace. OSHA was charged with investigating and, if necessary, penalizing businesses that willfully endangered its workers. Businesses and workers have a mutual interest in promoting workplace safety. No responsible businessman or businesswoman would intentionally put another human being at risk. Furthermore, accidents reduce productivity and cost money; they deprive businesses of their most important, hardworking, productive employees. No business prospers when its employees are ill or injured. Congress founded OSHA with the hope and expectation that the Federal Government could encourage businesses and employees to work together to resolve problems and to foster safer working environments. Mr. President, this hope has been dashed--dashed by the congress' failure to update Federal safety laws to keep pace with changes in the workplace, dashed by the emergence of a culture of regulatory excess that eats away at the vitality of our economy. Therefore, I introduce a bill today to restore what Congress intended 25 years ago, when OSHA was created, and to inject into our regulatory agencies some common sense and sound objective criteria. My bill aims to foment real cooperation between employer, employee and the Federal Government, and to ensure that OSHA's resources are focused on the safety issues the American people want to have protected--not on vendettas against certain businesses, not on quotas for Federal inspectors to meet, not on tearing down labor-management cooperation we must have if we are to continue as the world's most productive and dynamic economy. A safe worksite is everybody's responsibility, but today that is not the case. Laws are enforced so that the responsibility rests exclusively on the employer. Employers must be held accountable, but the frivolousness manner in which safety laws are applied in many cases does nothing to improve safety and does incalculable harm to American's confidence in their Government. Not long ago, the Indiana OSHA found the owner of an Indiana Handy Mart liable for not providing a safe workplace after an armed bandit robbed and killed an employee of the store. In other words, it is the store owner's fault that there are armed criminals on our streets. By this same logic, it is every robbery victim's fault, for not having taken sufficient precautions. Mr. President, we all know how serious the problem of crime and violence are. But does anyone think the fault for this crisis and the responsibility for overcoming it lies with the victims? This case highlights the way that regulatory excess has been allowed to drift into absurdity. Indeed, the absurd is becoming the norm, as millions of Americans who operate businesses and work for a living know. It is Congress that has refused to acknowledge how long overdue are the fundamental reforms needed to restore common sense. My bill will also stop OSHA from citing an employer, even when he or she has provided the proper training and equipment to prevent an accident, and taken every conceivable step to assure safety. In east Texas, after two workers--a supervisor and his assistant-- died of asphyxiation after entering a confined space against strict company policy, originally OSHA concluded that there was no violation, and OSHA closed the case. However, OSHA reopened the case and issued several citations after a civil lawsuit was filed. The employer's insurance company panicked and settled the suit for $1.5 million. Subsequently, OSHA dropped the citations. But the harm was done. This kind of case sets a very dangerous precedent. The mere fact that OSHA has cited a company is often enough to convince a jury of employer wrongdoing, and in many jurisdictions a citation is admissible as per se negligence. An employer has no choice but to challenge very OSHA citation for fear of civil liability if he or she complies. We must change that, and my bill does--by making OSHA citations and abatement efforts inadmissible as evidence in any private litigation or enhancement of recovery under worker's compensation law. My bill also changes current OSHA practice of conducting wall-to-wall inspections of a business whenever an employee files a complaint about a specific workplace issue. Congress didn't intend for Federal regulators to tear a business apart every time a complaint is filed. OSHA's current policies threaten every business with a disgruntled employee. To encourage more labor-management cooperation, my legislation also asks that an employee first notify his or her employer of a potential workplace hazard. Any responsible business operator will take steps to rectify problems before an accident occurs. If not, OSHA can step in and take action. Common sense, Mr. President, just plain common sense. Another provision of my legislation borrows from the TEAM Act, introduced by my friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, who chairs the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Federal regulators currently prohibit employers and employees from forming employer- employee groups to discuss issues like workplace safety. The legislation I introduce today, just like the TEAM Act which Senator Kassebaum has authored--which I cosponsored--would permit such legitimate workplace cooperation. Businesses, especially small businesses, are finding it increasingly difficult to endure the current regulatory environment. The same small business growth, the creator of most new jobs in our country, is increasingly stifled and hamstrung by a rising tide of Federal overregulation. But as I speak, OSHA is readying a gigantic expansion of its regulatory authority. Its so-called ergonomics rules will give OSHA authority to control virtually every