Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to try to answer that because what we are trying to do is not have it come up to NAC but to have border disputes and a process that everyone has agreed to, and if anyone doesn't agree, including us, it wouldn't go into effect. The Senator from Delaware quoted from my statement, but he forgot to say that I laid out the labor arbitration as just an example of what it could look like. I was only trying to provide one option, one thought. The purpose is not to have border dispute resolutions come to NAC. It is to have an agreed-upon procedure at the lowest level so that every country would know what the ground rules are so that they could handle it at the lowest level and there wouldn't be an eruption at the highest level. I say to the Senator from Delaware, who I admire very much, that all the United States Ambassador has to do is say, ``I don't think this is a good idea,'' when he does start talking to the allies. It will go nowhere. Why would anyone be afraid to talk about this in anticipation of problems that could occur? There are 11 potential border disputes that have been identified by the Congressional Research Office as having a medium to high probability of escalation. It is, I think, an opportunity to keep a Bosnia from rising to the level it has. If we had a mechanism in place with the Croats, the Serbs and the Moslems could have gone to an arbitration process, or could have agreed on a process early on how they would like to settle the dispute in the former Yugoslavia. All we are talking about is putting the idea on the table. We are not talking about a result. I don't know why we should fear a discussion. Why should we fear bringing this up just to see what our allies would like to do about potential border conflicts? NATO is not going to be the same. When you add new members, regardless of who they are, you have to anticipate that there may be a change in the alliance. When West Germany became a member it changed the alliance. When Spain became a member it changed the alliance. When France decided not to be a part of the military operation, it changed the alliance. What I am trying to do with this amendment is provide leadership. If we have the veto, as the Senator from Delaware has said, we can veto. But why not bring it to the table for discussion?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I just say to my friend from Oregon, we left Bosnia to the United Nations. My friend from Oregon, we left Bosnia to the United Nations. If we had the ability to have something in place by which we could have had a process long before Dayton to discuss these issues and perhaps bring them to the table together for a resolution, I do not think we would be in a potentially unending commitment in Bosnia. I just ask if a border dispute resolution process would not be part of collective security, if it would not help us prevent conflict rather than always reacting when things are already exploding before our eyes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wonder if the Senator from Oregon is aware that all we are doing is asking our NATO Ambassador to bring this up for discussion. Isn't it a responsible thing to at least bring it up, start talking about what would be in a border dispute resolution? And then if there was not a consensus, of course, it could be rejected. What could be wrong with just asking that it be brought up for discussion among our allies?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a colloquy?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yesterday, we adopted an amendment that could be interpreted to endorse NATO's role in responding to ethnic or religious disputes. If it is legitimate that NATO be involved in ethnic or religious disputes, why would it not be equally legitimate that NATO discuss a process to avoid or resolve such disputes? My amendment would initiate that discussion. I had much stronger language in an earlier amendment that I was considering, but I have talked to many Members of the other side, I have talked to many Ambassadors and people who have dealt with the security of Europe for a longer time than I have, and they felt that it was too strong to give directions. So I have pulled back that language. But I think to open the discussion, to open our eyes to the fact that any time we add members to an alliance, we should certainly expect that there would then be more potential for disagreements, I think that will be a responsible approach to our responsibility in the Senate. I hope my colleagues will accept this amendment. It is one of the amendments that I think would strengthen the responsible role we play, it would strengthen U.S. leadership, and, most of all, Madam President, it would strengthen the NATO alliance to anticipate problems and have a process by which we could address them. What could be more responsible and more reasonable than that? I do hope we can adopt this amendment. It will be one of the amendments that I think would help me be able to vote in good conscience for this resolution that is before us today. