Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to say that the statement that was just made by the Senator from Illinois is so typical of this man, who is probably spending his last hours with us in the U.S. Senate. His voice of reason, his absolute integrity, and his willingness to say what he thinks about a Member of the other party, regardless of what it is, is always said in a civil way, and in this case I think very much on target. I just want to say that his distinguished voice will be much missed in the next convening of our U.S. Senate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today with a sense of both joy and disappointment as I am being briefed by my staff about what is the purported agreement for the continuing resolution that will fund our country for the next year. There are, indeed, some very good parts of that bill. But I have to say that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, made a compelling speech this morning about many of the fine points of this bill that are atrocious, and talking about dealing with the administration, the administration which changed the negotiating points constantly throughout this process. I think it is a sad way that we are going to end this session, that the administration has come in at virtually the last hour and held the threat of shutting down Government and blaming the Republican Congress for doing it, in an effort to win things that have been lost on the floor already. So, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to talk about what is in this bill, both good and bad. I am very pleased that we are going to satisfy the basic responsibilities that we must. We are going to support our troops in the Mideast and in Bosnia. But we are going to do it with $1 billion less than we had hoped we could have in our defense budget because this is not a safe world. As we were sending troops into the Middle East--because in many ways it looks as if we did not have a clear policy on the Kurds, but nevertheless we sent troops in to reinforce--as we were doing it, the administration was asking us to cut the defense budget. We are going to be able to do the basic things that we need to do, but we are not making the plans for the future that we must make for our country to be secure from incoming ballistic missiles, in theaters, wherever our forces may be, to be secure from incoming ballistic missiles. We are not doing what we ought to be doing to plan for the future strength of our military so we will remain ready for any contingencies that might occur. We are not planning as we should. I hope that next year, when the elections are over, we will be able to commit the amount of money and resources we need, first, to make sure that America stays secure and strong and, second, that we will protect our troops from disasters like the bombing that we saw just a few months ago in Saudi Arabia. We are going to give pay raises to our young men and women in the military, who so richly deserve them, 3 percent pay raises. That is a good part of this bill. But we are not planning enough for their future with ballistic missile defenses and other major pieces of equipment and technologies that would look to the future so an incoming ballistic missile can be stopped before it goes into its downward track. Mr. President, we are going to increase with this bill funding for breast cancer research, a long time coming. Women's diseases in this country have been made short shrift by Congresses of the past, but not in this Congress. This Congress has increased funding for breast cancer research and osteoporosis research, diseases that particularly afflict women in our country, and I am proud that we are doing that. We are going to more fairly distribute the money for Amtrak in our country. I fought hard for that, and I appreciate the fact that all of us came together on a bipartisan basis to strengthen Amtrak for our country and to give all of the States that were told 2 months ago they would lose their service of Amtrak, including my State of Texas, but many States across the western part of our country. We were told that we would have 90 days and these routes would be gone. Mr. President, 90 days is not enough for a State to be able to come in and add funding, resources to keep lines like this open. You have to have better planning. Most States have biennial legislatures. My State certainly does, and I wanted a 6-month extension to give all of us a chance to see if the States can come up with a better plan to help keep Amtrak service in our States, because I believe in a balanced transportation system, and I believe Amtrak is a major part of that. Because I like the idea that we can have a bus feeder system into Amtrak stations so that people who do not have the mobility that many in our urban areas have will have access from the small communities of our country into the Amtrak stations, into our cities and our mass transit systems, and into our airports. That is what Amtrak can be if we can get a good system for Amtrak where the States and the Federal Government come together. So this bill does fund a 6-month extension for those important Amtrak lines that were told that they would close. We are going to increase funding for medical research, including AIDS. AIDS is an epidemic in this country, and it is time that we realize it is hitting children, babies, as well as people from all walks of life. It is a tragedy, and we should be increasing our commitment to finding out what causes this deadly virus so that we can do something to save the lives of innocent people, and we are doing that. We are putting major resources into antiterrorism measures and also drug interdiction. Mr. President, we have been hearing just recently in the last 6 months about