Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, but I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the majority leader yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for the wonderful job that he has done. It is never easy to make such changes as we are making in this bill. But it is one of the most important decisions that we will make, because it is one of the key elements to change the direction of this country as it relates to welfare and to allow us to balance the budget. We have heard a lot of talk this afternoon and this evening about helping children. Mr. President, if we are going to help the children of this country, the most important thing we can do is balance the budget. We cannot balance the budget unless we put welfare on a budget. If we do not put welfare on a budget, we will not be able to do what is right for this country. I am voting yes on this conference report for two reasons: We must take welfare off entitlement status and, Mr. President, we have talked all day and all night about the President saying he is going to veto this bill. There is one reason he is going to veto this bill. It is because we are taking welfare off entitlement status and putting it on a budget. That is the fundamental difference between the President and those of us who are going to support this bill. This bill does not cut welfare spending. This bill slows the rate of growth of welfare spending from 5.8 percent to 4.02 percent, less than 2 percentage points of difference in the rate of growth. We are going to spend more on welfare. But the difference is we are going to put some parameters around it. We are going to give the States the right to have a welfare program that fits the needs of their States. Mr. President, my Governor, George Bush, says, ``What are they talking about, hurting the children? Do they think I am going to have starving children in my home State?" My Governor is a graduate of Yale. I mean, it is not the University of Texas, but it is OK. I think he is enlightened. I think he can handle the job, and I think every other Governor in the United States of America knows best what will fit their State's needs. This is going to make some monumental changes in the priorities we have. We have heard tonight Senators saying, ``What are the priorities of this country?'' We are going to decide. The priorities of this country are that we want to help people who need a transition for a temporary period, and that is what this bill does. Can people stay on welfare if they are able-bodied and do not have young children under 6? They cannot do it forever. No, they cannot. They cannot stay on it generation to generation. They have to work after 2 years and they have a lifetime limitation of 5 years. What does that tell working people of this country, especially the working poor? It says there is an incentive for you to do what is right. No longer are you going to have to support people who can work but will not. If you can work and do, if you consider it a privilege to work and contribute to the economy of this country, you will not be subsidizing people who can work and do not. We have talked about what is a block grant and what is not a block grant. We are going to put AFDC on a block grant with growth. There is a formula that allows for the growth States to have a fair allocation. But there still is a safety net, Mr. President. There is a safety net in food stamps, in child nutrition. Those will not be block granted. Those are going to be based on need. So food and nutrition programs are a safety net, and they are kept in the bill as a safety net. Mr. President, we are going to set the priorities of our country with this bill. We are going to say to the working people of this country that it is worth something to work, it is a privilege in this country to have a job and to contribute to the economy and you are not going to be competing with someone who refuses to work even if they can. The working people of this country are going to know that we have a budget and that this is not going to be unlimited spending. Mr. President, I know that my time is up, and I will just say that we are making decisions that will determine the priorities of our country and we are going to get this country back on track and we are going to bring back what made this country great. It was the strong families, it was the spirit of entrepreneurship and the working relationships that have built this country. We are going to bring it back and make this country strong again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and thank the chairman.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for putting together a letter to the President asking the President to do what we believe he has the right to do, and that is pay veterans' benefits. Obviously, all of us are going to continue to negotiate and work with our leaders and are negotiating to stop the shutdown of Government. But, Mr. President, we do not have a whole lot of time before veterans' benefits are going to be late or will not be there at all, and that is not right. These are earned benefits. We believe and we have gotten legal opinions that say that the President has the right to declare that veterans' benefits are essential. Who could question that veterans' benefits are an essential part of Government? But, in fact, the Veterans Affairs bill that was passed by both bodies and sent to the President was vetoed in recent days. Now, once again, we are faced with veterans' benefits not being paid. The President and his administration said during the last Government shutdown that veterans' benefits are not on the list, not on the essential list. We believe that is an erroneous assumption; that is an erroneous look at the regulation and the laws that are in place right now. If anything is essential in this Government, it should be veterans' benefits. In fact, the President has declared that the people who process the veterans' benefits are essential, but the benefits are not. I would leave you to get the logic of that. Mr. President, we have sent a letter to the President--Senators Warner, Simpson, Dole, and myself, along with 34 other cosigners of the letter--asking the President merely to do what we believe he has the right to do, and let veterans know just before the holiday season that their benefits will not be late. But, in fact, if the President does not do this, we are prepared to pass a bill through the Senate that would require him to do it, or give him the authority to do it. The House is going to take that bill up tomorrow or the next day. We will take it up immediately thereafter. But the President could keep us from having to go through that routine if he is sincere in wanting to do what is right for the veterans of our country. I want to say thank you to Senator Warner for starting this process, for bringing it to our attention. I also want to say, because there are people on the floor here, that the authorization bill for the Department of Defense that just passed was obviously tough. It was a close vote. A lot of people are responsible