Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last week the Senate approved landmark legislation to protect States and communities from unfunded Federal mandates, and yesterday, the House followed suit. When the President signs this legislation, we will witness a sea change in the relationship among Federal, State, and local government. Let me remind my colleagues, however, that when we consider the staggering load of unfunded mandates the Federal Government imposes on State and local governments, southern border States such as Texas bear a huge share of the burden. Last year, I asked Congress to allocate $350 million to the affected States for incarcerating illegal alien felons. Congress took a significant step in rectifying this situation when it appropriated $130 million for the purpose. This was the first time in history the Federal Government has ever acknowledged its fiscal obligation to States directly impacted by Federal policies--and failures. But that appropriation was merely an initial installment on what is actually a huge, crippling debt incurred by the Federal Government. This year I am calling on President Clinton to include that $350 million allocation in his budget proposal--to move closer toward Federal acknowledgment of the true magnitude of the costs of illegal immigration to this country. Illegal aliens, who enter our States and take up permanent, unlawful residence, are there as a result of the Federal Government's failure to carry out one of its most important functions--the securing of our borders. Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and even Florida, absorb the brunt of these costs. My State and others similarly affected are required by Federal law and Federal courts to pay for incarcerating illegals who commit crimes and also for the costs of education, welfare, medical services, and a host of other government-funded programs serving illegal aliens. The Federal Government underwrites very little of these expenditures. But under the threat of penalty imposed by Federal law State and local taxpayers are coerced into footing the bill. Texas, alone, must spend more than $60 million a year to keep illegal alien felons in prison--California nearly $400 million. Texas also spends more than $60 million annually on unreimbursed Medicaid services to illegal aliens. Texas like other States--is experiencing a seemingly insoluble school funding crisis, due in part to the presence of illegal alien children which the Federal courts have ruled must be educated. In several Texas school districts, close to 50 percent of the students enrolled are the children of illegal aliens. In some cases, children cross the border from Mexico every day to attend school in Texas. In La Joya, a small lower Rio Grande Valley town near Brownsville, a third of the school district's enrollment comes from Mexico. Yet school officials are forbidden to ask students for proof of residency--in their school district. A study by Rice University in Houston estimates that Texas pays, all told, $1.4 billion a year to provide federally mandated services to illegal immigrants. This is $1.4 billion a year we do not have, or, if we did, could be put to better use for Texas taxpayers. For instance, that $1.4 billion would more than make up for the funding shortfall in Texas schools. The situation has become intolerable--and resulted unfortunately in a backlash against all immigrants such as we witnessed in California during the debate over proposition 187. I am thankful the situation in Texas has not yet reached this point. But the unfunded mandates situation has reached the crisis stage in its impact on our State and local budgets. To put it plainly, the Federal Government is shifting the responsibility for these mandated expenditures onto the backs of Texas taxpayers. Texans are being forced to provide social benefits to individuals who have broken our laws, jumping ahead of those who play by the rules--while the Federal Government looks the other way. Illegal immigrants ought not be entitled to State taxpayers' money for simply crossing the border--and breaking our laws in the process. In the past, I have supported the assignment of more Border Patrol agents to make our border areas more secure. The immigration reform bill I introduced in the 103d Congress would have put 6,000 more agents in the field to stop this flagrant and habitual violation of U.S. law. Now my colleague, Senator Gramm, has introduced another illegal immigration bill which would put even more new agents on the border, realizing that we are going to have to get serious about stopping the influx of people who are illegal into out country. One of the reasons I am a strong advocate of the unfunded mandate legislation is that it will enforce a kind of truth-in-lawmaking we have not seen in Washington for decades--putting a clear price tag on programs and policies when they are foisted onto the States. This correction in our country's course is long overdue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have seen the debate this week in the Senate on the balanced budget amendment. I am very pleased that the House of Representatives has taken this step already, and now it is up to the Senate to decide if Americans finally will have the opportunity for their legislatures to vote to adopt a very important amendment to our Constitution. It is future generations because it will say to our future generations we are not going to rack up the bill and give you the opportunity to pay for what we are doing today. That is what this balanced budget amendment is all about. Mr. President, we have heard all kinds of reasons why people are now saying that they might not support the balanced budget amendment. But I hope the American people realize that these are in fact excuses. This is a solid, plain, simple, understandable balanced budget amendment. Maybe I would have changed a few words. Maybe others would change a few words and make exceptions. But we cannot make exceptions if we are going to take the responsible approach of saying we are going to set parameters on the amount of spending that we can do in this country. Every business in America does that. Every household in America does that. Every State government and every local government does that in America. Why, Mr. President, should Congress be the one entity in America that does not have to live within a budget? And every day that you see someone standing up on the floor and giving an excuse why they are not going to support the balanced budget amendment, I hope the American people realize that is what it is. We will make the cuts that are necessary. We will save Social Security. We have done it every year except last year when there was an increase in taxes, and they did increase the taxes on Social Security recipients. Not one Republican