Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and remember the importance of this day, known as ``Cinco de Mayo'' to the Republic of Mexico and to millions of Mexican-Americans. Many in this country may not realize it, but after 40 years after achieving independence from Spain, in 1862 Mexico was again subjugated to European colonial domination, this time by the French. In that year, Napoleon sent a massive military force to Mexico to unseat President Benito Juarez to install a Hapsburg, Maximilian, as monarch of Mexico. After capturing the port city of Veracruz, the French continued their march toward Mexico City. But the proud Mexicans did not give in without a fight. On this day in 1862, on a small battlefield near Puebla, a hastily assembled, ill-equipped Mexican force of predominantly Mestizo and Zapotec Indians bravely battled against a force of Napoleon's renowned professional French Army. Against all odds, the Mexicans actually routed the French, and the ``Batalla de Puebla'' became a rallying cry and watershed event for eventual Mexican independence. The Mexicans who fought on that fateful day embodied the spirit of freedom and patriotism that eventually drove Mexico to victory and paved the way for the economic and political advances that continue in that nation to this day. It is in that same spirit that we in the United States, who have our own proud history of achieving independence, celebrate and recognize the Batalla de Puebla and the significance of this day. In addition to signifying a military victory, the Cinco de Mayo holiday, particularly as recognized in the United States, is also a celebration of Mexican and Mexican-American culture and history. In many cities throughout the U.S., this celebration centers around grand cultural fiestas that include traditional Mexican song, dance, and cuisine. Much as we recognize the Fourth of July not only as an act of independence from Britain, but also as a cornerstone of our cultural identity as Americans, many Mexican-Americans view Cinco de Mayo as a common cultural thread and history that they share. Mr. President, I would like to join all Americans and all Mexicans in this recognition of a very proud and colorful Mexican history. The Mexicans who fought and died on that battlefield near Puebla in 1862 embodied the ideal to which all human beings, regardless background or status, aspire--the inalienable right of self-determination. Cinco de Mayo is therefore a chance for communities on both sides of the border to remember how important a gift freedom is, how difficult it is to achieve, and how vigilant we must all be to preserve it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment I added to the conference version of the 1998 Supplemental Spending Bill deals with how oil is valued for the purpose of collecting royalties. This is not about royalty rates, but rather how that value is established. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act and the Minerals Leasing Act, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is required to value the oil where it is removed from the ground. The MMS wants, instead, to value the oil after the industry has added significantly to its value (through marketing and transportation costs). Such a change would have the effect of increasing the tax collected on any set amount of oil at a time when the oil prices are at an all time low. The economy and jobs will be affected by such an arbitrary increase in costs. And finally, the MMS wants to make this change in the law through regulation. Mr. President, changing the law is the job of Congress, not the MMS. My amendment prohibits the MMS from implementing this proposed change next month and prohibits the agency from acting before the end of the current fiscal year. This will give Congress time to weigh in on this matter, instead of letting the MMS arbitrarily change the law through the exercise of its rule-making authority. Last year, this Congress, in the FY 1998 Interior Appropriations Bill specifically directed MMS to report back to the committees prior to finalizing the new regulations after numerous members expressed concern. MMS has ignored this direction, and neither the Energy and Natural Resources Committee nor the Appropriations Committee was notified that MMS proposed to finalize the new rule this June. I support a valuation program that ensures the state and national governments receive all royalties due to them while maintaining fundamental principles of equity. I support the MMS in its efforts to simplify the valuation system and collect the government's fair share. However, it cannot be done at in a manner that changes federal law.