for the authorization going through, making sure that the Defense Department does have the funding that it needs, especially in this time when we have young men and women going to Bosnia and who will be there and will look to us for the stability of funding to make sure that they have what they need. I thank Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the committee, for his leadership. He did a wonderful job. Without him, this bill would not have gone through. There are two or three other people who were integral to this process, and I want to say that Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator Lott from Mississippi, and Senator Cohen from Maine were essential to getting this bill through, to working it and staying with it and not giving up, despite the differences on the two sides of the aisle. So I thank the Senator from Virginia, and I commend him for getting his letter to the President. I hope the President will respond to the veterans and give them a Christmas present. They should not be put at peril and should not have to worry about it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not intend to take 10 minutes. I just wanted to respond to some of the things that were said by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas who has not supported the space station, and who raised a question about the Russian participation using some of the Mir hardware. I think it is very important that we look at the importance of space research and the space station, and look at the contribution that it has made to our economy. The Senator said that out of $94 billion, $90 billion is going to be put forward by America. In fact, the costs we are talking about are the development costs. That is what we are in now. The development costs are right at $30 billion of which $9 billion is being contributed by Europe, Japan, and Canada. Our Russian partners are contributing hardware for the Mir that works into the space station. It is certainly true that they are looking at other proposals which, of course, we all want to look at to see if they are going to save money, and if it is going to be in everyone's best interest to do it. I think that is what NASA is certainly going to do, and it is the right thing for them to do. But I think it is important that we look at what the space station has contributed for our country. First, it has been cut 35 percent from its original target budget. That has saved the taxpayers of America $40 billion. They are working in an efficient way to do this space research that is so important for our future technology, and our future jobs in a way that the taxpayers can afford. In fact, aerospace is the single strongest export sector of the United States economy. In 1993, exports topped $40 billion. When we look at exactly what the space station is going to do, there are certain things that can only be done in microgravity conditions. You cannot duplicate microgravity conditions on Earth. You must be in space. Senator Mikulski and I have been working on women's health issues, and it is women's health issues that will get the greatest gain from the microgravity research. They are going to be able to look into osteoporosis, bone mass loss, which particularly attacks women. And breast cancer cells are able to be duplicated and grown in the microgravity conditions. They find that is the very best way they are able to study breast cancer cells. So I think we are looking at tremendous contributions to women's health care by the use of the microgravity conditions that can only be done in space and not on Earth. You cannot duplicate microgravity on Earth no matter what you do. So this is a unique capability that is very important for our future. This is the largest cooperative science program in history. We have 13 nations now participating in this science project. I think that is the wave of the future. If we are going to go into the big science technology and research, we should have other countries able to contribute, not only because it saves our taxpayer dollars, but these are things that should be shared with other countries so that we can get the most benefit from this kind of research. So I think it is very important, as we close this debate, to say that space research produces $2 for every $1 invested--$2 into our economy. That means 40,000 direct and indirect jobs that come from this. But most of all, Mr. President, it is a commitment to the future. It is a commitment that was made by President Kennedy because he could see that there was so much more technology and science available if we had the vehicle to go into space and collect it. In fact, he would never even have dreamed of the successes that we have had because he was willing to take that chance and put America in the forefront and leadership of technological research. We cannot step back from that. It would not be in our best interest to do so. It would not allow us to stay at the forefront of creating jobs and creating new industries and new products that will keep our economy thriving and able to bring in people who are going to be growing into the job market. So I am very pleased to support this project. I am pleased to support this conference report. I have worked with Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski to try to make sure that the space station does have what it needs to do the job that it must do. I am very impressed with the problems they had. Having VA and HUD and space, NASA research and all of the independent agencies and making the difficult choices was something to behold, and they did an excellent job. This is probably going to be a close vote. I cannot imagine that they could have divided up a bill any more fairly than they did on this one. So I commend them for their hard work. It was hard to get a consensus on these difficult issues. They did a terrific job, and I am pleased to support them. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been trying to help resolve an egregious expropriation executed by the Dominican Republic's military against Western Energy, Inc. Western Energy is headquartered in my State and operated an important liquid petroleum gas facility in the Dominican Republic until the military took over in April 1994. Our Ambassador to the Dominican Republic should be commended for her efforts to resolve the expropriation suffered by Western Energy. The names of the persons involved are well known because the case is prominent and, I am told, has caused great outrage and shame over the Government's action. Would my distinguished colleague join me in encouraging the U.S. Ambassador to inform the affected persons that promptly upon enactment of section 168 in H.R. 927 they will be excluded from the United States until the Western Energy case is satisfactorily resolved?