incredible statistics showing that drug abuse is now going back up among our teenagers and, even worse, Mr. President, under teenagers--under teenagers. Our children, starting at the age of 9, are abusing drugs in this country. This is a crime, it is a disease, and we must get rid of it. So our bill will put the resources into that. But I am very concerned about the illegal immigration bill and what the administration did in negotiating that bill. That bill passed this body months ago. We had a strong bipartisan effort for a bill that does give us the tools to stop illegal immigration into our country that costs our taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It was told to us that the bipartisan bill would be signed. It was told to us by the President that he would sign the bill. Yet, after that representation was made, he came in with the threat that he would shut down Government and blame the Republicans for it and reopen the illegal immigration bill that had bipartisan support in this Congress. It appears that that bill has been changed and some of the key provisions have been taken out, such that a person on welfare would be able to bring other immigrants into this country and supposedly vouch that they would not become dependent on taxpayer resources. A person who is dependent on taxpayer resources saying that they will support another person coming into our country and that they will not be supported by taxpayer resources, how naive can we be? Mr. President, I am hoping that this Senate will be able to vote on a bill, that we have already passed in both Houses of Congress, on Monday that will put those key provisions back in to the illegal immigration bill so that we will have teeth in it and we will protect the taxpayers from people who would come to this country with their hand out rather than coming to this country in the spirit and tradition of the legal immigrants looking for the opportunity to do better for themselves and for this country. I am very concerned that we would renegotiate the bill on illegal immigration that gives us the chance, finally, to say it means something to be a legal immigrant in this country, because if you come in illegally, there will be a price to pay and that price is that you will not be able to come into our country and seek citizenship for 10 years if you have broken the laws of our country by entering illegally. I hope that we can pass the illegal immigration bill in its entirety on Monday and that we will not succumb to the pressures from the White House to renegotiate a bill that the President said he would sign after it had already been agreed to by both Houses of this Congress on a bipartisan basis. I commend our majority leader, Senator Lott, who came in to his job quite suddenly just a few months ago without very much notice and, yet, has fought so hard to make Congress live up to its responsibility to the people of our country and pass the laws that will improve the lives of the people of our country and improve accountability to the people of our country. He has said we must fund our Government in a responsible way, and he set out to make that happen. So with very little experience, our majority leader has done an incredible job of making sure that we do not let the people of our country down, but it has been made a very difficult chore for him by a constantly moving negotiation. We talked about the great sports metaphor using the goal posts. As the distinguished Senator from Wyoming said yesterday, we not only moved the goal posts, we moved the whole game. We moved it out of the stadium by acceding to a President's wishes who would not say, ``A deal is a deal,'' and kept saying, ``A deal is a deal, but what more can I get?'' So, Mr. President, I hope that, if this continuing resolution passes, we can reform the procedures here and that we can have a President whose word is good so that we will be able to become accountable to the taxpayers of our country, let the taxpayers know that they are getting their money's worth and that the test will be able to stand the light of day. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to commend the senior Senator from Wyoming for an outstanding job on a bill that really will put teeth in the laws against illegal immigration into our country. He has been working for months in a bipartisan way to make sure that before the end of this session we did a meaningful job of addressing a terrible problem in my State and for the whole country, and that is an influx of illegal aliens that is causing the taxpayers of my State and our country millions of dollars. The senior Senator from Wyoming worked until late in the night last night trying to make sure that this bill stays together. All we have heard from the White House is that the White House objected to the Gallegly amendment, and beyond that would sign the bill that was indeed a bipartisan bill in both Houses of Congress. Today, we have a change of mood, and all of a sudden now the bill that will stop, or at least give us a chance to stop, the illegal immigration into our country is now being held up by the White House saying, no, we want you to take out title V. Now, title V would, in fact, take out the enforceability of the welfare reform bill that also passed this body and this Congress overwhelmingly. It is time for us to have an integrity in the system that says once you come to an agreement, it is an agreement, our word is good, and we go forward. We cannot have the goalposts changing every time we make an agreement. I believe that Senator Lott has really tried to work with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle to offer them all of the options to do what is the responsible thing that we must do in order to fund Government before