Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask the time reserved prior to the 10 o'clock vote on Tuesday be divided as follows for the majority side: Senator Stevens, 5 minutes; Senator Hutchison of Texas, 5 minutes; Senator Specter, 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, November 1. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or designee, 12 noon to 1 p.m.; Senator Thomas or designee, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on October 29, 1999, by the President of the United States: Tax Convention with Ireland (Treaty Document No. 106-15). I further ask the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I also add, the Texas Rangers will rise again.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 210, recognizing and honoring the New York Yankees, introduced earlier today by Senators Schumer and Moynihan. I will withhold my objection and make it a unanimous consent request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2303, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 294 through 320, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about President Clinton's veto of the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I am very concerned about this veto. It was a very difficult bill. There is no question about it, given the budget caps that both Congress and this administration adopted and agreed they would adhere to. Still, the bill provides the resources needed to continue our strong efforts to fight crime, enhance drug and border enforcement, respond to the threat of terrorism, and help women and children who are victims of family violence. A key component of our crime-fighting effort is stopping drugs at our borders. Thanks to Senator Judd Gregg and Senator Fritz Hollings, this bill provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to guard our borders. The President's decision to veto the bill makes clear that funding for these critical matters is not a priority to the President. Despite our budget constraints and our need to preserve Social Security, this bill provides nearly $3 billion more than last year's bill. This bill is not a cut; it is an increase. The President said he vetoed the bill because it didn't fully fund his COPS Program. The reality is that Congress provided funding for 100,000 police for our cities all over America 2 years ago. In fact, we have provided funding for 115,000 police. The President says he wants 30,000 to 50,000 more, but the irony is he hasn't even met the first goal. We still don't have more than 60,000 police on the streets. Yet he is vetoing the bill when the funding is there. The full funding was given by Congress with the excuse that he wants 30,000 to 50,000 more when he has 40,000 that are fully funded that he has not been able to fill. I am concerned because this is not the only law enforcement initiative in which the President has failed. This administration was under direction from Congress to hire 1,000 new border guards in 1999. It failed when only 200 to 400 were actually hired. Yet every penny of the money that went to the 1,000 has been spent. Yet this year in the budget that the President has just vetoed, the President didn't ask for one new Border Patrol agent. I ask, what is the role of the Federal Government? Is it to put police on the streets of our cities or is it to guard the sovereignty of our Nation, the borders of our Nation? I think the President of the United States is not fulfilling his responsibility when Congress comes forward and says we are going to guard the borders of our country; we are going to provide for police on streets as requested, and he vetoes the bill and asks for no new Border Patrol agents. Our border is a sieve. The distinguished chair and I both represent States on the Southwest border. There is no other way to describe it when an estimated $10 billion in marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and other drugs crossed our border last year, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. These drugs find their way to cities and school yards all over America. This is not just the Southwest. It is not just Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. These illegal drugs go all over the country. They end up in the school yards, preying on our children. We are a gateway, but we are not the stopping point. They are coming in record numbers. In 1998, there were over 6,000 drug seizures along the Southwest border. The total value was $1.28 billion. Our drug czar, General McCaffrey, has argued we should have 20,000 Border Patrol forces to stop the flow of drugs across our border. A University of Texas study last year indicates 16,133 agents are needed to do the job. We have about 8,000--less than half of that needed to do the job, which is the responsibility of the Federal Government and which Congress is trying to provide, with no cooperation from this administration. Only 200 to 400 are likely to be hired this year, according to the administration's own records. I think the President of the United States needs to stop the rhetoric. He needs to stop playing games with important appropriations bills and do something that is going to stop illegal immigration and illegal drugs coming through our borders and spreading all over our country. The President needs to fulfill the commitments he has already made and that we have funded to get 1,000 police officers on the streets and 1,000 more Border Patrol agents each year, for 5 years, as Congress has directed the administration to do. Vetoing this bill does not help crime-fighting efforts. Signing the bill, keeping his promises for police and Border Patrol does. I am very concerned the President of the United States has not taken seriously enough the need to control our borders, from illegal immigration to illegal drugs. Vetoing the Commerce-State-Justice bill shows that he is not taking this seriously, as Congress most certainly is. I urge the President to understand how important this issue is and to start doing what Congress has directed and what his own drug czar is recommending; that is, start working toward 20,000 Border Patrol agents who keep the sovereign borders of our country safe and secure.