Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues across the aisle for allowing me to go forward. This is such an important debate. It is an important issue for our country but also for the world. There is no question the cold war ended with communism in full retreat and democracy on the rise throughout the world largely because the United States maintained an awesome military capability that deterred war. No American should forget that our stockpile of safe and reliable nuclear weapons has deterred nuclear conflict for these past 50 years. When Saddam Hussein threatened to use weapons of mass destruction prior to Desert Storm, it was the certain knowledge that the United States would respond overwhelmingly that prevented Saddam Hussein from unleashing his own chemical and biological weapons. This is a question of whether or not we, as a nation, intend to maintain our nuclear deterrent capability--so vitally important to us over the last 50 years in maintaining peace in the world--or if we intend to unilaterally disarm. Make no mistake, that is the question before us. Our founders purposely made it hard to enter into treaties and required a two-thirds majority in the Senate for ratification. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We had better have no treaty than a bad one.'' I am afraid this test ban treaty is a bad one and it would be better not to have it. A treaty is permanent. It requires great vision and caution. Ratification of this test ban treaty would ultimately endanger our national security. I hope our citizens are paying close and careful attention. There are really two questions before us: First, if we ratify this treaty, will the United States be able to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear capability? Second, will we be able to verify that this treaty is being enforced by other countries that have joined us? Unless both questions can be answered ``yes,'' then we cannot possibly ratify this treaty. On the issue of reliability, nuclear tests are the only proven method to assure confidence in the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons. We have heard testimony to this effect from scientists and other experts. They worry that as we make advances in material science and component technology for these very complex weapons, the inability to test these advances through actual detonations will leave us with doubt about whether they will work if used. This treaty prohibits all nuclear tests, even of the lowest yield. The new diagnostic tools are still unbuilt and unproven. Scientists admit with humility that actual tests have often radically altered their chalkboard theories drawn out in the laboratory. At this point, anything short of testing is not sufficient to assure reliability and safety. Reliability of our weapons means they will work as intended. So it is clear that reliability is key to our national strategy. My second concern is that once the United States ratifies this treaty, we will stop testing our weapons because we abide by treaties, but rogue nations will not. Several countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons, violated the treaty. They built the nuclear weapons anyway. Now we are expecting them to sign this treaty and agree not to test. I agree with Dr. Kathleen Bailey of Lawrence Livermore Labs, who noted in testimony before the Armed Services Committee that this treaty expects nations to ``agree not to test weapons they previously agreed not to acquire.'' The Secretary of Defense has acknowledged in his own testimony that ``we would not be able to detect every evasively conducted test.'' In fact, I pursued this direct line of questioning with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, in Defense appropriations hearings on March 5, 1997. He was the Joint Chiefs Chairman at the time, and he did his best. But even then, he could not say he would guarantee the safety. General Shalikashvili said, ``With each year that goes by and we are further and further away from having done the last test, it will become more and more difficult. That is why it is very important that we do not allow the energy budget to slip, but continue working on this science-based stockpile verification program and that we get this thing operating. But even then, Senator, we won't know whether that will be sufficient not to have to test. What we are talking about is the best judgment by scientists that they will be able to determine the reliability through these technical methods.'' I then asked him, ``Do you think we should have some time at which we would do some testing just to see if all of these great assumptions are, in fact, true?'' General Shalikashvili responded, ``I don't know. I won't pretend to understand the physics of this enough. But I did meet with the nuclear laboratory directors and we talked about it at great length. They are all convinced that you can do that. But when I ask them for a guarantee, they cannot give it to you until all of the pieces are stood up.'' He continued, ``Obviously if we stand it up and we cannot do that, then we will have to back the President and say we will have to test. Hopefully it will work out. But we are still a number of years away before we will have that put together so that we can tell you for sure it will not work or it will.'' I said, ``Well, mark one Senator down as skeptical.'' General Shalikashvili responded, ``Mark one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff joining in that skepticism. I just don't know.'' Mr. President, ``just don't know'' is being unsure. Close is not good enough. It is not good enough when you are talking about a permanent treaty and when it comes to nuclear safety. The recent letter to the majority and minority leaders from six former Secretaries of Defense of both parties was even more chilling. This letter from six former Secretaries of Defense from both parties: As the Senate weighs whether to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), we believe Senators will be obliged to focus on one dominant, inescapable result were it to be ratified: over the decades ahead, confidence in the reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile would inevitably decline, thereby reducing the credibility of America's nuclear deterrent. They go on to say: The nuclear weapons in our nation's arsenal are sophisticated devices, whose thousands of components must function together with split-second timing and scant margin for error. A nuclear weapon contains radioactive material, which in itself decays, and also changes the properties of other materials within the weapon. Over time, the components of our weapons corrode and deteriorate, and we lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and reliability of the weapons. The shelf life of U.S. nuclear weapons was expected to be some 20 years. In the past, the constant process of replacement and testing of new designs gave some assurance that weapons in the arsenal would be both new and reliable. But under the CTBT, we would be vulnerable to the effects of aging because we could not test ``fixes'' of problems with existing warheads. I think it is clear from the experts, from former Secretaries of Defense and from former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs that they cannot give us a guarantee. We are talking about nuclear safety. We are talking about the major tool we have for deterrence. We are talking about the security of the United States of America, and we have a treaty before us that is permanent. How could we go forward with a treaty such as this with these kinds of questions? Close is not good enough when we are talking about permanence, and when we are talking about our own national security. In fact, when it came to a test-ban treaty, President Reagan and other Cold War Presidents supported a ban only on high-yield nuclear tests. These tests would be of sufficient explosive power to be detected and identified by the sophisticated equipment designed to monitor underground explosions. Under that proposal, lower yield tests would be permitted, to help ensure that our weapons were reliable. It makes sense not to ban low- yield tests because they're too small to detect and identify with the monitoring equipment. That was a sensible approach that has unfortunately been discarded by the Clinton Administration. In fact, just last month, it appears the Russians may have conducted low-level nuclear tests at an Arctic test site. I say ``may have'' because the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that seismic sensors and other monitoring equipment simply can not provide the data needed to know for sure. Supporters of the treaty say it will result in a more extensive monitoring program, including inspections by experts. But a more extensive inspection system is not going to increase our capability to detect violations in advance. And having the right to request on-site inspections of test facilities doesn't give any added assurance of verification either. Let's face it: We've had that right in Iraq for the last eight years, and it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Look at recent events in North Korea as an example of this Administration's policy of buying compliance with treaties and agreements. That policy has actually promoted nuclear and missile proliferation. When the administration became convinced North Korea was building a nuclear device, in violation of their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it threatened a variety of sanctions. The North Koreans responded that sanctions were tantamount to a declaration of war and soon we were at the negotiating table with this rogue nation. Prior to their possession of a nuclear weapon, it had been a tenet of our foreign policy for over 40 years that the United States would not negotiate directly with the North Koreans without our South Korean allies at the table. However, once it became clear that North Korea was trying to enter the nuclear club, we began to negotiate. We set a lavish buffet of incentives--cash transfers, fuel, helping them build safer nuclear reactors. This began a dangerous cycle in which the North Koreans threaten to act badly and we bribe them not to. After that pattern, despite our warnings and threats, Pakistan soon thereafter tested a nuclear weapon and claimed membership in the nuclear club. As former Majority Leader Bob Dole has pointed out, ``We refer to states as rogue regimes because they regularly violate international law and refuse to be held accountable to international norms. The best way to deal with them is to deter them.'' This treaty will not end nuclear testing. A ``feel good treaty'' doesn't make the world a safer place. The world is safer only when America is strong. A critical element of our military strength is a credible nuclear capability. This treaty will not result in a nuclear weapons free world. It will only result in a nuclear weapons free America, and that would be a much more dangerous world. I urge my colleagues not to go forward with this treaty that we will have to abide by, on a permanent basis, not knowing if we will be able to keep our arsenal up to date and safe. This is a chance we cannot afford to take as the stewards of the national defense of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this treaty if it does come forward. Once again, Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard from Colorado, Senator Levin, Senator Dorgan, and all who have allowed me to speak.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I wonder what the other timetable is. I have a flight I have to catch at 12:15. Is there a short time that would be available to me soon?