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It requires the U.S. Representative to NATO to make a proposal to our allies regarding the resolution of disputes that fall short of article V conflicts. Before discussing what my amendment does, I would like to say what it does not do. It does not require that NATO adopt a dispute resolution process, although I think it should. It does not tell the President what his ambassador to NATO should propose, although I hope the administration will take the opportunity to provide meaningful leadership in this area. It does not treat new members of NATO any differently from current members. In fact, that is the premise of the amendment, that there be a dispute resolution process that applies to all members, current and prospective, so there are no surprises should a dispute arise. I think it would show strong leadership to anticipate that there might be disputes in Europe where we have seen disputes of varying kinds over the course of history. But to have a dispute resolution process that is not looking at two particular countries and individual personalities, but rather to have a dispute resolution process so everyone knows what the ground rules are and everyone would comply with those, having had a say in the way they are drawn up. Why is this needed? Simply put, because the history of the 20th century demonstrates clearly that great conflicts can arise from small disputes. If we are going to expand NATO to include an ever-growing number of new countries, it is simply folly to pretend that no such disputes will ever occur within the alliance, or that they would not affect the alliance in its ability to stay together. According to the Congressional Research Service assessment of a number of sources, there are at least 11 ongoing disputes in Europe that have a moderate or high potential for violence or escalation. Some of those are listed behind me. For example, three involve Albania. While Albania is not being considered for membership in NATO today, many have said that it should be considered in the next wave of new members. So I think if we set something in place now, we are not saying that it would apply just to Albania; we are not making it personal. But what we are saying is ``let's recognize the obvious. NATO currently has no process to peacefully resolve disputes, which will only grow in number as the alliance enlarges.'' We have had a conflict involving Greece and Turkey for most of the history of the alliance. Opponents to my amendment would say that this proves that we don't need a dispute resolution process, because we can handle future conflicts the way we have handled the Greece-Turkey conflict. Mr. President, we have not handled the Greece-Turkey conflict. We have avoided handling it. In 1974, these two supposed NATO allies almost went to war over the island of Cyprus. That conflict continues today. Each country regularly threatens the other with war over sea and airspace violations, weapons proliferation, and the treatment of each other's compatriots in Cyprus. If the best that my opponents can say of my amendment is to point to Greece and Turkey as proof that we don't need it, then there really can be no opposition to it at all. The fact is, the cold war imposed a discipline on the alliance that probably did keep such conflicts in check. That discipline is no longer in place. If we do not at least discuss a process by which NATO can peaceably resolve disputes, then the alliance will lose credibility as we turn a blind eye to a growing number of disputes similar to that of Greece and Turkey. Such a process might even have ended that conflict, permitting both of those countries to move on and focus on their own strengths and their own economies. In a letter to the President last summer, I joined with nearly two dozen Senate colleagues to raise this and a number of other questions regarding NATO enlargement. We asked the President about the importance of border-dispute resolutions and should we not be anticipating this so we could resolve them, not in the heat of a dispute, but in a vacuum of such disputes so we would be able to go forward in an objective way. In his response to us, the President said, in effect, that NATO doesn't need a dispute resolution process because the European countries have themselves established a number of bilateral treaties regarding their borders. But we are changing the makeup of NATO. We can certainly anticipate what more members--many with long-standing disputes, ethnic disputes, border disputes--will do to the alliance. We must go in with our eyes wide open and prepare for some potential escalation of conflicts or new conflicts to arise as we add new and diverse members. My amendment simply requires that before NATO expansion goes into effect, the U.S. Representative at NATO should open discussion about dispute resolution. My amendment restricts the issues that should be considered in such a proposal, and it certainly restricts it to territorial and security matters so as not to permit an agricultural crisis, for example, to trigger a NATO process. My amendment further requires that any U.S. proposal be aimed at disputes in which at least one of the parties has threatened the use of military force. That is it. There is no reason to be concerned that this proposal is going to do something drastic. It is not directing any outcome, but it is saying we must raise this question. Let's talk about it when there is not the heat of a crisis. Opponents to it, though, say that it will dilute U.S. influence in NATO. How could U.S. leadership be weakened by our representative in NATO raising a topic that the European countries themselves believe is so important that they have signed 12 treaties on the matter already? It is because of our leadership in NATO that this could happen in a way that I think would provide stability in the alliance, and I don't know why it would even be resisted. Why would we be thinking of adding new members to this alliance if we didn't have enough confidence in our leadership to know that we could open for discussion such an issue and that it would be good for everyone to address? It seems to me that the argument about U.S. leadership being diluted is much more relevant to the question of whether there should be new members, rather than whether all members should acknowledge their potential border problems. I have had conversations with foreign ministers and ambassadors from each of the three prospective NATO members. They have told me that as long as any dispute resolution process applies to all members evenly, then they support the idea. I also spoke with former U.S. representatives to NATO and to other European capitals. They, too, have told me that NATO should discuss this matter. Former NATO Ambassador Bob Hunter has said that he thought this was a positive approach. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., Jack Matlock, said--and he is, I would say, a leading authority on European security--that, ``NATO has no policy on how to deal with ethnic unrest, and they need it badly.'' This is a quote directly from Ambassador Matlock, who is a seasoned and career diplomat. (Ms. Collins assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I know we have a pending amendment. I would like to speak on the whole issue of NATO enlargement at this time because I was not able to make my opening statement yesterday at the appointed time because we had the other amendment of which I was cosponsor with Senator Smith. I believe this Senate will not vote on a more important matter than the one before the Senate this week. The advocates of unfettered enlargement of NATO argue that we are expanding the frontiers of freedom in Europe. It is true that freedom won the cold war. But the spirit of that freedom was the American commitment to defend Europe against the Soviet Union. Therefore, at the heart of this debate is a simple question: Is the United States prepared to add countries to the list of those that we pledge to defend as we would our own shores? In answering that question, the Senate should look to the future. Instead, many supporters of the resolution have been talking about the past. They have argued, not without merit, that expanding NATO is necessary to correct the map of Europe that was drawn incorrectly at the end of World War II. And many argue that it is right and just that these three countries before us today become part of the West, since the West turned its back on them at Yalta more than half a century ago. I think the Senate should be looking to the future to decide if this idea is the right one at this time. What are the future threats to Transatlantic security? Is expanding the alliance the best means of addressing those threats? Must the United States continue to be the glue that holds Europe together, as was necessary during the cold war? This is an interesting time to consider expanding our military obligations. Today, the President has said the United States will have an open-ended commitment of thousands of U.S. troops in Bosnia. This mission has already cost the United States $8 billion. That is in addition to our NATO requirement, our commitment, our allotment. It appears likely that a major conflict will break out in the Serb province of Kosovo, raising the question whether U.S. troops will be drawn deeper into the morass. We have also learned just this week that the chief U.N. weapons inspector has declared that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has not complied with U.N. resolutions to destroy his biological and chemical weapons, so the allies may have to take military action to force him to comply. Again, that will mean a disproportionate burden for the United States. While we are adding new commitments, our military readiness is in decline. Last year, the military had its worst recruiting year since 1979. The Army failed to meet its objective to recruit infantry soldiers, the single most important specialty of the Army. At the National Training Center, where our troops go for advanced training, units rotating in typically come with a 60-percent shortage in mechanics and a 50-percent shortage in infantry. These are often due to the fact that these personnel are deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia, so advance training is suffering. This year, more than 350 Air Force pilots have turned down the $60,000 bonuses they would have received to remain in the cockpit another 5 years. A 29-percent acceptance rate for the bonus compares with 59 percent last year and 81 percent in 1995. Recently, a lack of critical parts for F-16 aircraft forced two fighter squadrons in Italy to cannibalize grounded aircraft to ensure they can continue to conduct the NATO peace enforcement mission over Bosnia. Mr. President, these are just some of the indicators that show our military is being stretched too thin. The fact is, these defense cuts that we have made over the last few years of almost 50 percent have put our security at risk. This has been made worse by the diversion of U.S. resources and readiness in Bosnia and elsewhere. In the midst of all this, the President presents the Senate with a proposal to expand NATO to include three new countries without first answering such questions as what is the mission of a post-cold war NATO? The Senate has been put in a dilemma. On one side, we have colleagues who strongly support the resolution of ratification and oppose conditions and reservations that any of us may wish to add. Throughout this debate, I have heard supporters say that the proposal to add these new members is moral and just and needs no further thought. We have been told that the United States owes these countries membership in NATO, and it has been implied that to question this assumption is to question the very merits of the cold war and NATO's role in winning that role. Many of us who have reservations about this proposal are the strongest supporters of NATO--I certainly am--and our American leadership in the alliance is also very important. I think NATO is the best defense alliance that has ever been put together in the history of the world. I want to make sure we preserve it, which is why I am questioning some of the assumptions about enlargement that are not based on any facts that we have seen and which have been brought up at the North Atlantic Council or in the U.S. Senate. There