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Women's Business Week, a series of national events held recently to recognize and celebrate women entrepreneurship. Women now own 38 percent of all businesses in this country, and it has been reported that half of all new businesses started today are started by women. In my home state of Texas alone, there are now 627,300 woman-owned businesses employing 1.8 million people and generating $222 billion in annual sales, a growth of 157 percent over the last seven years. As a former small business owner, I know it is no easy feat to develop a business plan, generate the necessary start-up and operating capital, and make a payroll when you start a business. As if all those economic hurdles were not enough, small business owners in this country must comply with literally hundreds of local, state, and federal licensure, regulatory, and tax laws and requirements. That tens of thousands of small businesses do get started in this country every year is truly a testament to the vision and hard work of so many Americans, especially American women. Women like Patricia Pliego Stout, owner of the Alamo Travel Group, headquartered in San Antonio. Ms. Pliego Stout has grown a small travel business into the fourth largest agency in San Antonio. In recognition of her achievements and, as importantly, her encouragement and support of other women entrepreneurs in Texas, Ms. Pliego Stout was recently appointed to the National Women's Business Council, which promotes the goal of woman business ownership. There are countless other success stories, as well. Unfortunately, there are also far too many stories of lack of access to adequate capital, of inability to break into established government and contracting networks, and other problems that continue to hamper women as they seek to become financially independent and to contribute to their greater economy and community. As a United States Senator, I have worked hard to break down some of these barriers, and to open more opportunities to more people of all backgrounds and talents. In particular, I was proud to have been able to lead the effort in Congress to establish a 5 percent federal government-wide contracting goal for woman-owned small businesses. In addition, I have worked to expand such successful federal efforts as the Women's Business Centers program, which helps women with those critical first steps of starting a business. In addition, of assistance to all small businesses, including a disproportionate number of woman- owned businesses, I have worked to limit the federal government procurement practice of ``bundling'' contracts, which can also leave newly-formed firms out of the contracting game. Mr. President, I again congratulate the women in Texas and across the nation who every day continue to overcome obstacles and who create success, jobs, and wealth through their sheer determination and energy. The events and activities of National Women's Business Week are evidence that women business ownership is alive and well, to the betterment of us all.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is now my intention to allow Senator Specter to take the floor. As I said, we have two bills together--the D.C. bill, which I chair, and the Labor-HHS bill, which Senator Specter chairs. Senator Specter has been very helpful, very cooperative to allow his very major bill to be put together with mine. He is very much a greater than equal partner in this bill. I have to admit, his bill is much bigger and much more important from a national standpoint, although the District of Columbia is very important. Nevertheless, Senator Specter's bill affects the lives of people all over our country. It is my pleasure to yield the floor to Senator Specter for such time as he may consume.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think Senator Specter, the chairman of the Labor-HHS committee, was going to make the next presentation. That was the order. Is that acceptable?