aspect of a business' operations. Under the proposed new rules, OSHA would be able to set limits on employee productivity, to limit work shifts and overtime, to re-design machinery, even entire production lines, and to prohibit innovation. At best, these proposed rules are based on the shakiest of scientific justification. But there is no doubt of the harm they will do. Initial estimates put the costs of compliance at $21 billion a year. Eventually, however, these new rules would guarantee our businesses and our workers would lose ground steadily in the vital areas of productivity and innovation, thus doing incalculable harm to our economy. According to the Clinton administration's 1995 regulatory plan, OSHA is also working on eight other significant new regulations. I bureaucratic parlance, a significant action is one that will cost at least $100 million annually. It's no wonder the administration is requesting a more-than-10 percent increase in OSHA's budget. Enforcing all of these new regulations will require thousands of new inspectors, supervisors, and bureaucrats. The administration also is fighting to maintain funding for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which I propose to end. NIOSH costs nearly $133 million this year, with no appreciable benefits for workplace safety or the national welfare. Twenty-five years ago, this body helped to create a new agency, OSHA, to pursue a worthwhile goal--protecting American workers from avoidable injury in the work place. The idea was based upon a partnership between employers, employees and the Government. That experiment has not worked. The very legislation that was meant to free people from the everyday threat of accidental injury is now threatening to remove our freedoms. Mr. President, we have the responsibility of averting threats to our freedoms. We can do so merely by doing what Congress intended to do in the first place. Through the application of common sense tests for Federal involvement and return to cooperation, we can make worksites both safer and better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 592 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to speak in favor of this bill. I am very pleased that all of the parties have come together. I want to compliment the Senator from Arizona who is on the floor now, along with the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, and Senator Dole, the majority leader, for bringing everyone together and talking about this very important issue. We failed to pass the balanced budget amendment a few weeks ago. It was a great disappointment to many of us because we felt that the balanced budget amendment would force Congress not only now but future Congresses that will meet to make sure they never spend our children's money and our grandchildren's money. We did not pass that, but I do think there is a firm resolve among a majority of Members that we should balance the budget. One of the key tools to balancing a budget, to bringing spending under control is the line-item veto. This is a bill that will affect Democrats and Republicans alike. It is something that we ought to all come together to do, and that is to say that the President should have the right to look in a bill and determine what the priorities might be. I think the President should have a right to veto a bill without shutting down three agencies of Government, which is what the President would have to do now. If Congress disagrees with the President's judgment, we have the ability to overturn the President, as we would overturn any veto. I think that is the right approach. I think the Senators have done a superior job to give us the tools we need to balance this budget. Even though we do not have a balanced budget amendment, we can balance the budget if we have resolve. The way to do that is to pass the line-item veto. So I hope that all of us will put our party aside and say, ``If we are going to be serious about balancing the budget of our country and doing what is right, we have to have all the tools available in the parliamentary process to do that.'' One of the most important is the line-item veto. Senator McCain has worked on this for years, years and years. He has been very patient. He is not necessarily known for his patience but, in fact, his patience in this is going to prevail, I think, and we are going to back him up. We are going to back up the majority leader. We are going to make sure that nothing keeps the Senate from doing what is right. They have come up with a bill that is the right approach, and I commend them for it. I will be here supporting them in every way that I can. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be happy to do that, if the Senator from Montana will agree to let me finish on my own amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Chair please notify me, then, when the time is equal?