are many other places in the world where only the United States can and will lead. I cherish the role that NATO played in winning the cold war, and it is because of that commitment to support NATO that I take the ramifications of enlargement so seriously. Many of us with reservations want to see the United States take its fair place in the world and assume its fair share of the responsibility. But we do not think we should be involved in every regional conflict, dissipating our strength and endangering our role as a superpower, a superpower capable of responding where no one else can or will. This doctrine was set in this country as far back as John Quincy Adams, who said to the American people that we will be tempted to go out and right every wrong, but if we do, we will dissipate our strength and we will no longer be effective. On the other side of the dilemma is the failure of the President to negotiate conditions that address U.S. costs and the heavy burden for European security that we already bear. He promised the three countries under consideration--all of whom are worthy countries--that their admission into the alliance was a fait accompli. But too many issues remain open, and it has been left to the full Senate the responsibility, a responsibility unsuited to a legislative body, I might add, to address the mission of NATO and what the criteria for new membership should be. I, for one, believe it may even be premature for the Senate to be considering the question. While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held a number of hearings on NATO enlargement during this Congress, several matters have not been yet thoroughly aired. For example, we still await a strategic rationale for an expanded NATO from the President. What will NATO's future mission be? What will be the role in executing that mission? The resolution before the Senate requires the President to report on these matters within 6 months of our approval of NATO enlargement. I can think of no better example of putting the cart before the horse. If we approve that sequence, the Senate is, in effect, saying it agrees with the President that we need to expand NATO, but we haven't decided why. It seems to me the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and even the Intelligence Committee, should have the rationale from the administration now, not in 6 months. There are other issues that need further discussion. On January 16 of this year, the Clinton administration signed a security charter with Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia that raises important questions: What are we committed to do in this charter? Have we given these countries a security guarantee? Why have no other NATO members signed the Baltic charter? I just think we need to discuss this in the context of where we are going with NATO over the long-term. The Senator from Virginia has introduced an amendment to take a 3- year time-out after this first phase of enlargement so that we can begin to consider these important issues without the pressure of additional countries that would be waiting on the doorstep with admission promised to them. This would permit us to discuss additional membership on the merits, rather than because of personalities. A new development since the last Foreign Relations Committee on NATO enlargement is the violence in the southern province of Kosovo. It is very important that we consider the impact this could have on the U.S. and her allies. I think these issues need to be addressed if we are going to look at what NATO is and what everyone in NATO will agree it should be. There are other issues. How much will it cost? I will speak in greater detail later, because there will be an amendment on cost. But no one knows how much it is going to cost. Estimates that vary from a few million to $125 billion are not credible. It is impossible to say that we know what the cost to the United States will be. A range of a few million to $125 billion cannot be taken seriously. I am also concerned about the chances we have of importing into the alliance ethnic, border, and religious disputes that have riven Europe for centuries. I will have an amendment in that regard. After looking at the underlying resolution and the Kyl amendment that was passed yesterday, which could be interpreted--I hope it isn't--as drawing us into one of those ethnic conflicts, my amendment will say that we want NATO to determine a border and ethnic dispute resolution process before we have to make a decision on what our role will be, so that there will be no question of what process will be followed to make peace, and so that it will not rise to the level of common defense necessities for the United States. The American people cannot believe that this U.S. Senate would act on a resolution that would draw U.S. troops into harm's way for an ethnic conflict that has been boiling in Europe for a hundred years if there is not a U.S. security interest involved. Opponents of my proposal will say that that will weaken U.S. influence in NATO, but I don't understand that concern. We should certainly be confident enough in our leadership that we would be able to discuss candidly with our allies the limits of our involvement in a parochial dispute. Mr. President, the resolution before us is far from a finished project. Many of us who do not serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, and would like to support the resolution, particularly as it applies to the three countries, good countries, that are doing the right thing toward democracy and a free market. But we do believe too much has been left out. It is not right to say that this resolution cannot be improved. There are several good proposals that will be introduced in the Senate, which we will have a chance to debate and vote on, which would make this resolution one that all of us can support in good conscience. I urge my colleagues to consider each amendment on its merits and not based on a preconceived notion that this resolution needs no refinement and that any change would somehow be a bad change. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to express its will on international treaties. That is a double responsibility when we are talking about the potential of U.S. troops going into a conflict in which they could lose their lives. The Senate's responsibility in the Constitution is to advise and consent, not just consent. Mr. President, our responsibility in the Constitution is every bit as important and clear as is the President's responsibility. The signers of our Declaration of Independence and the writers of our Constitution came from a historical point in which they had a king who declared war and also executed that war. They specifically rejected the idea of one person having all the power. They dispersed the power because they wanted it to be a well-debated and difficult decision to send U.S. troops into harm's way. Mr. President, our founders were right. It is the Senate's responsibility to meet their test of advice and consent when our troops and our American security is at stake. I hope we can make this resolution one that all of us can proudly support, one that has conditions that are responsible in the stewardship of the security of the United States. That is our responsibility under the Constitution, and that is what we must do. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Smith for working with me on this amendment. We must never pass an opportunity to continue to give hope to those whose loved ones are missing because they served our country. This amendment says to them we will never forget and if there is ever a shred of hope that we could learn more about how even one service man or woman died or became missing, it is worth every effort that we would make. That is what this amendment does. I urge its passage.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have just been looking at the amendment with the Senator from Virginia. I like every other part of the amendment. I like every other part of the amendment. But it seems that the words define what a common threat is, and included in the common threat are ethnic divisions or uprising, and then it says that one of the missions of NATO is to respond to common threats. I just wondered if there could be a clarification, or perhaps a clarifying amendment that would assure that is not going to be a responsibility of NATO to come into a situation in which there is a border dispute or an ethnic dispute. In fact, that is one of the amendments I would offer later, which is to avoid having the United States get into an ethnic dispute. If the Senator from Arizona can clarify it, I think the Senator from Virginia and I would like to support the amendment. But if it needs some work to assure its intent, then perhaps we could work on that as well. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Smith for leading the effort on this amendment. I want to tell you a story about how this came to be an amendment to this bill. Pat Dunton is my constituent. She is the president of the Korean-Cold War Family Association of the Missing. Pat Dunton's father served in the Korean conflict. She has been trying to get information about her father for all of these years since the Korean war. She still gets choked up talking about not knowing where he is or what happened to him. She came to my office one day and we started talking about how hard it is not to know. We started thinking. Well, you know, maybe we could do something with the new members who have been invited into NATO because during the cold war, which is when some of the MIA incidents took place, maybe the governments of these countries who were allies with the Soviet Union, some of whom were in Korea, might be helpful in going to these families and providing the information that they might have knowledge of. I just believe that this is something that should be done. I also believe that all three of the countries being considered for NATO membership would like to help in this effort. I went to Senator Smith, who has been the leading advocate in the Senate for not forgetting our POWs and MIAs. I said, Let's do something in the NATO agreement that would require any information to be opened to the families of POWs from any conflict. But most especially, of course, Korea is where we think these countries really might have some information that could be relevant. I am pleased that Senator Smith decided to take the lead and work with me on this because I think it can make a difference. It calls for the full cooperation of the Governments of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in obtaining that accounting, and specifically calls for facilitating access to relevant archival material and for these Governments to identify any individuals that may possess knowledge relative to captured and missing U.S. personnel. Mr. President, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have all thrown off the chains of Communist domination. But not so long ago and throughout the cold war their military forces and their intelligence services were closely aligned with the very governments who hold the keys to a great deal of information which may help achieve the full accounting we seek. For example, from the end of the Korean war in 1953, representatives of the Czech and Polish military were stationed inside North Korea as part of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission at Panmunjom. Their military personnel had direct contact with the North Korean military and had at times a great deal of high- level access throughout North Korea. They met with their North Korean