October 1 when the fiscal year ends. A week ago, Senator Lott asked Senator Daschle if he would like to have a continuing resolution offered in which there would be six amendments on each side, and then we would pass the continuing resolution that would fund Government. That was rejected. Then another offer was made. Let us start debate on Tuesday on a continuing resolution to make sure that we do the responsible thing and keep Government going. Unlimited amendments on either side, but we finish by Wednesday night. That was rejected. The last offer was a Department of Defense appropriations conference report that all the other spending bills that are now outstanding would be put together with, and that has not yet been accepted. The time has come for it to be called what it is. That is a delay tactic, an inability to come to an end, a closure so that we can all do what is responsible, and that is fund Government. I think Senator Lott is trying very hard. Senator Hatfield was up until 4:30 in the morning this morning trying to negotiate in good faith with the White House and both sides of the aisle and both sides of this Capitol, trying to do the right thing, but has been thwarted at every step either by delay tactics during the process of handling the appropriations bills for the last few months or delay tactics right now. Mr. President, we are trying. Our leadership is trying. We want a bill for illegal immigration that all of us have agreed to. Now is not the time for the White House to step in and change the level of negotiation. We were finished with negotiation. We agreed that the Gallegly amendment would be done separately. Now, all of a sudden, title V is supposed to be taken out of the bill and that takes a very important part out of the bill. I have a State that has 1,250 miles of border with Mexico. We are under siege, not only with illegal aliens but with drugs coming across the border and we need relief. Mr. President, I know my time is up. I am asking that the President of the United States work in good faith with Congress. We are trying to do the responsible thing. We do not have much more time. We have made offers but have been unable to gain their acceptance. Mr. President, now is the time for responsibility on a bipartisan basis. It is a two- way street.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield and let me just ask if he would consider letting Senator Domenici finish with 3 minutes and then giving me my 5 minutes, and then I think perhaps Senator Byrd is going to ask for some time. So we could work something out so that everyone would have an opportunity with Senator Warner as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that I agree totally with the Senator from Louisiana. This is a bill that has been worked on for a long time, and if there are going to be amendments--and that is fine--let us bring them up. Let us talk about them. I think it is time to move this bill. It is a good bill. It is reform. It is going to save the taxpayers of this country $100 million while preserving the right of our Department of Defense to take those ships when we need them, as we did in Desert Storm. It worked. It worked. And it is going to be better. I think it is time for us to come together. Let us talk about the amendments. Let them have their fair shot, and let us get on with it. I appreciate his remarks. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for more than 5 years, the Congress and two administrations have worked on a bipartisan basis to develop and enact into law a critical program to reform Federal support for the U.S. flag maritime industry and to revitalize our merchant marine as an element of our national defense sealift. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Commerce Committee, I am proud to say that this job is nearly complete. On December 6 of last year, the legislation that embodies this program, H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995, passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming support by voice vote, with full leadership support on both sides of the aisle. Here in the Senate, we have held full, open and public hearings in the Commerce Committee with all interested parties having the opportunity to present their views for and against this program. Significantly, all individuals or organizations affiliated or associated with national defense indicated support for this proposal. I think you can see from the bipartisan nature of this bill--my colleague on the other side of the aisle and I, working with Senator Stevens, who is the manager of this bill--that there is agreement on a very important reform that we must produce, and it improves the efficiency of the current program. Here is what the bill does: The Maritime Security Act will provide a fleet of militarily useful U.S.-flag commercial vessels and their American citizen crews for our Nation's defense airlift and sealift, as well as guaranteed access to modern intermodal transportation networks and management that can deliver cargo from Kansas to Kuwait and track it every step of the way. For DOD to duplicate this necessary capability, it would cost over $800 million per year, eight times the yearly cost of the Maritime Security Program. When you think about it, maintaining that kind of ship fleet would be something that the Department of Defense would say would certainly increase their budget. But here we can do it for half the amount than has been done in the past, and it will do the job. The Maritime Security Program Act, the bill we are discussing, will cut the cost of Federal support for these sealift vessels more than 50 percent from the program now in existence. This will have a spending limit of $100 million a year, compared to the current level of roughly $210 million per year, and this funding is subject to appropriations, not an entitlement, which is currently the case. So you can see that we are cutting back on the subsidy while maintaining this fleet at a much more efficient rate than we could do if we had to maintain the fleets within the Department of Defense. The Maritime Security Act will eliminate outdated and unnecessary rules and regulations which impede the ability of U.S.