Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the Hutchison amendment and that Senators Gorton and Domenici be added as original cosponsors.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Washington working with me on this amendment. He and I had been discussing the impact of these regulatory excesses on the economies of our respective States and he has been a valuable resource to me in putting this amendment forward. We are going to do everything we can to move in a positive direction to make sure we do what is right for this country, protecting private property rights and the abilities of our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time taking the time to reauthorize the protection of endangered species in a judicious and timely manner.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. The amendment rescinds $1.5 million in funds for new listings of endangered or threatened species or designation of critical habitat through the end of the fiscal year, which is a little more than 6 months from now. It provides that remaining funds may not be used for final listings of endangered or threatened species or final designation of critical habitat. The amendment does permit downlistings, changing a species from endangered status to threatened status. In H.R. 4350, the House regulatory moratorium bill, the House passed a moratorium on new listings or designations until the earlier reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act or December 31, 1996. Rescinding funds for a more limited time period will provide a time out from new listings controversies and will provide the momentum necessary for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. President, as many of us in this body know, we have a critical situation with the Endangered Species Act implementation. I do not think one Member of this body does not support the concept of protecting endangered species. What has happened is, I think, the regulators have really gone far beyond congressional intent, and we have found ourselves in many States across our country having endangered species declarations for baitfish. In the Panhandle of Texas, we have baitfish now being looked at to be put on the endangered species list. Now, I would not mind baitfish being on the list if it did not encroach on private property rights and the use of water. Water is very important for the farmers and ranchers in the panhandle. It is very important to the people of Amarillo. They rely on the water sources. So when you start saying to the people of this country we are going to take away water rights from people who are farming and ranching and making their living off the land, when you say we are going to take water rights from cities that need the drinking water supply, then you set up a choice. Then you say, OK, what is more important than water rights and private property rights of individuals? Well, I do not think it is a baitfish. I think we might have some instances in which it would be worth saving some sort of specie that was in imminent danger of being extinct with some economic damage, but, Mr. President, that is not what is happening. Let me take another example in my State of Texas. The jaguar is to be put on the endangered or threatened list. Now, the last time someone saw a jaguar in south Texas was sometime in the 1940's. There are no jaguars in Texas. Maybe one wandered up from Mexico during the Second World War, but when you are talking about taking private property rights because a jaguar appeared 30 years ago and has not been seen since, we once again have a crucial decision: What is right and best for the private property owners, for the taxpayers of our country, and for the endangered species and the preservation of nature. I just want common sense to come into the equation, and that is the issue here. My amendment will say time out. The time has come for us to look at the policies. And we are going to take up the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. When we do that, we are going to be able to look at scientific bases. How are we going to determine what is really endangered? The fact that the Tipton kangaroo rat has feet 1 millimeter longer than the Herman rat, does that make the Tipton kangaroo rat take precedence over a farmer in California who was arrested and is now looking at a $300,000 fine and a year in prison because he might have run over a Tipton kangaroo rat, when the Herman rat, which is the same except the feet are one millimeter shorter, is not on the endangered species list? So we are going to be able to take that up in the Endangered Species Act reauthorization. We are going to be able to take up cost-benefit analysis. We are going to be able to look at the people who might lose jobs like the logging industry in the northwest part of our country, where people were put out of jobs that had been in families for generations to save a spotted owl. We are going to look at alternative habitats. We are going to look at the possibility that we could have taken spotted owls and put them in nearby public lands without any cost to the taxpayers and without the breaking down of the logging industry in the northwest part of our country, and most certainly without causing these people such disruption in their lives by losing their livelihood and their jobs. These people are being retrained. It is costing the taxpayers of America $250 million as the result of a bill we passed in 1993 to retrain workers who did not want to leave their jobs to save a spotted owl. So these are some of the things we are going to be able to take up in the Endangered Species Act reauthorization. Mr. President, you and I have talked about the importance of having full hearings on the Endangered Species Act, to hear from everyone, from the Fish and Wildlife Department, from people who are involved in saving the environment, from people who are involved in saving animals, and from private property owners and people who believe that the Constitution, the fifth amendment for private property rights, is in fact a part of the Constitution and is intact. So we know that it is going to take time to do that. But I wish to make sure, Mr. President, that we do not do something between now and the time of reauthorization or in this case until the end of the fiscal year that would put the rights of a baitfish above the farmers and ranchers in the Panhandle of Texas. We want to make sure that between now and the end of the fiscal year we do not have a jaguar that south Texas. We want to make sure that things that go beyond the realm of reason do not happen in this country while we wait and do the Endangered Species Act reauthorization in the right way. That is what I wish to make sure, Mr. President, we are able to do. So I appreciate the opportunity. I wish to reserve the remainder of my time in case someone would speak against this amendment. I realize it would be hard to speak against this wonderful amendment, but nevertheless if someone decides to do it, I would like to be able to reserve the remainder of my time to respond.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield, Mr. President.