voted for that bill; not one. So I do not think the American people need to fear that a Republican majority is going to do something that would in any way impact Social Security in not a beneficial way. It is not our side that has done anything on Social Security. What we are trying to do is make sure that people on Social Security know that their children and grandchildren are going to have a responsible government in Washington, DC. Mr. President, that is what the argument is about on the balanced budget amendment. I thank the Senator from Utah for his great leadership in this effort. He has been there fighting the cause this whole week and for years before saying this is what is right for America. I appreciate the time and effort that he is putting in. I just hope that when it comes down to the bottom line that this Senate does the right thing and sends an amendment to the people of our country through its legislatures to say we are going to be responsible like every State government, every local government, every business and every household in America has to be responsible. It is the most important vote I will ever make in my time in the U.S. Senate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last year, the 103d Congress preempted State regulation of intrastate trucking, which was a proper policy that had my full support. However, in its breadth, deregulation swept local government regulation of tow trucks into its net, leaving local governments uncertain about their rules governing the area of nonconsent tows. Nonconsent tows occur at the scene of an accident where the owner is unable to give consent to towing, and when a car is towed from private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. Local regulation of emergency nonconsent tows is aimed ostensibly at protecting the motoring public at the scene of an accident to prevent a swarm of tow truck operators. Local regulation of private property nonconsent tows are consumer protection rules which generally go to how much a nonconsent tow from private property will cost and where the car can be taken. After the passage of trucking deregulation, Senator Gorton and I introduced legislation to roll back the preemption of deregulation over tow trucks and transporters of recyclable materials. The bill passed in the Senate but was changed in the House; the legislative clock ran out before identical versions could be passed in both houses. Trucking deregulation went into effect on January 1 and local governments have moved to comply with deregulation of towing price, route and service; however, there is still a great deal of confusion throughout local jurisdictions around the country regarding the degree to which cities can regulate nonconsent tows. Some city councils, such as the city of Houston's, have chosen to impose a 120-day moratorium on changing their regulations until clarify local authority. The legislation I introduce today provides that clarification. It states that tows made at the request of a law enforcement officer or without the prior consent of the owner are not subject to the terms of the intrastate trucking deregulation, retroactive to January 1, when deregulation took effect. This will permit cities to continue rate regulation for nonconsent tows, which protects consumers that have little or no negotiating power in nonconsent tow situations. It will also permit them to utilize a system of selection for emergency nonconsent tows, if they so choose.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to advocate passage of the balanced budget amendment, a measure which will fundamentally change the direction our Government has taken in the last 25 years. Mr. President, if the people of this country said anything last November, it is that we should change the course of this country. The most important thing we can do to show the American people that we heard their call and that we are acting on it is to pass this balanced budget amendment. During the last 25 years, Congress has become desensitized to the enormity of the fiscal and moral harm its habitual deficit spending is causing this country. Those of us who support the balanced budget amendment believe that, contrary to the thrust of many arguments that we will be hearing in the next few days, weeks, or even months, budget deficits of this magnitude are not the norm. With the exception of deficit spending during wartime, this country grew to be the most powerful on Earth while enjoying increasingly high standards of living without spending excessively. But during the last few decades, we have accumulated a national debt of $4.4 trillion, nearly $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. In fact, every child that is born today owes $18,000. That is not a birthright; that is a birth-wrong. Our per capita debt has increased more than sevenfold in the last 18 years. I do not think it is coincidence that at the same time there has arisen a crisis of confidence in the Government among many segments of our society. We have now become the largest debtor nation in history, and a large portion of that debt is held by foreign interests. We have mortgaged our children's future in the very way Thomas Jefferson feared and warned us about 200 years ago. He said: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Since the beginning of our slide down the slippery slope of deficit spending 25 years ago, it has become more and more evident that the problem is due in part to an inherent weakness in the way Congress goes about its business. The deficit is a result of the fact that it has become harder and harder to raise taxes but all too easy to increase spending. The voters made themselves perfectly clear on this matter last November. To them, the deficit is not a result of the Government taxing too little. It is the result of Government spending too much. That is a simple concept instinctively grasped by our people but until now has seemed beyond the reach of Congress. It is at this critical juncture that a balanced budget amendment would inject the element of accountability into the process. It should be just as hard for the Government to borrow as it is for the Government to raise taxes. The balanced budget amendment would set up a tension in Congress when we deliberate over borrowing, taxing, and spending. And we need that tension, Mr. President. Other less drastic attempts to accomplish this change in attitude have failed. Gramm-Rudman was not allowed to function as its authors had planned. Too much was exempted from it. And every time its mandatory sequester treatment came into play, Congress backed down. The 1990 budget agreement did not hold water. We raised taxes, but real budget cuts never followed. Budget deficits are doing enormous harm. Aside from the selfishly shortsighted way in which we are treating future generations, the impact of deficit spending already has begun to sap our economy. The Government is borrowing and spending money that would otherwise serve as capital needed for economic growth and job creation. Our standard of living no longer continues to rise in this country. Our parents used to think that it was a matter of course that their children would have a better standard of living than they did. That is no longer the case. We are crippling the productive engine of our society and cheating those who make it run. Wealth that should be available as seed corn for the creation of new wealth and jobs is instead being consumed. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment are now demanding that its supporters first reveal exactly how they plan to balance the budget. I would ask instead, when were the American people ever told precisely how they would be driven into a $4.4 trillion debt? Did we ask the American people every time we forced them into this drastic debt? Was it explained to them that the Government was imposing such a burden on their children and grandchildren? How does every other government entity in America except Congress manage to write a balanced budget? They determine what they have to spend, and then they set their spending priorities. That is how they do it. They set a balanced budget and then they say, OK, that is what we have to spend. Every business, every household, every city, every county, and every State government in America does it. There is only one entity in this country that does not have a balanced budget and continues to function, and that has been the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, this is the budget of Henderson, TX. It is a lot of computer pages. Henderson is a town of 11,000 people. They are very proud that they have a balanced budget. That is why they put this sign on the front of their budget. The balanced budget for Henderson, TX, is $8 million; one-quarter of this budget is from unfunded Federal mandates. So 11,139 people in the city of Henderson, TX, have to split $2 million of unfunded mandates to pay for it--$2 million extra over 11,000 people. Mr. President, I am pleased that this Congress has made some progress on unfunded mandates. But as we proceed to give relief to the people of Henderson, TX, and cities like it all across America, I hope we are also going to learn a lesson from cities that know how to balance their budget. The city council says to itself, we have $8 million in revenue, and we are going to spend no more than $8 million. Many of the strongest voices being raised in opposition to this measure are the very ones, Mr. President, who are afraid that the balanced budget will work. They are unwilling to make the hard choices it will force on those in Congress. I can understand their reluctance even if I do not sympathize with it. In fact, the harm we are causing with continued deficit spending is precisely the kind of Government folly which the Constitution ought to prevent. We ought to prevent it in the Constitution, and that is what we are trying to do today. I would like to close my remarks with another warning from Thomas Jefferson. He saw all too well the potential for tragedy if the young Republic were to taste the forbidden fruit of borrowing against its future. He said: There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the Government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad. Mr. President, he could say those words today, and it would be even more fitting. Now, I do not think that Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers could ever have dreamed of a $4.4 trillion debt, but I will say this. Had they known that this was possible, I think they would have taken steps to prevent it in the Constitution. I think it is incumbent upon us to say to the future generations of our country we are going to take the steps that will assure that every child born in this country will not be born with an $18,000 debt hanging over his or her head. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, who is leading the charge for this balanced budget amendment. We must pass this constitutional amendment so that Congress can no longer, by majority vote, encumber our children and future generations with what we want to spend today as a matter of convenience. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would like to add my words of congratulations to the Senator from Idaho. As was mentioned by the Dean of the Senate, Senator Kempthorne is a freshman. He has only been here for 2 years, and it is a very rare thing that someone who has been here only 2 years would be able to take a bill to the floor and to handle that bill really alone as the sponsor of the bill, with able help and participation from Senator Glenn, as well. Senator Kempthorne really deserves the credit, and I wish to congratulate the people of Idaho for electing a person who is a former mayor of Boise, who came here with a mission, to try to help a situation that he had experienced firsthand as mayor. I relate to that experience because I was State treasurer of my State of Texas. The others that were the first people on this bill were also State or local officials, such as Senator Gregg, who was the Governor of New Hampshire. People like us, who came from local and State governments, really understand what was happening to the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is one of the most important amendments to our Constitution. A lot of people forget it was the States that created the Federal Government; it was not the Federal Government that created the States. And the 10th amendment says exactly that, that all the powers not specifically reserved to the Federal Government shall go to the States and the people. We must return to the 10th amendment, and we took a historic step today on this side of our Congress to do just that, to restore the rights of the States and the local governments to make the decisions closest to the people. That is what our Founding Fathers intended, and that is what I hope every step we take throughout this session will continue to approach. I want the government closest to the people to make the decisions that relate to the people to whom they are closest. This was a major first step, and I am so proud to see that the House is now debating this very same bill. I look forward to the President having the relief to the States and cities on his desk by the end of next week. That will be a major step. In fact, this really has been a historic week in Congress. On the other side of the Capitol, the House yesterday passed a balanced budget amendment, a great step forward for our children and grandchildren to know that we are going to act responsibly to start trying to get toward that balanced budget so that we will not pass our debts on to the next generations. And on this side of the Capitol, we passed the first step to giving the States and local governments closest to the people the rights they should have. So I just want to commend Senator Kempthorne. I commend all who worked so hard on this bill. For the last 10 days, it has really rested on him, and I think it is a great step forward. We are beginning to do for the people what we hoped we could do, what they asked us to do on November 8, and that is to start making the Federal Government less intrusive on our lives. I thank the Chair. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the concern of the Senator from California about pregnant women and children and the elderly, and the Senator from New Jersey talking about carcinogens. A vote today against this amendment or against the Senator from New Jersey's amendment does not mean that we are for carcinogens in the water. It does not mean that we do not want to take care of the young children and the elderly. We all want to make sure that our young children and our elderly people who need help have it. In fact, that is the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to bring the issue down not to whether we take care of people or not but how do we take care of them? What is the best way to make sure that our children have a future, that our elderly are able to be taken care of, that we do not have carcinogens in the water? The question is who makes the decision and who pays for it? What we are saying today is that the Government that is closest to the people should be making those decisions and they should pay for it after they make the decisions. The whole concept of our Government is that we do not have taxation without representation; that if we are going to have a program whoever decides that we are going to have that program should pay for it. That is the issue today. It is not whether or not we are going to take care of the people in this country who need help. I am a former State treasurer. I have been a State officeholder. My colleague from Idaho has been the mayor of his city in Idaho, Boise. So I think we have to look at the issue of who can best do this job. tough choices unfunded mandates force States and cities and counties to make. And the issue is, are they going to raise taxes or are they going to cut services, services to the elderly and children? That is the question. Passage of this bill sends a clear message to our State and local government leaders that have cried to us time after time after time. We want to work with them to reduce the pressures on the taxpayers of America. It will also send a message to them that we intend to return to the proper role of Federal Government. In my own State, almost one-third of the increase in the State budget over the last 3 years has been the result of unfunded Federal mandates--one-third. It is a stealth tax. The taxpayers of Texas and California and Ohio and Idaho are paying taxes but we do not get the blame for those taxes because it is a stealth tax. It comes from unfunded Federal mandates through the States and local governments. We just cannot afford it anymore. The taxpayers of this country cannot afford it anymore. Yesterday, I spoke about an amendment and I said these unfunded mandates mean that we may have to increase and have increased the light bill or the water bill or the sewer bill for the very elderly people that the Senator is trying to protect. I think you have to look at the overall picture to determine what the effects are going to be on the people that we are going to try to protect. Gov. George Bush of Texas, who just got sworn in last week, in his inaugural address said, ``Texans can govern Texas. Thank you very much, Federal Government. We can do it ourselves.'' Well, I am sure Tennesseans can govern Tennessee. I am sure Californians can govern California. They are quite competent to do it. In fact, they are better able to make the decisions, because they would not put a mandate on the local governments to test the water supply for proposed carcinogens that that water supply has never had and will never have because they know what the potential carcinogens are in Boise, ID, or Amarillo, TX, or Memphis, TN. They know better than the Federal Government and they do not need to send their money to Washington to have them launder it through their bureaucracy and send 80 cents on the dollar back. They have figured that out. So the issue is not are we going to protect the elderly and the children and the working people and the jobs in this country. The issue is how is the best way to do it. And the best way to do it is to pass this bill without amendments that are going to gut it as this amendment will, pass this bill to say to the State and local governments: We are not going to tell you what is best for your locality because we know you can make that decision. We know that you are the best source to determine what the quality of air is and what the priority programs to clean up the air is for your area. And it is different in Los Angeles than it is in El Paso. It is different in Houston than it is in Memphis. That is why we want to pass this bill, so that the local governments can more efficiently protect the people that we are here to protect, because they can do it best at the government level that is closest to the people and they can determine what the priorities are and they will do it in a much better way than the Federal Government, the bureaucrats that may or may not have ever visited Los Angeles or Memphis. They can do it better. So that is why I am supporting this bill. And that is why I am very concerned about an amendment that would essentially start to take out segments of the potential mandates because when you do that you are saying, ``We will be able to continue telling you how you will do your business, State government and local governments.'' And I think the people of America understand that. And I think they understand that this is a bill that will fulfill a commitment that we have made to downsize the Federal Government, to go back to our roots, which is State and local governments have all of the responsibilities in the Constitution except those specifically reserved to the Federal Government. Not the opposite. It is not the Federal Government saying we are going to do everything and we will let the States and local governments do a few things that we decide they might be competent to do. The Federal Government did not create the States in this country. The States created the Federal Government. That is the way our Founding Fathers decided to do it because they knew, they knew, that States and local governments were best able to deal with our problems. They knew that we should have a very limited Federal Government. That is what we are trying to