-flag commercial vessels to compete, and that prevents, of course, the expansion and modernization of the U.S.-flag fleet. These changes will give our fleet more incentive to hold down costs. This act will encourage the construction of commercial vessels in U.S. shipyards, a vital program for our economy and for our defense industrial base. This act is essential to our defense. It is needed now, more than ever. Let me give you an example of how this works. During Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 350 ships in more than 500 voyages supported the multinational coalition, delivering an average of 42,000 tons of cargo each day. Under this program, 350 ships participated. At the height of this activity, there was a ship every 50 miles, a steel bridge along an 8,000-mile sea lane between the United States and the Persian Gulf. Ninety-five percent of all equipment and supplies needed by American soldiers in the field was moved by sealift. One-third was shipped on privately owned U.S. flag vessels, just what we are talking about today. Using U.S.-flag vessels was more cost effective during Desert Storm. It cost about $174 per ton of cargo under non-U.S.-flag vessels, but with U.S. flags, it was $122, a 30-percent savings. But more important, we were able to put American cargo on American ships using American crews to deliver to our American troops. In a time of crisis, we cannot depend on foreign ships. We cannot depend on foreign crews for sealift and sustainment requirements. Without this legislation, our Armed Forces would have to trust foreign vessels for the supplies and support they need to fight and win. Mr. President, that is not right, and we are not going to let it happen. More recent events in the Persian Gulf area, where many of our closest allies have either refused to participate or refused to allow their soil to support American military operations, should make it very clear to everyone that we must have sealift fleets of vessels that we can count on under our flag and manned by Americans, and that is what this act does. This act has the strong endorsement of the Department of Defense. General Rutherford, the commander in chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, our Nation's top logistics commander, testified at our Commerce Committee hearing last July that his command wants assured access to this type of quality and quantity of sealift capacity and mariners necessary to meet Department of Defense contingency operations. This bill provides that. Without the enactment of this legislation this year, America's merchant marine on the sea lanes of the world could essentially disappear. I am told that our number of U.S.-flagged ships could drop to below 100. Forty years ago, this country had the largest merchant marine fleet in the world and over 4,000 vessels flying the U.S. flag in international trade. Today, there are fewer than 400. Today, we are the world's largest trading nation, but 15 countries have bigger fleets than we do. We send 96 percent of U.S. exports overseas on foreign-flagged ships. The United States must not become a second-class maritime power. Geography dictates that lesson today as much as it did 50 years ago. This Maritime Security Act is sound and vitally important. It is important legislation for our Nation's security, and it has been carefully developed by both Houses of Congress. It is essential to maintaining our maritime industry and defense readiness. Mr. President, this bill is a bill whose time has come. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about the pipeline bill, because I think this is a very important bill for the future and safety of our country. This is a bill that has been worked on for quite a long time. It is a bipartisan bill. I am very pleased that we have a safety pipeline program, we have a funding source. We are reauthorizing the Federal Pipeline Safety Program. I think everyone has worked in good faith. In fact, the bill is sponsored by Senator Lott, cosponsored by Senators Pressler, Stevens, Hutchison, Burns, Shelby, Cochran, Frist, Inhofe, Breaux, Ford, Exon, Inouye, Johnston, and Heflin. I think all of us want to make sure that the pipelines that are running through the ground in our country are as safe as they can possibly be. Of course, we have user fees that pay for the safety inspections and the Office of Pipeline Safety. I think this bill also adds some simple and flexible risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses to some of these new regulations. So I think we are going to be taking a giant step in the right direction with this bill. It does authorize the Office of Pipeline Safety funding through the year 2000 so that we will know that the source is good and that it is at a reasonable level. It is about what our budget resolution is today, and I think that we have made a great improvement. So I am very pleased to support this bill as the new chairman of the subcommittee from which this bill came. I think we have a good, bipartisan compromise that is going to move pipeline safety very, very much into the forefront of our consciousness as we continue to put down more pipeline and take more energy to the people of this country. Mr. President, I think Senator Lautenberg, who has also worked very hard on this bill, has remarks to make. Is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I just want to add, once again, my thanks to the leaders of this bill. We have talked about the importance of this bill to the management of the waters of the United States. It could not have come about without the leadership of Senator Pressler, the chairman of the committee, who really made it come together when there were many issues still left on the table. Certainly, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, along with Senator Kerry, Senator Hollings, Senator Breaux, Senator Lott--everyone worked so hard to do something that I think really will be for the benefit of all of the people who care about our waters, and use them either for commercial use or for recreation and conservation. Kudos to all. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby from Alabama be added as a prime cosponsor of my amendment to this bill, to the managers' amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I don't even need to take my 2 minutes. I will just say that this amendment has been agreed to by both sides. I want to especially thank Senators Lott, Stevens, Breaux, and Kerry for helping me to make sure that the management of bycatch applies in the Gulf of Mexico like it will apply to the rest of the bill and to the other waters contiguous to our country. Everybody is satisfied with this. I appreciate so much the cooperation and the staff cooperation. We could not have come to this agreement without a lot of hard work late last night and early this morning. I appreciate it very much. I ask for consideration of my amendment. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are going to try to work to see if we can get these amendments in a form that is acceptable to the others that are interested in this bill. It is very important to many of the recreational fishermen in my State that we try to have a level playing field for the recreational fishing people. I would like to try to work this out, and hopefully put off the vote until tomorrow. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That was the agreement. I thank the Chair. I think the Senator from Idaho said it all. If you are going to cut the defense budget at the same time that you continue to ask our military to do more with less, tell us where you want to cut. The President of the United States is now threatening to veto the Defense appropriations bill if we do not cut $2- to $3 billion out of it. As 3,500 troops are on their way to Kuwait to defend the interests of this country, the President is threatening to veto the Defense appropriations bill. How could he do it? With troops going into Haiti, with troops in Bosnia, overruns there right now, and more troops on the way to a hot spot in the Middle East, and he is telling Congress cut $2- to $3 billion out of the defense budget. Mr. President, where do you want to cut? Are you going to cut F-16's, as you send 23 more to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Or are you going to cut the cruise missiles that you did not put in the budget in the first place which have already been used in your operation over Iraq? Is that what you want to cut? Or do you want to cut the Humvees with the added armor that has already saved one life in Bosnia when a landmine was run over by a Humvee but the protection was there and an American life was saved? Is that what you want to cut? Those are the things in our budget that the President did not ask for and would be asking us to take out. Mr. President, step up to the line. If you are going to cut the defense budget, you tell us where you want to cut. It is very clear we are going to need Stealth bombers. We have already used them. Are we going to start cutting Stealth bombers as we are sending them into harm's way? Mr. President, step up to the line. Tell us where you want to cut. Let us be responsible. Let us fund our men and women who are defending the interests of this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the previous order was that I had the last 2 minutes after Senator Kempthorne's 3 minutes and then the Senator from North Dakota would have 45 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. In an effort to give the Senator everything I think he has asked for, not to be quibbling, the only reason that I would give up what I have by unanimous consent is because the Senator from Idaho has been waiting, and in order to give him 3 minutes I am going to give you whatever you want. So I will say that I will ask unanimous consent that the 3 minutes of the 5 minutes that I have left be given to the Senator from Idaho, and that then I will have 2 additional minutes for my 45 minutes, and then the Senator from North Dakota will control 45 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask if we could do this. Let me ask the Senator from Idaho to have up to 3 minutes now, and then the Senator from North Dakota would be able to get 45 minutes, and then I would have 2 additional minutes, whatever that would take.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. At this point, then, I would like to reserve my 2 minutes at the end and give the other 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me see if I can make this easier. Let me just take my last 5 minutes right now and then the Senator can have--if you are still wanting to go over, I am concerned about going past 11 just because of the order of voting and what Senators have been told. So if you would like, the point is you would like to have the last part of the debate, would you be willing to let me give 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, let me finish with 2 minutes, and then you take until 11. Would that be acceptable?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.