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will reoffer at the appropriate time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to the Coverdell amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for cosponsoring this amendment with me and for being willing in the committee to work on getting it included in the reauthorization. This is an option, not a mandate. Coed education is better for a number of students. However, when students have a problem with not being willing to speak up in class or have a particular problem in math and science where it is indicated that they would do better in a single-sex atmosphere, let's have this option open for public school students, students who may not be able to afford the option of private school or parochial school, so that our public schools will be the very best they can be, offering every option they can offer to the public school students so every child in this country will have the same opportunity to excel. I hope we can approve this amendment. The last time it was offered we adopted it in the Senate by a vote of 69-29. It was very bipartisan and very strong. I know Members on both sides of the aisle who have attended single-sex schools and who believe this is an option that should be allowed will fight for this amendment for every public school child to have this option without the hassle and threat of being sued that might deter the opportunity for them to have what would meet their needs. Amendment No. 1837 (Purpose: To decrease certain education funding, and to increase certain education funding)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment I hope to provide in the ESEA authorization that is going to take place either later this year or next year would allow public schools the option of offering single- sex classes or single-sex schools in the public arena. We all know that the hallmark of America is that we have a public education system that would give every child an equal opportunity to fulfill his or her potential. Many of us acknowledge that the public school systems throughout our country are failing the test today. What we are trying to do is give more options to public schools to acquire the necessary tools to provide each child the nurturing and the special attention they need to succeed. My amendment would clarify existing Federal law by allowing Federal education funds to be used for single-sex public schools and classrooms as long as comparable educational opportunities are made available for students of both sexes. Remember, there is an option. It could not even come into being unless a school district and the school itself and the parents wanted this option. Due largely to the fear that many schools throughout our country believe the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights will not allow single-sex education efforts, most schools and school districts are reluctant to use even their own money on same-gender education programs, much less Federal funds. Ask almost any student or graduate of a same-gender school, most of whom are from private or parochial schools, and they will almost always tell you they have been enriched and strengthened by their experience. Surveys and studies of students show that both boys and girls enrolled in same-gender programs tend to be more confident and more focused on their studies and ultimately more successful in school as well as later in their careers, particularly if they have something to overcome in the way of either rowdiness, shyness, or something of that sort. Girls report being more willing to participate in class and to take difficult math and science classes they otherwise would not have attempted. Boys report less fear of being put down by their classmates for wanting to participate in class and excel in their studies. Teachers, too, report fewer control and discipline problems, something almost any teacher will tell you can consume a good part of class time. Study after study has demonstrated that girls and boys in same-gender schools, where they have chosen this route, are academically more successful and ambitious than their coeducation counterparts. Single-sex education has benefited students such as Cyndee Couch, an eighth-grader at Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem, NY. Cyndee and the other students at their school, located in a low-income, predominantly African American and Hispanic section of New York City, have an attendance rate of 91.8 percent, significantly above the city average. They also score higher on math and science exams than the city average. In fact, 90 percent of the school's students recently scored at or above grade level on the standardized public school math problem- solving tests. The citywide average was 50 percent. Last year, Cyndee bravely appeared on the television show ``60 Minutes'' to talk about why she likes this all-girls public school, one of the very few in the nation. She told host Morley Safer ``. . . as long as I'm in this school and I'm learning, and no boys are allowed in the school, I think everything's going to be OK.'' Unfortunately for Cyndee and for the other students in fledgling same-gender public school programs across the country, everything is not OK. Opponents of same-gender education have sued to shut down the Young Women's Leadership School and other schools like it around the country. I cannot imagine why they would do this when the success has been proven. We want to give the options to public schools that private and parochial schools now have. It is not a mandate. It is an option. We want to pursue this so public schools will succeed in giving every child his or her full educational opportunity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time start now.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am talking today about an amendment that I would like to offer but am not able to because it would be subject to a rule XVI point of order. It is an amendment that has been offered before and passed by the Senate. Yet we have not been able to prevail in conference. It is just an amendment that would clarify the law in a particular area, and one that I think would improve the options that would be available in public schools.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that after 5 minutes I be notified so I can yield my colleague her 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine and I have 10 minutes equally divided to speak on an issue pertaining to the bill but not actually offering an amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. In fact, I would like to point out that, of the roughly $1.8 billion that Texas is spending during the present budget biennium, virtually every dollar is going toward health care. For example, the state is allocating over $200 million for a permanent endowment for children's cancer research; $200 million for smoking control and research activities; $100 million for emergency and trauma care; $180 million to expand health insurance for low income children; and over $1 billion in various permanent endowments for many of our state's public and teaching hospitals. I am proud of what Texas is doing, and I am proud that you and I and so many of our colleagues had the courage to stand-up for the right of our states to pursue those priorities and programs that best meet the needs of their residents.