Ms. HUTCHISON

Ms. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I share the Majority Leader's concerns about Amtrak. As the primary author of the Amtrak reform law, I am very concerned that Amtrak has yet to have the opportunity to avail itself of the statutory reforms we all worked so hard to provide. The Amtrak Reform Council positions are an essential element in the overall reform scheme. Amtrak needs to make long-term plans and commitments. That action has not yet begun. I hope the Administration will take prompt action to fulfill its responsibilities and give Amtrak the opportunity to achieve what we all hope is possible--a fiscally sound and efficient national rail passenger system.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe I share with a substantial number of my colleagues a real sense of unease about the process that we are about to finish. When I made my opening comments about the resolution before us, I noticed that a legislative body is ill-suited to the task of establishing order, coherence, and discipline to a foreign policy initiative. The last few days have proven me right, as we have missed the opportunity to greatly improve the resolution before us. The decision to expand NATO and extend invitations was made in the heat of a political campaign, with little attention given to the truly important questions that should have been addressed. There has been no assessment of the threat against which the military alliance was supposed to defend. There were no clear criteria established for membership in NATO. We did not use this opportunity to debate what the mission of NATO should be in the post-cold-war era. We have not used this opportunity to lay out clear expectations for the next group of would-be members of NATO. We have left no roadmap for the future. Unfortunately, the administration did little to address these issues when it proposed to expand the alliance in the first place. The Senate was placed in the position of having to do so because of a failure of executive leadership. And I do not think the Senate has done very well, either. Why was it left to us to wonder about the possibility for border and ethnic disputes to impact the expanded alliance in a way that might hurt U.S. interests? While my amendment on that matter was defeated, 37 Members, more than one-third needed to stop future expansions, believe that a process to address such disputes is important and should be discussed. Other Members raised equally valid concerns, and they were nearly all defeated. The Senator from Virginia had a prudent proposal to step back after the first round of expansion to let the experience be fully absorbed by the United States and her allies. Defeated. Our colleague from Idaho wondered if we should not at least vote to authorize the ongoing and possibly open-ended NATO mission in Bosnia before we think about expanding the alliance to new members. Defeated. The Senator from New Mexico said strategy should be adopted before we take in new members. Defeated. Because the concerns of so many Members were so summarily dispensed with, many will find it difficult to support this resolution. How much stronger a signal might this body have sent on this important matter if there had been more willingness to find an acceptable compromise with concerned Members, many of whom are not on the relevant committees and had no opportunity to really fashion the underlying resolution. Instead, we have a resolution that has very little to say about the future beyond the fact that we will likely add three new members to the alliance. But that has never really been the debate here as far as I am concerned. Most of us have not opposed the three countries being considered for immediate membership. We were concerned about the process by which we got to this point. In many ways, after more than a week of debate, we are still not much further than when we started. For example, there is no strategic rationale for the new NATO alliance. It is not due from the President until 180 days after this resolution is passed. There is still no credible estimate about the cost. We have seen estimates miraculously shrink from $125 billion to a couple of million as we have gotten closer to this vote. Obviously, no one knows what the real cost will be. At least we have the protections available because of the cost caps imposed by the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. In the meantime, this body over the last couple of days has voted for a provision that allows NATO possibly to engage in military efforts on border and ethnic disputes but, rather strangely, voted against letting NATO attempt to resolve such disputes peaceably at the lower levels through dispute resolution. In short, I think, Mr. President, that both the administration and the Senate have approached the issue of NATO enlargement in a rather haphazard and disjointed manner. Because this Senate defeated the pause proposed by the Senator from Virginia, we will probably be debating the admission of yet another tranche of countries before we have any idea about cost, border disputes, or strategic rationale. So where are we now? Instead of debating the more challenging issues involving the future of the alliance, we are left with a narrow question: Should Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary be admitted to NATO? These countries have made a sustained commitment to democratic capitalism since the end of the cold war. In numerous discussions with the Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from each of these three countries as a member of the U.S. Senate's NATO Observer Group, I am convinced that they intend to aggressively shoulder the burdens of membership in NATO. They seek no special treatment, and they wish only to be treated as full members of the alliance with the rights and the responsibilities entailed. Further, these countries have demonstrated a commitment to the goals of the alliance. They have contributed, in some cases heavily, to the ongoing NATO mission in Bosnia. In the case of Hungary, the United States has staged its Bosnia operations there for some years. The U.S. presence there has approached that of our closest NATO allies and our non-NATO allies. And the Hungarians have been excellent hosts to U.S. forces. While