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gramm be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the things that have been said, because I think we have to put this in perspective. The Endangered Species Act expired in September 1992. It has not been reauthorized, although we have appropriated money for its implementation. So, essentially, today what we are doing is saying, no longer are we going to fully fund the implementation of this act that expired 2 years ago. We are not wiping out the implementation. I want to put this in perspective. We are taking out $1.5 million out of approximately $4.9 million in the act. So there will be $3.4 million for the biologists and the workers at the agencies to continue doing their job. But what we are trying to do is say the time has come for us to put parameters around the implementation of this act because it has gone so far beyond reason. Senator Boxer and Senator Baucus have both agreed that no one is completely satisfied with the Endangered Species Act implementation. That is absolutely true, which is why we should stop doing it now, so that we can reauthorize it and tell the people who have gone so far beyond congressional intent exactly what Congress intended; that we intended to protect species, but that we most certainly intend to have common sense in the equation; that we are not going to put baitfish ahead of the water rights of farmers and ranchers; that we are not going to put the jaguar over the leasing rights of the ranchers in south Texas when nobody has seen a jaguar in Texas; that the golden- cheeked warbler is not going to take precedence over the farmers and ranchers and people in the area of Austin, TX. That is what we are trying to do. The Senator from California indicated that this might be sort of a local bill, and why do we not just take care of Texas and let everyone else fend for themselves. Well, I would just mention that California now has 74 potential listings, any one of which could possibly go on the endangered or threatened endangered species list--74. I do not think this is local. In fact, I met with the leaders of the Los Angeles business community a few weeks ago when I was out in Los Angeles, and they told me of their two top issues, one is the overzealous regulation in the Endangered Species Act. I hear that from Arizona, I hear it from Idaho, I hear it from Montana, I hear it from New Mexico. This is not a local issue. Everyone agrees we have to do something. What I want to do is reauthorize it in a timely and judicious manner, and I want to have the time to do that. The Senator from New Jersey says, ``Why the rush? Why the rush?'' The rush is not there. I introduced the bill to put a moratorium on the Endangered Species Act on January 7 of this year. It was March 7 before we had a hearing in the subcommittee. The markup is scheduled for March 23. So will this bill be able to be acted on before the April recess? I do not know. I hope so, because we still need the moratorium bill because we need to stop the overzealous regulation of this act by every possible means until we can reauthorize the act with all of the players at the table. So this is not rushing. This is trying to keep a disaster from happening. It is trying to keep people from losing their jobs while we are taking this bill up in due course. It was mentioned that the Pacific yew tree is being used to be a part of a medicine that helps cure breast cancer. And I certainly am supportive of that. As the Senator from California knows, she and I agree on the need for more research for breast cancer. But, in fact, I think we have to understand that the Pacific yew tree is now being harvested by Bristol-Myers. That is one of the good things that can happen. When we do discover that there is a plant that can be used to help cure disease or keep us from having more disease, then we have the ability to harvest that tree, and that is exactly what is happening.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly understand when people have legitimate disagreements over the rights of private property owners versus the rights of animals and the concern that we have for protecting habitat. I do object to the characterization that this is somehow an inappropriate amendment. I do not think we can say that. We have had expedited procedures on the bill that would put the moratorium in place--a bill that was introduced in January, that had 29 signatures on the request for a hearing in late January, that was very much worked on and compromised to accommodate the concerns of people who were legitimately interested in this bill--until we finally got a hearing on March 7. We have not had a markup in committee. I think we can see from some of the concerns that have been raised that we may not be able to get this bill on the floor before April. I really do not think it is a fair thing to say that we have had expedited treatment of this bill. I think what is important is that we put some common sense into the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Congress passed the bill. It has expired. In fact, we have not been able to reauthorize it because the concerns are so great and the disagreements are so large. So, we are going to take our time and we are going to reauthorize the bills, I hope, in a judicious way. The main thing we are going to have to do is put common sense into the equation. What I am trying to prevent today is the use of the next 6 months while we are taking this up in a rational way so that everyone can have their side aired and their view aired. I am trying to say, ``time out,'' so that silly things will not happen, so that bait fish and golden cheeked warblers and jaguars and salmon that are running the wrong way in a stream will not take precedence over the rights of farmers and ranchers who have toiled on their land and who are working for a living and providing the food for citizens to eat in this country. So I am very concerned that we act immediately. I think this is a great first step. I think it is a reasonable first step. I did not wipe out the whole agency. I just took $1.5 million out of $4.9 million. There is $3.5 million left. We are not going to lay people off. People will still be able to work. I think it is quite reasonable, and I did compromise with the chairman of the committee. I want to thank Senator Chafee for working with me on this amendment and for working with me in a fair way to try to get this bill heard. Thank you.