return to with this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remaining time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment that Senator Boxer from California has put forward. I, like the main sponsor of this bill, am a former State official. He was a former mayor. I know what it is like to have to make those decisions on a State budget when you are getting mandates from the Federal Government and you have to say, ``Do I increase the elderly's light bill or the water bill of an elderly person because I have this mandate from the Federal Government?'' It is very difficult for elderly people to make ends meet. So when we are talking about eliminating a category of the elderly or children and their effects, I wonder if we have considered the effects of raising a water bill because of an environmental mandate that perhaps does not meet a cost-benefit analysis. All of these things that we are trying to prevent the Federal Government from passing to the States are going to have an impact for the good on children and the elderly. In fact, I think we have to say what this amendment really is. It is an amendment that will gut the bill. Now, I know that the Senator from California is sincerely interested in the elderly and the welfare of children. She has expressed that many times, and I have no doubt of her sincerity. But I do think this amendment is going to have the opposite effect from what she wants. The purpose of this bill is to set up a process. The process has really two results. One is to give us the information that we need so that we can judge how much a bill we are going to pass will cost. If it is going to be passed to State and local governments, that will then be passed on to their constituents in the form of new taxes or increased fees. That is one part of the bill. And then the second part of the bill is to determine what is that impact and to say, this Congress has a policy we are not going to pass these bills without sending the money. If it is over $50 million, we are just not going to do it because the State and local governments cannot absorb it. So it is finding out what the costs are and then saying we are not going to do this unless we pay for it. Now, we have the option of paying for it. If we decide that something is very important and it fits within the budget priorities, I think the Federal Government should pay for it. I may vote against a point of order or vote to uphold a point of order and override the point of order later because it is important to me that we do what the bill before us would do that would be beneficial to the elderly or to children or to the working people of this country. So we have the option of overriding the veto. We have the option of saying we think this is important and we are going to put a mandate on the States. But the purpose of this bill is to say we are going to decide what the Federal priorities are within a budget and we are going to have the integrity to say, if we think something is important, that we will pay for it. Or we will not tell the States they have to do it; we will say to the States we suggest you do it but we will not mandate they do it. So we have a choice. If it is a good program, we can tell the States we are going to override all of the things we have said and require you to pay for it, or we can step up to the line, which is what we should do, and pay for it ourselves. So I think it is very important that we not pass an amendment that will, in to affect the elderly and the children. And if we say anything that effects them is not going to be eligible for this bill, it means we can pass everything we have already passed which causes--let us take the clean drinking water bill. Let us just take that for an example. We are talking about testing for certain carcinogens or certain elements that might be in water. Now, what we are saying in this bill is, we want to make sure that if we require the city of Plano to test for elements in their water, that it is something that is relevant to the water supply of the city of Plano. That is not the case today. The case today is that the city of Plano and the city of Columbus, OH, may be having to test for a solvent or something used to eradicate bugs in pineapples, and they do not have pineapple plants in Plano or Columbus, OH. So the people of Columbus, OH, and Plano, TX, are having to pay for a test that is not relevant to them. Well, what happens? What happens when that occurs? It increases the water bill for that elderly person who is having a hard time making ends meet. That is what we are trying to prevent with this bill. That is what we are trying to change. The impact on the elderly is every bit as much, with a mandate on clean drinking water that does not make sense, as it is for a social program that would be a welfare check. The bottom line is, we all want to make sure that we do the best for the people who cannot help themselves in this country; in many instances the elderly, in many instances the children. But I think we differ on the way to best come to the end of the line. This amendment by the Senator from California will gut this bill, and it will allow the continuing increases of water bills and electricity bills, utility bills, rent, property taxes that hurt the elderly and hurt the children of this country, when what we are trying to do is say, ``No, we are not going to tell the local governments that they have to raise property taxes and water bills and electricity bills. We are going to have the integrity of the process.'' If my colleagues agree that we must keep the integrity of the process and the integrity of this bill, it is very important that we defeat this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing of the greatest Mexican conductor of recent years, who was a fixture in the culture of Dallas since 1977. Eduardo Mata was born in Mexico City in the 1940's, studied at the Mexican National Conservatory, and won a Koussevitzky Fellowship to study at Tanglewood with Max Rudolf, Erich Leinsdorf, and Gunther Schuller. He led several orchestras before becoming music director of the Dallas Symphony in 1977. He has been beloved throughout north Texas ever since, because he brought the symphony into the first rank of American orchestras. He was also important to the musical life of our Nation because he championed a number of Latin American composers whose works had been neglected in the United States. He made a point of programming their works in concerts around the country and recorded many of them in Caracas with the distinguished Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra. Mr. Mata died recently when his plane crashed in Mexico, but his recordings and performances remain dear to all who heard them. Mr. President, Texans will miss his lively presence at the podium of the wonderful Morton Meyerson concert hall, but we celebrate the hall itself, which Mata encouraged Dallas to build. We will also continue to enjoy the orchestra he built as it fills that hall with music from every continent.