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 wish to add my remarks to those of the Tennessee and the great Senator from the State of Maryland. This is exactly what responsible budgeting is. We have made a decision in the committee that as a priority we should be looking at the science projects that are going to create the new technologies that keep the new jobs in America. Mr. President, HUD is in a state of flux. We have been spending $86,000 per housing unit to construct housing under HUD. Once constructed, it costs $4,000 to $5,000 per year to maintain. There are great questions if that is the best use of taxpayer dollars. I think it is most responsible to take money from housing construction when we think we are going to go into vouchers, which are going to work better, and we put that money into big science which creates jobs for the future. Mr. President, that is what we are doing. We should table the Bumpers amendment and do what is responsible for the future of our country. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would want an additional amount of time that would equalize it. I think we have set a time agreement here and perhaps we could accommodate to some degree, but perhaps not for 10 more minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think that would be fine.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object. You are asking for 8 minutes in addition to the 2 minutes? Are you asking for 10 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time we may have up to 5 minutes to my colleague from the State of Washington.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Coats, who sponsored this bill last year. I was a willing and hopefully helpful cosponsor. Now we have Senator Grams, a new freshman, who did sponsor it on the House side last year and has come in to cosponsor it this year. This is a very important step that we must take. In 1930, we saw the beginning of the change in course in our country, the beginning of more Government, bigger Government, more spending, which also brought more encroachment on everyone's lives. I think in 1994, the people of America said, ``No, stop. Stop the big Government growth. Stop the encroachment on our lives. Stop the arrogance in Washington, DC. Enough is enough.'' They said, ``We want to go back to self-help and self-reliance. We want to go back to the basics, and we want the American family to be the strength that it has been, the fabric of society that it has been, that has brought us to this strong and great America that we have.'' We have dissipated so much of the strength of our family through the dependence of Government. I remember the story of a woman who was in the grocery store line who said, ``I saw someone using food stamps, buying items of food that I had passed up because I was trying to save to buy something for my children, that I had to do as a little bit of an extra.'' It was that frustration that I think people felt when they went to the polls in 1994 and said, ``We do not think that's right.'' The people who are pulling the wagon, the people who are saying, ``We are saving our money to raise our families, and we are having a hard time doing it,'' wanted a change. The families first legislation will bring about that change, and I have to say that I do admire the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman, Bill Archer, who did report a bill out that has many of the things in the families first bill that we are introducing today. Perhaps they will pass those in the House first. I will be proud, then, to come in and take some of those items from our families first legislation that we are reintroducing today. The $500 per child tax credit is something that will help those families make ends meet, the ones who are having a hard time. After worked so hard to earn. Why should they not be able to keep it? Why should they not decide what is best for them, rather than having someone from Big Brother Government deciding what is best for them. I think if the American people believe that they can manage their own resources better than the Federal Government, that we should humor them and let them keep their money. That is what the families first legislation will do. I have been a proponent of increasing IRA's, because I think if we help people retire with security that that will be good for our country. It is self-help. It is allowing people to have that security in their old-age years by encouraging savings, which encourages investments, which encourages new jobs in this country, too. I have introduced a bill to give homemakers IRA's, and if we can get this families first bill to the floor, I know that Senator Coats and Senator Grams are going to support my amendment to have homemakers added to IRA's because that is a very important issue. It is important to say that the work done inside the home is every bit as important, if not more important, than the work done outside the home, because that is what keeps this country strong--the families, where the families are together. If the homemaker is staying home and raising children, I think we should reward her efforts, just as much as anyone who is working outside the home. I have seen my colleague, Senator Coverdell, come in, and I want to make sure everyone has a chance to weigh in on this legislation. I will just say, Mr. President, that this is families first. It is time to go back to basics, to appreciate how important the family unit is, that balancing the budget is for the future of our children and grandchildren. That is a commitment that I have, and all who are cosponsoring this legislation will work to try to make sure that we give to our children and grandchildren the same kind of strong America that we were able to grow up in and love. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was just going to ask the Senator from West Virginia--I would like to make a statement totally off this subject in morning business talk. But I certainly do not want to interrupt the Senator if he is in the middle of continuing his speech on the amendment. I was really asking for a clarification of his ability to yield me some time, but I do not want to interrupt.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, our regulatory reform debate has ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous and back. Today I would like to weigh in briefly on the side of the ridiculous. The dressing room of a fine women's clothing store may seem like an odd place for the EEOC to intrude in a way that perfectly illustrates regulatory excess, but that is exactly where we find ourselves today. The firm in question, Lillie Rubin, is a successful 49-year-old business with 60 affiliates, specializing in clothes for women. But the EEOC is measuring Lillie Rubin for a new outfit, and I think it seems like more of a straitjacket than a woman's dress. In opposition to its own regulations and its own previous decisions, the EEOC has ruled that a Lillie Rubin store in Phoenix must employ male salespeople, and it is demanding that they be allowed to work in the store's fitting rooms where female customers try on clothes. I know this does not sound like an EEOC case so much as an ``I Love Lucy'' rerun, but it is true. However much our society has changed, I still believe that certain standards prevail, and I believe this dress store's customers should not be guinea pigs in a new Government experiment. I am astounded that an agency of the Government would seek to strong-arm a private business into violating basic standards in such an outrageous way. It is beyond my understanding why the EEOC would try to force a business such as Lillie Rubin to sacrifice the privacy of its customers in order to avoid Government censure. But customer privacy is not all that Lillie Rubin would be sacrificing if it is forced to comply with this EEOC ruling. What the EEOC has concocted is a remedy that could well drive away Lillie Rubin's customers and hurt its business. This is more than regulatory intrusion. The EEOC decision, if not reversed, will leave the company in an exposed financial position. As a final blow, EEOC is insisting that Lillie Rubin pay for newspaper advertisements to publicize that it may be vulnerable to EEOC claims by men who have applied in the past or might in the future. The EEOC's approach to Lillie Rubin has been highhanded and arbitrary in the extreme, and bizarre, I think, as well. According to the company, one EEOC investigator told a company representative that ``Some women like it'' when there are males in the dressing room when they disrobe. Mr. President, I ask you, is that what the taxpayers of America want their hard-earned dollars to pay for from our Government employees? Is that what this Congress wants the people to whom we are delegating our authority to implement regulations to do? Of course not. I am sure President Clinton would not want an agency of his executive branch to be putting forward a policy that forces men into women's dressing rooms. Surely he realizes by now that it is impossible for one individual, regardless of how powerful, to even think that this would happen and to come to grips with the regulatory gridlock that has been created here. I think this argues even more for a regulatory moratorium. If these kinds of things are out there happening in the real world, and if regulators are moratorium that says: Hold it. Time out. Let us bring common sense into this process and let us find out how big the problem is. I think this Lillie Rubin example is one more in a multitude of examples that we have heard talked about on the House floor in the last few weeks, and on this floor, talking about trying to put parameters and common sense into our regulatory framework. The EEOC's treatment of Lillie Rubin is tailor made--if I could use a pun--to show how bureaucratic intrusiveness is sapping the productivity of American business and how it is costing Americans billions of dollars every year. I hope we can put common sense into the system. I hope this just illustrates how much we need to put common sense into the system. And I hope the EEOC will hear this put in context and retreat from such a ridiculous requirement of a women's dress store to hire male salespeople and allow them into the dressing rooms. This is something we must stop. I hope the regulatory moratorium bill will be the first step to allow us to say: Enough is enough. This is not the way our American taxpayers expect their taxpayer dollars to be used. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to add to the accolades that are being given this morning to a wonderful leader in the U.S. Senate, and they are well deserved. I have been here a short time compared to many of my compatriots who are talking today. But when I came the first day, I remember getting an invitation from Reverend Halverson to come to the weekly prayer breakfast that the Senate holds. I must say, when I started going to those, I felt that was the one hour that we had together on a very bipartisan basis--Jewish Members, Catholic Members, Baptist Members, Episcopalian Members--all coming together to share a quiet moment in an otherwise sometimes stormy week. It has made a difference in my service in the Senate, and I cannot imagine that we would have been so strong had we not had the leadership of Reverend Halverson telling us how very important it was for us to come together in this very bipartisan way to talk about the things that bring us together rather than the things that sometimes divide us on this floor. I have heard Members who have been here for years talk about personal things that he has done for members of their staff who were in trouble. The personal testimonies are legion around here about this man. We will all miss him. But we will all remember what a strong leader he has been and how much better off we are for having him among us. So I know all of us wish him Godspeed, but not farewell, because we hope that he will be back many times in the future. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 498 are located in today's Record under Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill this morning because there is something fundamentally wrong with a Government program that pays drug addicts to remain addicted and pays alcoholics to continue being addicted to alcohol. Yet, that is precisely what the Supplemental Security Income Program currently does: It grants substance abusers an entitlement based upon their addiction. Most Americans are surprised to learn that drug abuse is now classified as a disability and that addicts and alcoholics are given SSI payments which they use to supply their addictions rather than to obtain food, shelter, and treatment which, of course, was the purpose of the program. This simply defies the commonsense test. It wastes resources and does actual harm to those it claims to help. SSI payments may, under these circumstances, provide a perverse incentive to beneficiaries. We pay them to stay on drugs, we pay them not to work, and we pay them to avoid recovery. In the words of one doctor who has spent her entire professional career dealing with the problems of addiction, SSI payments ``* * * undermine the very thing they are supposed to be doing for my patients--promoting their rehabilitation.'' In 1994, 100,000 drug addicts and alcoholics were on the SSI rolls and received an estimated $382 million in Federal benefits, benefits that came out of the pockets of responsible, hardworking, taxpaying Americans. The SSI caseload of drug addicts and alcoholics has expanded more than 700 percent since 1988 when there were only 13,000 such individuals in the programs. At their current rate of increase, their numbers are expected to rise to 200,000 within 5 years. Sadly, only 10 percent ever recover and escape the SSI rolls. Such a recovery rate is devastating. We have botched our attempt to provide a safety net and have instead provided these individuals the means to continue their free-fall into addiction. Congress cannot in good conscience continue this policy. So today, I am introducing a bill to stop payments to individual addicts and instead rededicate those resources to put addiction research and treatment programs on the books. These funds will be put to much more constructive alternative uses. Society as a whole will benefit because treatment programs reduce criminal justice costs and lost productivity. Drug addicts and alcoholics do not need an allowance from the Government which they can then use to feed their addictions. What they need is treatment. The drug addicts and alcoholics program within SSI was intended to support these individuals while they were under treatment. But that is not how things worked out. The program has been difficult to monitor and they have, in fact, not found that people who are taking the benefits are going into rehabilitation programs. In fact, rehabilitation is actually discouraged because rehabilitation results in loss of benefits of the program. Substance abuse is taking a horrible toll on our society. The current SSI Program is doing nothing to remedy that unfortunate fact. My bill would alter our fundamental approach to substance abuse and abusers. Instead of general monthly payments, the abusers would be given treatment programs that require participation by them and commitment by them to stop their habit and rehabilitate themselves to be responsible citizens. It will save money, and it will put our taxpayer dollars to better use.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, yesterday while introducing the letter from Col. William Barrett Travis, I read from the wrong notes and misstated the date of the Texans' victory at San Jacinto. March 2 is the birthday of Sam Houston, the anniversary of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence, and the day we honor as the birthday of our State. Of course, the victory at San Jacinto occurred the following month on April 21, 1836.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on May 16, 1994 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in C&A Carbone versus Clarkstown, NY that has important implications for local municipal waste management planning. At issue in the Carbone case was the constitutionality of local ordinances that enforce flow control. A flow control ordinance enables a local government to direct locally generated waste to a specific waste disposal facility. The waste disposal facility is typically a solid waste combustor that is owned by the local government. In its Carbone decision the Court found that flow control was an unconstitutional interference in interstate commerce. In general, this ruling was a victory for taxpaying consumers who will benefit from the improved service and prices that result from competition for waste disposal services. However, the Court's decision leaves local governments with flow control regimes in a vulnerable position. In most cases, flow control assures the financial feasibility of a locally owned or financed waste disposal facility. That is, municipal bonds were sold and facilities built in reliance on flow control guaranteed waste disposal income. Lacking this the financial feasibility of such disposal facilities and local governments is jeopardized. At the end of the 103d Congress a number of my colleagues and I worked on a bill that would have grandfathered existing flow control arrangements. Unfortunately, the Senate did not complete action before adjournment. If anything, the urgency of cushioning the effects of the Carbone decision on affected local governments has increased. Although there have not yet been any defaults, the risk of local and municipal bond market disruptions continues. Today I offer legislation, the Municipal Waste Flow Control Transition Act of 1995, that is very similar to that supported by most of the affected parties at the end of the last Congress. My bill preserves flow control for local governments that made substantial investments predicated on flow control authority before Carbone. It ensures flow control authority for the life of the affected facilities. However, my legislation would not permit new flow control arrangements, thereby assuring free competition and unfettered interstate commerce in the future. Mr. President, we should protect the local governments and local taxpayers who are threatened financially by invalidation of their flow control ordinances. We can do so, as my bill does, in a straight forward fashion and, at the same time, assure that businesses and homeowners will have the benefits of a free market in the future.