I remain steadfast in my belief that NATO needs and should at least discuss the adoption of a formal dispute resolution process, the fact is that these countries have worked hard to resolve disputes with neighbors. The Czech Republic peaceably separated itself from Slovakia. Hungary and Romania have signed a treaty to resolve issues surrounding the treatment of ethnic Hungarians in Romania. Despite these strong indications that these countries are ready for the burdens and benefits of alliance membership, I would nevertheless have retained additional reservations had the managers not accepted the U.S. cost limitations proposed by the Senator from Alaska. A major issue that must be addressed is how much should the United States continue to shoulder for peace in Europe? We pay 25 percent of the cost of NATO. The Stevens amendment will keep U.S. costs at no greater than what we now spend for NATO. Additional costs incidental to the adoption of three new members will have to be specifically authorized by Congress. With great reservations about this process, I will not vote against three countries that I believe will strengthen the alliance. I do hope this administration will not come to us again with new countries invited before the strategic rationale, cost limitations, border dispute processes and other conditions many of us tried and failed to impose. I hope we will not put the cart before the horse. To that end, I take some comfort in the vote totals for at least two of the amendments that failed. My amendment on conflict resolution received 37 votes. Senator Warner's amendment, requiring a pause of 3 years, received 41 votes. It takes 34 votes to stop a future treaty. I hope the administration and its successors would see these votes as cautionary should they consider going forward and raising expectations of good people in other countries before looking at the long-term security interests of America and considering what our responsibility is throughout the world. America has never walked away from its responsibilities. We want to pay our fair share. But we would not represent the taxpayers of this country if we allowed our country to take more than its fair share and thereby debilitate the strength of our own security. I hope that we can move forward now and continue to have the Senate maintain its constitutional responsibility in treaties of advise and consent, not just consent. What we have done instead of truly rewriting the course of our future and creating an alliance for the next century is to add three new members to an alliance whose purpose and therefore whose future is no more certain than when we began this process. While I cast a vote in favor, I take no great comfort in doing so and I hope the next debate is on the role of NATO in the post-cold-war era. Only then will we assure that the greatest defense alliance in the history of the world will remain exactly that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it was said by the distinguished Senator from Oregon, for whom I also have great respect and I think he is doing a fine job in the Senate, but he said that we have other mechanisms for dispute resolutions. My problem with that is that the OSCE not only is a very different kind of organization in which we are 1 vote out of 50, but if a dispute resolution is not passed in the OSCE, we aren't pledging military involvement by the United States. The OSCE is a good organization, and I hope we can use it. What I am trying to do is to recognize that we are changing NATO as we add new members. When we added West Germany, it changed. We want NATO to be strengthened by the new members, and we know that new members are coming down the pike. In fact, members that are in dispute right now have been mentioned as potential new members of NATO. Why would we be afraid? As my amendment says, to introduce to the North Atlantic Council a proposal for consideration by all allies aimed at establishing a process for dispute resolution--to keep our alliance strong, we must have a mechanism where disputes that we know are pending today by potential future members, or things we have not even thought might occur, if they do, why not have a process that everyone has agreed is the way to hold this to a low level rather than raising to the high level of the North Atlantic Council? Mr. President, we have seen border disputes in Europe erupt. We want to do everything. We want to go the extra mile to make sure we can resolve small things at a low level because small things can become big things. Then we would have troops at stake. Our security could be at stake. We want to lower the rhetoric. That is what this amendment does. It does not guarantee the outcome of our proposal. It says we will lead. The United States will lead to try to make sure that we have a process before we need it, before personalities are involved where we can solve problems. I hold up the New York Times of today: ``Greek Cypriots To Get Missiles from Russians.'' ``Turkey has warned that it may take military action to block the sale of S-300 missiles'' going into that part of the world. If we had talked about a process where we could be helpful in resolving disputes like this, wouldn't we be better off? Why would we fear talking and having a forum that would allow us to solve these problems before they escalate and our troops could be called in to military action? It is our responsibility to lead, and I am asking my colleagues to make sure we do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is the time that is equally divided now finished?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would appreciate the opportunity to close on my amendment. Whatever the opposition would like to say, I would like to yield and then be able to close.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I will finish my comments in the last 5 minutes. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will close on my amendment then, except for the last reserved 2 minutes that Senator Biden will take, after which I will close. Mr. President, I have now heard from the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from California that the 11 disputes which have been put together by the Congressional Research Service have no relation to what we are doing today. And yet the countries mentioned for inclusion in the next wave of NATO expansion are Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania. And Albania has also been mentioned. It is relevant that we have ongoing disputes within the area that we will be considering for inclusion in NATO. Mr. President, it is a matter of preparing for the future. We are changing NATO. Every time a new member is included, it changes the alliance. We hope it will strengthen the alliance. We must look to what the future potential conflicts in the alliance would be. And the more you expand it, the more potentials for conflict there are. Let me read to you the amendment that we passed yesterday. It defines ``common threats'' in NATO to include ``conflict in the North Atlantic area stemming from ethnic and religious enmity, the revival of historic disputes or the actions of undemocratic leaders.'' That is the definition of ``common threats.'' In the paragraph following the next paragraph, the capacity to respond to common threats is addressed. ``NATO's continued success requires a credible military capability to deter and respond to common threats.'' So, Mr. President, it could be that we are opening NATO and changing its very nature by the amendment that was passed yesterday. It could be that we are looking at involvement in ethnic and religious enmity and revival of historic disputes or the actions of undemocratic leaders in a future mission for NATO. If we are going to change the nature of NATO in this way, my amendment is even more important. Why are we afraid to lead? Why are we afraid to put on the table a border dispute resolution process which everyone would have to agree to so that we will know what the process is before there is an eruption that goes beyond our ability to contain it without military force?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. After the Senator from California has finished her remarks, I will close on my amendment and then they can determine what they want to do with the rest of the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just propose a unanimous consent that the Senator from California be allowed 10 minutes on my amendment, after which I would have a maximum of 5 minutes and we would close my amendment, and then everything else could be negotiated on the amendment of Senator Craig.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That's fine. I did not realize the Senator was on my amendment. She certainly should have that right, after which then I will want to have some time reserved. So whatever can be worked out that gives her her time, and then I could close on my amendment at the appropriate time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to suggest that I take 3 minutes to finish on my amendment and then everything else could be on Senator Craig's amendment for the rest of the afternoon.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is warming the chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. At the advanced age of 55, you are now sitting in Strom Thurmond's chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, let me just say that I agree with my friend, the Senator from Virginia, that why wouldn't we put out every possible effort with every potential idea that could keep us from having an escalation that would require arms conflict, or would allow for armed conflict? Precisely for the reason that the Senator from Delaware has stated: Perhaps we do need another step in the process. What if the two generals in the back room can't agree? Why not have a safety valve that would give another option when all else has failed? Why not go the extra mile? We are not trying to guarantee the result with my amendment; we are only trying to guarantee that there will be an effort, that we will try to come forward with a process that everyone would agree is a good process. If the United States thinks the end result is not a good one, it has the final ability to veto, as the Senator from Delaware has pointed out. Why not try? What are we afraid of? That we would not be able to put this on the table for discussion, to see if a process can be agreed upon by all of our allies in a consensus, and, if so, have the opportunity for another layer at the very lowest levels before it escalates into a situation as we see in Bosnia today?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is a valid question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I hope he wouldn't put forth an idea that he thought was a bad idea. What I hope is that he would lay out the issue for discussion, and if the result is not something that the United States thinks is the best result, after everyone has had a say in what kind of process it would be, of course, we would not lose our veto power. But I would certainly hope that he would not go in and say, ``I am putting forward an idea that I think is a bad idea.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me just say to the Senator from Oregon --

Mrs. HUTCHISON. But now the United States of America is paying the lion's share and our troops are in harm's way in Bosnia, if the President has his way, in perpetuity. Is that the answer you want for every ethnic dispute that can occur for the next century in Europe?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is why we are funding the commitment in Bosnia today, because in the United Nations----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. On Bosnia, what we did is take it to the whole council, and everybody got involved.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is have an option that they would be able to go way below the level of the North Atlantic Council, where they could go into a dispute resolution process, something that would be devised by the council, and if somebody on the council didn't like it, it would never see the light of day. What is the problem with opening the discussion?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I just respond to the Senator from Delaware quickly--and, of course, I would like to have the Senator from Oregon respond also--if I could just say that nothing that the Senator from Delaware has said would be prevented from happening. People could certainly go into a room and settle a dispute. What we are trying to do----