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support this legislation. I am pleased we are addressing this vital issue early in the session, to show how important it is. The mayors, council members, Governors all across this country have been crying out for relief of the regulatory and financial burdens imposed by the Federal Government. I applaud them for their diligence in this effort, but they really had no choice. Their constituents simply cannot take it anymore. Those of us who have served in State and local government--Dirk Kempthorne, the manager of this bill; Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, John Ashcroft, and others know so well the impact of these mandates on the budgets of State and local governments. We can empathize with the problems unfunded mandates have caused for State and local officials, and the tough choices they force for those precious State and local funds. Passage of this bill will send a clear message to State and local government leaders that we have heard their cries, that we want to work with them to reduce these pressures on the taxpayers of America. It will also send a message that we intend to return to the proper role of the Federal Government. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in State governments are numerous and indefinite. This is the third time in my very short tenure in the Senate that I have spoken on the floor on this issue. But we have yet to pass this bill. We need to pass it because if we do not, the States are going to, rightly, reassert the 10th amendment of the Constitution. In Texas, Representative Robert Talton states in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to Texas House members, ``Almost one-third of the increase in the State budget over the past 3 years has been the result of unfunded Federal mandates''--one-third. It is time to put an end to this malicious abuse of the 10th amendment. Seven resolutions are now pending in the Texas Legislature to send a clear message right up here to us to stop the unfunded Federal mandates. A recent Texas Legislative Budget Board study showed Texas spending $9.7 billion on unfunded Federal mandates from 1990 to 1995. Here are a few examples of how that spending adds up for our local government in Texas. Dallas has seen its storm water treatment costs triple to $16 million in 5 years. They will face logistical and financial problems meeting Clean Air Act requirements of having 30 percent of its municipal fleet of vehicles use compressed natural gas by 1998. First of all, with other cities clamoring to meet the same requirement, there will be an inadequate supply of gas powered vehicles available. Conventional vehicles will have to be retrofitted to meet the requirement and the residents of Dallas will have to pay that bill. Refueling will be troublesome because they don't envision the convenience of natural gas they now enjoy with gasoline. EPA has mandated centralized vehicle inspection to meet standardized emission testing requirements of the Clean Air Act in El Paso. Not only will that cost them additional money, it eliminates a service currently provided by privately owned gas stations. Here is an example of the private sector suffering from unfunded mandates because those gas station owners will lose revenue. And we know what that means-- eventually the loss of jobs. Houston estimates that it has the second highest water and wastewater rates in the Nation. The $42 monthly payment for residential usage is second only to Boston's $51 a month. To comply with the Clean Water Act, Houston began improvements on its sewer system 3 years ago, a project that will take another 4 years and run $1.1 billion in capital expenditures and $65 million annually for operation and maintenance. Amarillo, a city of 158,000 residents, has had to triple its budget for wastewater treatment, from $10 million to $31 million, to meet EPA treatment renovation requirements. Their northwest plant, which was a state-of-the-art facility when constructed in 1988, had to be retrofitted to meet EPA's new permit requirements. That cost them $10 million--$10 million they had not budgeted for this because they thought they had built a more than adequate system. They did not expect, EPA to change the requirements every 5 years. Nacogdoches, a Texas town that my mother was born in--30,000 people live in Nacogdoches today. Nacogdoches happens to be the town in which my first predecessor also lived, Thomas Jefferson Rusk. The first person to hold this seat came from Nacogdoches. It probably had about 30,000 then, and it does now. They have seen the cost of operating their landfills triple due to changes in subtitle (b) landfill requirements. I mention the populations of Amarillo and Nacogdoches to give my colleagues a sense of the burden unfunded mandates place on citizens of small cities and towns especially. They simply do not have the resources to cover the costs of these mandates. One-size-fits-all solutions cripple these smaller towns. Every State in America can duplicate the story that I have just told about a range of cities, from the largest to the smallest, in my State. I hope we can move swiftly to enact this legislation. Let us live up to our responsibility to address the impact of unfunded Federal mandates. I know this bill does not apply retroactively. I wish it did. But at least we can say we got the message to State and local leaders that you can be assured that we are not going to bombard you anymore in the future, that we will have the facts, and that we will send the money if we decide something is important enough to do that we tell you you have to. That is part of our charge and it is part of the charge that Senator Bond of Missouri and I have on our Regulatory Reform Commission. This is what Americans are saying they want changed: Give us relief. Give us relief from our local tax burdens caused by the Federal Government, and give it to us in our businesses so we can get about the business of competing again and creating new jobs in this country. So we need to make sure that we take the steps for the future. And then Senator Bond and Senator Nickles and I are going to try to come back in and look at what we have to do through the regulations that are now on the books because a lot of mayors have told me, well, you have done a lot of damage. Even if you change it now, we still cannot live with all of the changes that we are seeing that have come from the past. So we can do something about that, but let us take the first action first. Let us keep the faith with our States and local leaders, and most importantly, with the taxpayers who are footing the bill at the State and local level, as well as at the Federal level; all the same people. They need relief and they said so on November 8. This bill will be the first step in the right direction to show that their votes did send a message. The message is received, Mr. President. I want to especially thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, from Idaho. He is a former mayor of Boise. He has done a wonderful job of staying with this bill. As I said, we have had it up before and it has gotten knocked down for one reason or another. But he stayed in there because he knew how important it was. And a mayor is the person on the front line. Senator Kempthorne should be thanked for his dogged determination to try to correct the force of this Federal Government as it relates to our State and local governments under us. So I thank him and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kemp- thorne. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill myself. I hope that we can pass it and put it on the President's desk and say to the people of America ``Signal received.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Idaho, after which I will then take no longer than 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 191 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for generations American farmers have worked to provide food, clothing, and shelter to their families. Farmers and ranchers in Texas and throughout the United States have tilled the soil and cleared the rangeland--and, if they had a good year, they might try to put any money left over back into the land to buy more property. This land is their wealth--their property, which our Government was formed to protect, just as it protects our homes from burglary and our money in banks from theft. Our founding fathers acknowledged that private property rights were important. They fought foreign rulers to protect it. The Bill of Rights, drafted after that struggle, says that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. But, through overly zealous environmental enforcement, this constitutional protection is being watered down. Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act, proposed that up to 800,000 acres from 33 Texas counties be designated as critical habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler. This action held up land transfers, construction, home and business lending. With about 300 species in Texas being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, including 8 flies and 12 beetles, landowners in my State may face a very grave problem again soon. Recent reports about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's latest Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan in Austin, TX, are discouraging. Yesterday, the Interior Department proposed that owners of single- family lots in Travis County that were subdivided before the golden- cheek warbler was listed as an endangered species can apply for a permit to construct a single family home for a fee of $1,500. Developers are expected to pay even more--up to $5,500 an acre--to build on land that has not been subdivided yet. The permit fees, plus $10 million from Travis County, would be used to add to the 21,000 acres in existing wildlife refuges. Well, the Travis County residents have voted against spending more money on refuges, in 1993 and the Travis County officials were blindsided. They were not even consulted about this proposal to spend $10 million of Travis County's money, when the people have just voted not to put any more money into wildlife refuges. Rather than assuring fair compensation for private property when there is a Government taking, the Service's plan would require landowners to pay ransom to the Federal Government--ransom to the Federal Government--for the privilege of building on a lot which they have already bought to build a house--perhaps the house they have been dreaming of for years. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has stated in the past that he believes private property is an outmoded concept. The Fish and Wildlife Service would say, by regulation, that his views are right. This would essentially repeal the fifth amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Today, Senators Lott, Gramm, Grassley, Nickles, and I are introducing legislation to stop Government overreaching until we have had time to revise the Endangered Species Act. Congressman Lamar Smith is introducing a companion bill in the House. My bill puts a moratorium on the listing of new endangered and threatened species until reauthorization. Right now the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to list a species in the panhandle of Texas--the Arkansas River shiner--that is used for fish bait. Water is scarce in the panhandle; we cannot afford to give fish bait more protection than people. But once the shiner is designated, it will have more right to the water than the panhandle farmers and ranchers and the people of Amarillo, TX. The people have to have a voice. The bill also puts a moratorium on the designation of critical habitat so that property owners will not lose control of their land. Designating critical habitat puts unjust limits on the use, market value, and transferability of property. The stigma of critical habitat should not be imposed by a government that claims to protect property as a constitutional right. Finally, the bill puts a moratorium on the requirement that all government agencies consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before taking actions, providing permits, or providing funding that may affect an endangered species. This will prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from further expanding use of the Endangered Species Act to deny FHA or VA mortgages, crop insurance, crop support payments, farm erosion studies, or SBA loans. To be fair, they have not done this yet; so far, it has only been used on large Government projects. But until this year they had not proposed to designate an area larger than the State of Rhode Island as critical habitat. But they did it last year in Texas. Property owners should not have to fight the Government to build a new home on their land. They should not have to hire lawyers to tell what their rights are or convince bureaucrats that their farming is in compliance with regulations. Farmers in my State should not live in fear of being treated like the farmer in California who was arrested in a Government raid for allegedly harming a kangaroo rat while he was plowing his field. This rat is designated as an endangered species for one reason--its feet are a millimeter longer than other, similar species. There are other alternatives. Instead of seizing land and arresting farmers, we should encourage private landowners to protect species and habitat with tax incentives, and whenever possible relocate threatened species to park lands so it does not encroach on the private property rights nor the ability of a farmer or a rancher to feed his or her family. Opponents of compensation for takings of property argue the National Government cannot afford it. That argument acknowledges what is happending is in fact unconstitutional. If we want to protect the critical habitat of endangered species, we have to pay for it. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, made it clear that the purpose of government is to protect private property. He said, ``government is instituted no less for protection of property than of the persons of individuals.'' If opponents of compensation are truly opposed to this principle, they have a remedy. They can propose an amendment to the Constitution. But until they do and until it is passed, these acts are unconstitutional. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Mr. President, we must do it. The actions on this bill will provide the means to do it. We need to make the real effect of the Endangered Species Act clear to the rulemakers in Washington. Many of them have not even set foot on a farm since their third grade class field trip. It is no wonder that so many of our people spoke in November that ``we cannot take the Government harassment.'' It is no longer about protecting our treasured natural resources from harm. It is about Government taking control of people's land. We must put a Fish and Wildlife Service a new direction. That is something I hope this Senate will do very quickly before untold damage is done, like what is happening right now in Austin, TX.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to take a major step toward making Congress more accountable to the people by passing S. 2, the bill before us, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Let us face it. It is easier to make up a set of rules for someone else to play by than to devise guidelines for our own actions. It is easy to pontificate: Do as I say, not as I do. And that is what we have been doing right here in the U.S. Congress. Congress has been exempting itself from the laws and regulations that everybody else in America has to live with. Unlike their Government, the people measure such laws against a yardstick of common sense. If a law or regulation is a good idea for everybody else in America, surely the public good requires that it be imposed across the board right here. As it is, individuals find these laws and regulations more and more onerous. The rules have grown so cumbersome that they now hamper business, small and large, and make everything we buy more expensive. I do not know. Many of our rules make the goods we hope to export more expensive, threatening our ability to compete in the world markets. Until now, Congress has totally avoided any firsthand experience with the results of its own rulemaking. But last week the U.S. House of Representatives fired the first shot in what will be a real revolution in Government. It passed its version of the Congressional Accountability Act. I hope the Senate will continue the mission and put this bill on the President's desk. By making congressional accountability our very first order of business, the first legislation to pass this new session, with so much hope we will be sending a clear message to the American people. Signal received. Congress will comply with the same mandates it imposes on the rest of the country. Mr. President, I have owned my own small business. I know the Senator in the chair has as well. I know what it is like to make a payroll. I know what it is like to comply with Federal regulations and State regulations and local regulations and still try to squeeze out that profit in order to make my business go and to create new jobs, to have new markets, to do more. I have felt, personally, the effects of Federal laws and regulations. I did not like it when I was in business and I surely do not like it now. I think it is high time that the Congress experience firsthand the consequences of the laws it passes. Lincoln spoke of government of the people, by the people, for the people. If we in Congress continue passing laws by which we need not abide, we will not be living up to Lincoln's expectation nor that of the American people today. As was made clear at the polls in November of last year, the voters believe that Congress has given itself special treatment. Members of Congress seem to be insensitive to the actual impact and costs that we impose on the people who are trying to make this economy go. Mr. President, we must pass the Congressional Accountability Act. We must let the people know that we in Congress are their representatives. That we are not going to be part of a government which just extends privilege to a very few and rests its heavy hand on the rest. By applying the same rules to ourselves that we do to the rest of the country, Congress will better understand the pain of unfunded mandates. Congress will be forced to comply with the thousands of regulations regarding Government workplace safety and recordkeeping. Congress will be forced to experience the financial burden and the nuisance value of some of the laws that have been passed through the years in this Hall. Members of Congress will be made to ask themselves, how is this law going to affect me? Imagine what this will do to the content of the bills that come hereafter. I hope that Congress will show that we did make a difference in November of last year by voting for the Congressional Accountability Act. I am going to try to vote to reduce the number of unwanted, unneeded, and downright destructive laws in the future because I think when Congress starts thinking about what impact this is going to have on the way we are doing business right here, maybe we will take a different approach. Once we have a taste of the bitter medicine we are putting out, maybe we can rewrite the prescription. We have an opportunity to put Congress back in touch with what this country truly needs. Less regulation, fewer laws, and less overall Federal meddling. So I ask my colleagues in the Senate to do what I think should be the very first order of business when we have this breath of fresh air that has gone across our country, and when the people have spoken, that we say to the people ``message received,'' and vote for S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act that will make Congress understand and live with the laws that everybody else in America has been living with for year after year, day after day, month after month, and maybe, just maybe, it will affect the overall output of this body. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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