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about the bill as a whole. There is going to be a joint effort between two subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee--my subcommittee, the D.C. appropriations subcommittee, on which Senator Durbin is the ranking member, and then the Labor-HHS spending bill, which has Senator Specter as the chairman and Senator Harkin as the ranking member. In addition, this bill contains the 1-percent across-the-board spending cut that is necessary for us to come into our budget caps and save the Social Security surplus intact. First, I want to talk about the bigger bill because I think we should understand this is a very important achievement that we will make if Congress passes this bill and sends it to the President. This bill marks, for the first time in 30 years, that we will pass all of our spending bills, and there will be no raid on the Social Security trust funds. The Social Security trust funds will be left intact so that people who have paid in will get back not only what they have paid in, but they will be given Social Security benefits after they are eligible. No longer will we dip into the Nation's retirement fund to pay for today's spending needs. This is a significant achievement. For the record, this bill will be voted on on Tuesday. We will debate today and Monday. On Tuesday, I hope we will send this bill to the President, and I hope the President will sign it. Some have complained about the across-the-board spending cuts. I think we can afford one penny of savings on every dollar to preserve the retirement needs of America. I do not think that is too much to ask of this Congress. After all, there is a little waste in Federal Government. The inspectors general within the Departments across Government have already identified $16 billion in funds that have been misspent. The Governmental Affairs Committee, working with the General Accounting Office, has identified nearly $200 billion in savings in Federal overpayments, erroneous payments, and wasteful practices. With this waste, I believe we can take a 1-percent cut to preserve the integrity of Social Security to cover the programs that are worthy and use our taxpayer dollars more efficiently. With $216 billion in waste, we can cover the programs that need to be covered if our administrators have any integrity and if they are, in fact, competent. I hope they are. I do not think it is too much to ask. After all, when any family sees it is not going to meet its income and its spending needs, what does it do? It does not just spend anyway. Hopefully, it does not borrow. It sits down and determines where it can cut. I wager most families in America have had to make more than a 1-percent cut in their budgets when they have run into an emergency and do not have the funds to spend. I now turn to the provisions in the District of Columbia portion of this bill. This is our second attempt to get a District of Columbia funding bill the President will sign. I believe we have reached a solution that is acceptable to all the relevant parties. Senator Durbin has been very productive; he has been responsible; he has been a real player in this process. In our negotiation, we came to terms that allowed both of us to be comfortable that we are doing the right thing for the District and that everyone has given a little bit without sacrificing principle. No bill is perfect. I am the first to say that. We all have had to sacrifice a little, but this is a bill the President will sign and it is important we have a bill the President will sign because every day this bill is not signed is a day our Nation's Capital is without important new initiatives that will make this a better city for our citizens and visitors. Despite our differences on other issues, let's look at what is good in this bill. We have provided $17 million for college scholarships for D.C. students. We have provided funds to fight the war on drugs in the District of Columbia, including money to combat open-air drug markets. We have $5 million for commercial revitalization. We have funds to clean up the Anacostia River, to promote adoptions, and to help the Children's Hospital. On marijuana legalization, the ban is retained. Medical marijuana use will not become law in the Nation's Capital. On needle exchanges, there has been a great deal of misinformation. In this bill, we continue the ban on Federal and local funding for needle exchanges. I believe needle exchanges do not work. The drug czar of the United States, who represents the President of the United States, believes needle exchanges do not work, and not one penny of tax dollars will be used to support needle exchanges in the District of Columbia. Any suggestion that tax dollars from the Federal Government or D.C. Government are being used is simply wrong. What the bill does allow is for clinics that have privately funded needle exchanges and do other worthy projects will not be prohibited from Federal funding for other worthy projects. But it is very clear there will be no Federal and no local money spent on needle exchanges in the District of Columbia. On the voting rights lawsuit, I believe strongly this is a constitutional issue. It is a legislative prerogative to deal with it. This lawsuit has named officers of the Senate, the House, and even the President as defendants. The taxpayers of our country are spending money to defend against the lawsuit. We provide the District with 2 billion Federal dollars. Those funds should not be used to sue the Federal Government on an issue that is squarely a legislative prerogative. In my view, no public money should be used for this suit--not local money, not Federal money. Our bill permits the D.C. Corporation City Counsel to review and comment on legal briefs in private lawsuits. This is a limited role for their attorneys, but that is as far as this bill goes. There will be no public money spent on the D.C. voting rights lawsuit or to provide statehood for the District of Columbia. Finally, on legal fees in school disability cases, we retain the $60 cap, up $10 from a $50 cap, but the cap will be removed if local officials develop a joint agreement--the school superintendent, the Mayor, and the control board--on a new cap. These are the changes we have made to our bill since it went through