counterparts and may well have highly relevant information on the fate of Americans who were missing during the Korean war. We also know that their intelligence services and their military often shared information with the intelligence services and military forces of the Soviet Union and that there are those who may have direct knowledge of events involving Americans who were missing during the Vietnam war as well as the numerous Americans who disappeared during military operations in other areas during the cold war. As new NATO allies, it is certainly reasonable to expect that they would open their archives and provide access to our officials. I have already received assurances from representatives of the Polish Government that this access would be readily granted, and I am certain that the Czechs and the Hungarians would also be eager to work with us. I have also been contacted by family members of the missing as well as by military personnel working in the area of POW-MIA recovery, and both groups have insisted that it would be helpful to make an official statement on behalf of Congress in the form of this amendment that this is an issue of national importance. I think the amendment is necessary and important. It sends a message to the long-suffering families often forgotten that are still seeking information about the fate of their loved ones. We must take every opportunity to demonstrate that we understand their grief and their desire to find answers and that it is reasonable to expect any new allies to also respect our legitimate desire to learn all we can about those who are missing in the service of our country. The armed forces and the intelligence services of these same countries that seek to join NATO today were once on the other side of the bitter struggle of the cold war. So they would have information, and we hope that they would agree readily to help us in giving some comfort and perhaps providing answers, that final answer, to some member of a family who has been waiting maybe not patiently but certainly with hope in their hearts that someday they would know what happened to their father or their son who has served in our military and perhaps gave his or her life in service to our country. I think we owe them this amount of caring, this amount of assurance that we will go the extra mile to make sure they have that closure if it can possibly be given to them. So I thank Senator Smith. I hope the Senate will adopt this amendment when we have the vote. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was going to make my floor statement, but Senator Smith and I have an amendment and we have been encouraged to go ahead and put our amendment forward. I will yield to Senator Smith for his introduction of the Smith-Hutchison amendment that deals with MIA. I yield the floor to him.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, technology has opened many doors for communications and information sharing. Unfortunately, criminals have found new ways to use the innovations to hurt children. Today I am introducing with Senator DeWine the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. Our bill will give law enforcement the necessary tools to stop crimes against children, especially those initiated through the Internet and commercial on-line services. Along with the proliferation of users of on-line services, our nation has seen a rise in crimes committed against children by sexual predators on-line. Every day, pedophiles stalk children through the computer, transmitting pornography to them and enticing them to participate in illegal activity. In some of the most tragic instances, these criminals have convinced children to travel long distances to meet them, only to face horrendous abuse by their ``hosts.'' In response to the growing number of these crimes. Congress has and will surely continue to appropriate funds to allow collaboration among FBI and state and local law enforcement to develop effective means to prevent innocent children from being exploited. In the past, funds have been used to train officers to detect cybercrime, pursue sexual predators and establish child sexual exploitation cyber-squads of state and local officers. But the responsibility of Congress is not only to provide necessary resources. We have an unfinished responsibility to give officers the legal tools they need to stop these crimes before they happen. In addition, Congress must send the unequivocal message to criminals who dare to prey on children that such crimes will not be tolerated. As children and adults increase their use of computers and online services, this problem will only get worse. Only through aggressive enforcement will we be able to combat this rise in tragic crimes against our most vulnerable citizens--children.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, technology has opened many doors for communications and information sharing. Unfortunately, criminals have found new ways to use the innovations to hurt children. Today I am introducing with Senator DeWine the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. Our bill will give law enforcement the necessary tools to stop crimes against children, especially those initiated through the Internet and commercial on-line services. Along with the proliferation of users of on-line services, our nation has seen a rise in crimes committed against children by sexual predators on-line. Every day, pedophiles stalk children through the computer, transmitting pornography to them and enticing them to participate in illegal activity. In some of the most tragic instances, these criminals have convinced children to travel long distances to meet them, only to face horrendous abuse by their ``hosts.'' In response to the growing number of these crimes. Congress has and will surely continue to appropriate funds