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is an excellent point. In fact, I think it should be pointed out for the Record that, on March 18 of this year, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to protect our States' settlement funds by defeating an amendment that would have directed that states spend at least half of their settlements according to whatever specific list of programs the Secretary of Health and Human Services designated during any given year. Thus, the Senate rejected the notion that the federal government should have an annual veto over more than $140 billion of state funds. I think it is also worth noting that the Hutchison/Graham legislation we introduced this year to protect these state funds from federal seizure had 47 cosponsors, including substantial bipartisan support. The legislation was signed into law by the President on May 21, 1999.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to briefly discuss with my colleague, Senator Graham, some language that appeared in the Appropriations Committee Report for the fiscal year 2000 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. Senator Graham, I understand that the Report states, with regard to the funding reduction in Social Services Block Grant program, that ``the States can supplement the block grant amount funds received through the recent settlements with tobacco companies.'' Senator Graham, I understand you have seen this language?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the gentleman for his leadership as well, and I am glad we had the opportunity to clarify the intent and the will of the Senate in this regard. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lott, I am introducing the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1999. By introducing this bill, I am suggesting that the Federal Government take a cue from the States regarding environmental protection. Many State governments have passed laws that allow for voluntary audits of environmental compliance. These laws encourage a company to conduct an audit of its compliance with environmental laws. By conducting the audit, the company determines whether it is in compliance with all environmental laws. If it is not, these state laws allow the company, without penalty, to correct any violations it finds so it will come into compliance. What the bill does is let the Federal Government do the same thing. It lets the Federal Government say to companies all over America, if you want to do a voluntary audit for environmental compliance, we are going to let you do that. We will encourage you but not force you to do it. And we are not going to come in and threaten you with the hammer of the EPA if you, in fact, move swiftly to come into compliance when you find that you are not in compliance. I believe this is the most effective way to clean up the air and water. Our air and water are invaluable natural resources. They are cleaner than they have been in 25 years, and we want to keep improving our efforts to guarantee their protection. This bill will ensure this protection, in the same fashion as many States have done. It does not preempt State law. If State laws are on the books, then the State laws prevail. But this offers companies all over our country the ability to comply with Federal standards in a voluntary way, to critically assess their compliance and not be penalized if they then take action to immediately come into compliance. My bill will ensure that we continue to increase the protection of our environment in the United States through providing incentives for companies to assess their own environmental compliance. Rather than playing a waiting game for EPA to find environmental violations, companies will find--and stop--violations. Many more violations will be corrected, and many others will be prevented. Under the bill, if a company voluntarily completes an environmental audit--a thorough review of its compliance with environmental laws--the audit report may not be used against the company in court. The report can be used in court, however, if the company found violations and did not promptly make efforts to comply. By extending this privilege, a company that looks for, finds, and remedies problems will continue this good conduct, and protect the environment. In addition, if a company does an audit, and promptly corrects any violations, the company may choose to disclose the violation to EPA. If the company does disclose the violation, the company will not be penalized for the violations. By ensuring companies that they will not be dragged into court for being honest, the bill encourages companies to find and fix violations and report them to EPA. This does not mean that companies that pollute go scot-free. Under this bill, there is no protection for: willful and international violators; companies that do not promptly cure violations; companies asserting the law fraudulently; or companies trying to evade an imminent or ongoing investigation. Further, the bill does not protect companies that have policies that permit ongoing patterns of violations of environmental laws. And where a violation results in a continuing adverse public health or environmental effect, a company may not use the protections of this law. Nor does this bill mean that EPA loses any authority to find violations and punish companies for polluting. EPA retains all its present authority. At the same time that EPA retains full authority to enforce environmental laws, I propose to engage every company voluntarily in environmental protection by creating the incentive for those companies to find and cure their own violations. This frees EPA to target its enforcement dollars on the bad actors--the companies that intentionally pollute our water and air. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Lott, Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the rest of my colleagues in the Senate on this bill, which will pave the way to increased environmental compliance.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lott, I am introducing the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1999. By introducing this bill, I am suggesting that the Federal Government take a cue from the States regarding environmental protection. Many State governments have passed laws that allow for voluntary audits of environmental compliance. These laws encourage a company to conduct an audit of its compliance with environmental laws. By conducting the audit, the company determines whether it is in compliance with all environmental laws. If it is not, these state laws allow the company, without penalty, to correct any violations it finds so it will come into compliance. What the bill does is let the Federal Government do the same thing. It lets the Federal Government say to companies all over America, if you want to do a voluntary audit for environmental compliance, we are going to let you do that. We will encourage you but not force you to do it. And we are not going to come in and threaten you with the hammer of the EPA if you, in fact, move swiftly to come into compliance when you find that you are not in compliance. I believe this is the most effective way to clean up the air and water. Our air and water are invaluable natural resources. They are cleaner than they have been in 25 years, and we want to keep improving our efforts to guarantee their protection. This bill will ensure this protection, in the same fashion as many States have done. It does not preempt State law. If State laws are on the books, then the State laws prevail. But this offers companies all over our country the ability to comply with Federal standards in a voluntary way, to critically assess their compliance and not be penalized if they then take action to immediately come into compliance. My bill will ensure that we continue to increase the protection of our environment in the United States through providing incentives for companies to assess their own environmental compliance. Rather than playing a waiting game for EPA to find environmental violations, companies will find--and stop--violations. Many more violations will be corrected, and many others will be prevented. Under the bill, if a company voluntarily completes an environmental audit--a thorough review of its compliance with environmental laws--the audit report may not be used against the company in court. The report can be used in court, however, if the company found violations and did not promptly make efforts to comply. By extending this privilege, a company that looks for, finds, and remedies problems will continue this good conduct, and protect the environment. In addition, if a company does an audit, and promptly corrects any violations, the company may choose to disclose the violation to EPA. If the company does disclose the violation, the company will not be penalized for the violations. By ensuring companies that they will not be dragged into court for being honest, the bill encourages companies to find and fix violations and report them to EPA. This does not mean that companies that pollute go scot-free. Under this bill, there is no protection for: willful and international violators; companies that do not promptly cure violations; companies asserting the law fraudulently; or companies trying to evade an imminent or ongoing investigation. Further, the bill does not protect companies that have policies that permit ongoing patterns of violations of environmental laws. And where a violation results in a continuing adverse public health or environmental effect, a company may not use the protections of this law. Nor does this bill mean that EPA loses any authority to find violations and punish companies for polluting. EPA retains all its present authority. At the same time that EPA retains full authority to enforce environmental laws, I propose to engage every company voluntarily in environmental protection by creating the incentive for those companies to find and cure their own violations. This frees EPA to target its enforcement dollars on the bad actors--the companies that intentionally pollute our water and air. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Lott, Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the rest of my colleagues in the Senate on this bill, which will pave the way to increased environmental compliance.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on Quality Management at the Federal Level.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a close hearing on intelligence matters.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. to continue the markup of S. Res. 172, a resolution to establish a special committee of the Senate to address the cultural crisis facing America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 23, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999, at 3:30 pm to hold a hearing.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a nominations hearing Thursday, September 23, 3:00 p.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), to receive testimony from the following: Dr. Richard A. Meserve, nominated by the President to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Dr. Paul L. Hill, Jr., to be Member and Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board; and Major General Phillip R. Anderson, U.S. Army, to be a Member and President, Mr. Sam Epstein Angel, to be a Member, and Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin, U.S. Army, to be a Member, of the Mississippi River Commission.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing entitle ``Y2K--Will the Lights Go Out,'' which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to explore the potential consequences of the year 2000 computer problem to the Nation's supply of electricity.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 1999, to conduct a mark-up on the committee print of the Export Administration Act and pending nominations.