the Senate. We have White House support for these changes, and we have the support of the Democratic side for these changes. I want to mention one other very important part of the bill that has remained intact, and that is the Mayor asked for the ability to spend more of the D.C. funds. The District does have quite stringent requirements for a surplus as well as a rainy day fund. That is sound because we are just beginning to get investment grade bonds for the city which lowers the interest rate they will have to pay, and that, of course, means it lowers the cost of borrowing for the city. I thought it important to keep the reserve requirements intact. That will keep the city on a secure basis. I believed if they were going to spend money out of the surplus, that half of the surplus above the basic reserve requirement should be spent only for paying down debt, while the other half could go to new programs. That was a compromise the Mayor welcomed. He believes they will be able to address some of the infrastructure issues that they have not been able to address in their budget, while at the same time I will be satisfied that they will begin to pay down their long-term debt so they will have a more correct debt-income ratio. That will give them a higher bond rating. It will lower the amount of debt they are carrying and I think will put the city on a very firm financial footing in the very near future, which, of course, would then allow the city to go forward with a lower interest rate, a higher bond rating; and our capital city, I hope, will be able to flourish. So this is an excellent bill. I hope the President will sign it. With respect to the Labor-HHS part of the bill, I think this also contains a number of positive provisions and should not be vetoed. Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have worked very hard on this bill. No one should be led to believe this bill is underfunded. It is $6 billion higher than last year's bill. In fact, it is $600 million above the President's request. This bill contains $2 billion more for education than last year; $300 million more in funding for the Department of Education than the President even requested. So if anyone tries to say we have underfunded education, the facts do not bear that argument out. The National Institutes of Health will receive nearly $18 billion. This is the funding for research, for medical research, for quality-of- life improvements in our country. It is a $2 billion increase over last year's bill and $2 billion above the President's request. The Head Start program is increased by $600 million. So despite our goal of keeping funds intact for Social Security, we have still funded important priorities. If the bill is vetoed, it will not be vetoed because we have not addressed the correct priorities. With that, Mr. President, I conclude and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany the D.C. Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a friend, an athlete, a scholar, a lawyer, a Governor, a Secretary of the Navy, a Senator, and a marine--not necessarily in that order. The Senate and our country have lost a great man with the passing of John Chafee. He exemplified everything that is so good and decent and honorable about our country. A man born to privilege, he also recognized a duty and an obligation to serve his country. As a young freshman at Yale, he was moved to action by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He became a marine because he wanted to fight, and they promised him he would do just that in the Pacific. So many of our World War II generation, called by Tom Brokaw ``our greatest generation,'' did exactly what John Chafee did. They left their ivy league campuses and their State universities, their jobs and their families, and they saw it as their duty to serve. The Marines delivered on their promise; they gave John Chafee a chance to fight. Soon after his initial training, he found himself as a young private on the beach at one of America's bloodiest battles, at Guadalcanal. Several years ago, at a program at the Smithsonian, Senator Chafee joined a group of World War II veterans who discussed their memories of the war. John Chafee related that the lesson he carried with him was that there was no rhyme or reason to who lived and who died in combat. He said he learned that it didn't matter how good a marine you might be, the incoming artillery rounds and the enemy bullets did not discriminate among good and bad marines and that if one survived it was not though personal merit but by the grace of God. He came away from that experience with a commitment to live honorably and well because he recognized that every day was a gift and because he owed that to those who he left behind on those fields. He went on to receive a commission as a lieutenant and the Marines continued to provide those opportunities to fight in other bloody battles in the Pacific theater including Okinawa. When the war ended, he took off his uniform, returned home, and picked up where he left off. He graduated from Yale where he distinguished himself as a collegiate wrestler and captain of the Yale wrestling team. Although a supremely modest man, the one honor for which he was always very proud and willing to talk about was his induction several years ago into the Collegiate Wrestling Hall of Fame in Oklahoma. After Yale, he went on to Harvard and graduated in a class filled with many other veterans with similar war records including Senator Ted Stevens. But