to allow collaboration among FBI and state and local law enforcement to develop effective means to prevent innocent children from being exploited. In the past, funds have been used to train officers to detect cybercrime, pursue sexual predators and establish child sexual exploitation cyber-squads of state and local officers. But the responsibility of Congress is not only to provide necessary resources. We have an unfinished responsibility to give officers the legal tools they need to stop these crimes before they happen. In addition, Congress must send the unequivocal message to criminals who dare to prey on children that such crimes will not be tolerated. As children and adults increase their use of computers and online services, this problem will only get worse. Only through aggressive enforcement will we be able to combat this rise in tragic crimes against our most vulnerable citizens--children.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. As you know, in that case the Supreme Court struck down the state-supported VMI because the state of Virginia failed to, quote ``provide any comparable single-gender women's instituion.'' My amendment follows the Supreme Court's own language and requires that programs offer ``comparable'' opportunities for both sexes. I should also highlight that while the VMI case is certainly in keeping with my amendment, it was a case about higher education, which clearly involves different considerations with regard to the different needs of male and female students than elementary and secondary education. The only major case in which the Supreme Court directly dealt with the Equal Protection Clause as applied to K-12 education was in Vorchiemer, which involved a challenge to an all-girls academy in Philadelphia. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a Third Circuit ruling that this single-gender public school did not violate Title IX or the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The court in that case explicitly held that there are legitimate differences between boys and girls that can justify separate educational programs in order to provide the best education possible. I appreciated the questions that were raised about this amendment, and I sincerely wish to engage them to see how we might best address their concerns. I hope our discussion here today has been helpful in clarifying some of these questions, and I would certainly be happy to answer any additional questions you or other individuals may have. The one point I do not wish to get lost in this discussion, however, is that you and I and the other supporters of this amendment simply wish to protect single-gender education as an option. If someone is opposed on principle to single-gender education, that's fine. They can keep their children in a co-ed environment and even oppose single- gender education when their local school board brings it up. But the decision will be made at the local and individual level. Parents and their children and administers serving the community will choose, and that is what this effort is all about.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Torricelli very much for his statement and for his very important question. States, school districts, and individual public schools all over the country have either tried to implement same-gender programs and have been forced to end them, or have been dissuaded from even trying by the threat of lawsuit or termination of federal funds by the Department of Education. The fundamental purpose and intent of my amendment, then, is to make it clear to these schools that it is the will of Congress that they be allowed to institute voluntary same-gender programs if they believe it will help further their important mission of educating students of both sexes. In no way, however, could this amendment possibly allow discrimination against either girls or boys. As you know, the text of my amendment is straight forward. It simply adds same-gender schools and classrooms as one of the allowable uses for federal funds under Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As you also know, Title VI is a very flexible block- grant program that can be used for virtually any education reform effort a school district wishes to try, arguably including same-gender programs. But in order to receive Title VI funds for a same-gender school or classroom, the amendment requires that school district offer, quote ``comparable educational opportunities for students of both sexes.'' This requirement is completely consistent with the requirements of both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Senator Torricelli and my other colleagues who voted in favor of this important amendment yesterday. I think the Senate's strong 69 to 29 vote in favor of this amendment sent a strong signal that same-gender education should be made available as an option to parents and their children enrolled in public schools. I understand, however, that you have additional questions about the amendment and the issue of same-gender education.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to engage my colleague, Senator Torricelli, in a colloquy with regard to my recently-passed same-gender education amendment to the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Tomorrow morning, the Senate will resume consideration of the Coverdell A+ education bill. Amendments will be offered and debated throughout Wednesday's session in an attempt to finish that legislation. I also inform my colleagues that funeral services will be held for former Senator Terry Sanford tomorrow in Durham, NC. Therefore, any votes ordered tomorrow morning in respect to amendments to the Coverdell bill would be stacked to occur at approximately 3 p.m. Members will be notified of the exact voting schedule when that becomes available.