soon after graduating from law school, John Chafee learned the Marines weren't done with him and their promise to give him a chance to fight. In fact, John Chafee related this experience to me when we were driving together in a car to see the mustering out of one of my favorite aides, my legislative aide Dave Davis, whose wife happened to be John Chafee's personal assistant. We were going out together because this was a big day for Dave Davis. He was going to leave the Army and to come with me full time. I must say it was a great day for me. John Chafee said: You know, I left after World War II, and I thought I was finished. I didn't sign any papers saying I had left the service; I didn't think it was necessary. And all of a sudden, one day during the Korean war, I get a notice from the U.S. Marines saying you never left the marines, and we are going to send you to Korea. He said: My gosh, I was so surprised. He was no longer an 18-year-old who was looking for a place to fight. He had a wife and child. He had just graduated from Harvard Law School with a bright future ahead. John Chafee said: I still have a commitment and I am going to keep it. He said he had a responsibility to young marines to teach and tell them what he knew from his own combat experience because he knew that would be helpful. He answered the call without complaint and once again distinguished himself as a marine company commander in battle against the Chinese in North Korea in the mountains of Korea. One of his young lieutenants in that company in Korea was the novelist and writer James Brady. Brady wrote a book about his experience in the Korea war entitled ``The Coldest War'' and John Chafee is the hero of that story. Brady writes. That's how it is in the Marine Corps. There are rules and a subtle understanding some of them are to be broken. Colonels broke rules, I suppose generals did, enlisted men broke them, I broke them whenever I could with circumspection, but Chafee never. Captain Chafee kept the rules. Not that he was prissy. It simply did not occur to Chafee to cut corners. Brady also writes about not having a chance to tell John Chafee how much he meant to him in a way in which many of us in the Senate can identify with today. There was so much I wanted to say: what his confidence meant to me, how I admired him, how much he'd taught all of us. He was the only truly great man I'd met in my life, and all I had the time to do was say thanks. Maybe he understood. We all know his incredible achievements after returning from battle. He continued to serve his native Rhode Island well as a three-term Governor and then Senator for 23 years. He also continued to serve his beloved Marine Corps as the Secretary of the Navy. He kept faith with all those marines who paid the supreme sacrifice in the Pacific and in Korea by living a good life and representing them well. He was always Semper Fi to the Corps. One story recalled by another member of the platoon years later at a gathering of Korean war veterans told of how John Chafee's Marine company was moving across snow-covered ground that was believed to be covered with landmines. No one in the company was eager to march through the area so Captain John Chafee, showing no fear, took point and led his men through the snow. When the marines reached the top of the hill, someone looked back and observed that the entire company had left only one set of tracks as each marine had carefully stepped exactly in Captain John Chafee's footprints. This lieutenant observed nearly 50 years later that he and the others were still trying to follow in John Chafee's footsteps. As did his marines so long ago, many of us are trying to follow in John Chafee's footsteps, setting a standard of decency, civility, and kindness, remembering how to disagree without rancor. This is something all of us in the Senate need to remember when we think of John Chafee. It is the lesson all of us could relearn as we are going into some very tough times in the Senate. He loved this institution. He loved what it meant. We have all been enriched and blessed by his presence. I hope his legacy will be that all of us will be better for John Chafee having been here because he is known as one of the kindest, most civil, and absolutely great Members of this body by everyone who knew him. I have never heard anyone say John Chafee was not a superior person. Whether or not you agreed with him on the merits of an issue, you could never say he wasn't the best of us. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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, I thank my colleagues for their guidance and continuing interest in this regard. Finally, I believe my colleagues would agree that it would be useful if the MMS would repropose its oil valuation rule. It has been nearly 2 years since the agency put forward its last complete proposed rule. The DOI has received voluminous comments since that time, including detailed recommendations by industry at three public workshops on the rule earlier this year. It also re-opened the comment period for a month earlier this year. In trying to resolve this matter, it would be helpful if all the parties could understand the agency's current thinking on the contentious issues my colleagues have described. Reproposing the rule would be the best way to achieve that result and I strongly encourage the agency to do so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator. I would also like to ask the distinguished assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, what, in his view, must be examined by the GAO in its study?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for that explanation, and for his leadership and hard work on this issue. I think he will agree that while this provision is certainly less than we would have liked and is less than the moratorium passed by the Senate, and, I might add, passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President on no less than three previous occasions, it is a step in the right direction. I would also like to get the comments of my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, who has been a stalwart supporter of reasonable and workable royalty valuation rules on his assessment of this issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senators Nickles, Domenici, Murkowski, and Breaux in a discussion of the important issue of Federal oil royalty valuation. Yesterday the House and Senate both passed the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations conference report. Contained within that bill is a provision addressing proposed new rules of the Minerals Management Service on establishing the value of oil from Federal leases to determine the royalty owed on that oil. On September 23 of this year 60 Senators voted to break a Senate filibuster and vote on the Hutchison-Domenici amendment to prevent the MMS from going forward with its misguided and unworkable new valuation system. Our amendment passed, and it passed because a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate recognized that blocking the rule was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do because it protected the American consumer, who is increasingly at the whim of foreign oil markets as America's oil production dwindles. And it was the right thing to do for the American taxpayer, who entrusts the Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, with the decision of whether or not to raise taxes in this country. But despite our victory on the floor, it became apparent during the conference negotiations between the Senate and the House, that this provision in the Interior appropriations bill may be used by the President as an excuse to veto the entire bill. Because there are so many important programs funded in this bill, from national parks to energy conservation programs, I, Senator Domenici, and the other sponsors of this amendment, offered a compromise, which is reflected in the bill, and I wonder if my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, who has been my partner on this issue for two years, could explain that compromise?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I voted against the Harkin amendment because I disagree with the findings stated in the resolution and because it is not relevant to the underlying bill. However, I would not vote to repeal Roe v. Wade, as it stands today, which has left room for States to make reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I reserve 2\1/2\ minutes for Senator Shelby.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to be notified at 2\1/2\ minutes. I am going to split my time with Senator Shelby who has not arrived. I will take my 2\1/2\, and then when he arrives, he will use the other 2\1/2\ minutes. If America does not form a nuclear umbrella to protect world peace, who will? To whom will our allies look to protect them from an incoming ballistic missile? Only America can do that, and there are only two ways we have to deter a rogue nation from lobbing a nuclear missile into some other country. The first is a missile defense system which belatedly we are now deploying. It is not yet ready, but we are on the way. That is No. 1. No. 2 is the ability to be sure we have a safe and secure and viable nuclear arsenal. This is not a treaty that has been debated for 20 years. It is not the same treaty that preceding Presidents negotiated. It is different in this respect: Every other President held firm for the United States to test at a low level. President Clinton gave that up. That is part of the reason this treaty is before us and why the other countries came in because the low-level testing is not able to be detected. No other President gave in on that issue. Secondly, no other President gave in on the issue of permanence. The idea that we would unilaterally disarm ourselves in perpetuity is irresponsible. I do not like the fact we are taking up this treaty now. I do not want to send a bad signal. But most of all, I do not want to leave ourselves and our allies unprotected from some rogue nation that has nuclear capabilities, and we know there are many. I want to go back and look at the record, and let's talk about peace through strength. It was not peace through weakness and unilateral disarmament that stopped the Cold War. It was peace through strength. We cannot let that go away by signing a treaty that is not in our interests. There are other avenues. There is renegotiating the treaty so we can test at a low level, so we will be able to say to the world: We have a nuclear arsenal, so do not even think about lobbing a nuclear missile at us or any of our allies. We could renegotiate the treaty so it has a term or a timetable. There are alternatives. I hope we will not be rammed into doing something that is wrong for our country because there are alternatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt of testimony from General Shalikashvili in a March 1997 appropriations hearing be printed in the Record.