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with the distinguished manager, the senior Senator from North Carolina, section 168 of S. 908. First, I want to commend the Senator for his leadership on behalf of all U.S. citizens who have suffered expropriations throughout the world. The Senator has been a great champion for these Americans whose rights have been trampled by foreign governments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at the end of 4 minutes, I would like to be notified once again. We must provide the theater missile defense that gives us the umbrella to defend ourselves from the 16 countries that now have ballistic missile capabilities. But sending troops into Bosnia is going to take $5 billion from our defense readiness and from the capability to provide that kind of technology in the future. The third tenet set out is to provide weapons and technical assistance to other countries where warranted but do not commit American forces to local conflicts. And that is exactly what we are doing. These are principles of a superpower. These are principles that keep the United States strong and uses our force when it is really necessary to keep a threat to the security of our country from happening. Sending troops into Bosnia does not meet any of the tests of good, sound principles for our country, and we must make this President understand that there are many of us in Congress who do not believe he is within his power to go without consulting and asking the authorization of Congress to commit 20,000 troops on the ground. That is why we must a adopt the resolution or get a good vote. I do not know that it will be adopted. But I hope that there is a strong vote that tells the President that we need to sit down and have a strategy and there is a difference between a U.S. security interest in which we would put American troops in harm's way. We all want to help the Bosnian people, and we can do it in many ways. But troops on the ground, American lives at risk is not the right way. Mr. President, finally, it has been said several times on the floor that somehow it would not be supporting the troops to adopt the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution. It is very clear. The resolution is simple. Section 1 says: The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces into Bosnia. The second section says: The Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the peace framework. We are supporting the troops. I think every Member of the U.S. Senate intends to support the troops. We are going about it in different ways. I believe supporting the troops is narrowing the mission, is saying this is a mistake and, therefore, let us put a time limit on it, and if you would consider changing your mind, that would be the best of all worlds. This is a dangerous mission, and we hope the President will have every opportunity to reconsider this decision before it is too late. That is why we believe this resolution should be adopted to support the troops by protecting them. Others may legitimately differ in passing the Dole resolution. Either way, we must support the troops, and I hope that we will adopt the resolution that opposes the President so that he will bring those troops home before the mass deployment occurs. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask that the Senate resume the Bosnia debate, and it be in order for the leader to offer his joint resolution at a later time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 10:15 this evening, the Senate proceed to the final vote on the pending Hutchison-Inhofe concurrent resolution without further action or debate, and immediately following the vote, the Senate proceed to the final vote on the Dole-McCain joint resolution on Bosnia, with the time between now and 10:15 p.m. this evening to be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Helms be added in the next available Republican slot.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a unanimous consent request to add Senator Helms in the next available slot?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am sorry to hear that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I could answer, I think there are at least 20 people signed up to this point. I was, of course, hoping that the distinguished minority leader might be able to put a time agreement together, and then I think we could gauge the length of the speeches a little more and perhaps reach a conclusion, and I assume that everyone would like to do this before the President leaves at 6 o'clock or so.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mack be added in speaker order after Senator Sarbanes and Senator Jeffords be added after Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lott be traded in speaking order for Senator Domenici, who would be next, and also that Senator Kassebaum be added after Senator Nunn in the speaking order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Hatfield is on his way to the floor, and he is next in line to replace Senator DeWine in the order. I wanted to take this opportunity until he gets here to answer what several Senators have said on the floor--most recently, the Senator from California, and before that, the Senator from Connecticut-- regarding people who would support my resolution, who are in full support of the troops, though they have questions about this mission. I think it is very important that every one of us in this body give to each other Member the right to have a vote of conscience. And there are many of us who do not think this is the right mission, but who are going to go full force to support our troops. In fact, we believe we are supporting our troops in the most effective way by opposing this mission because we think it is the wrong one. I do not question anyone's motives, or how they feel, if they vote against the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution. But, by the same token, I think it is important that those who are going to support the Dole- McCain resolution and the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution--that it be known that they, too, are doing what they think is right. It is a tough decision for anyone to vote to put troops in harm's way. And if someone decides that they can best support the troops by opposing the President's decision, I think that everyone knows, or should know, that that is the right of every Senator to do. There have been other missions in the history of this country, in which the people have been good people, supported by America, well equipped, given everything they need to succeed in their mission, but nevertheless the same people in America have not agreed with the mission. I think the mission in Vietnam was certainly controversial. But the people of this country loved and revered the people who went to Vietnam from our Armed Forces and fought there for our country. So I do not think there is any question whatsoever that you cannot support a mission and support the troops fully. I think that each of us has the ability to make this decision for ourselves. As I have said, I think it is incumbent on a Member of Congress to make this decision. It is a constitutional responsibility that we were given by the Founders. They did not want it to be easy to send troops into a foreign conflict. That is why they put Congress in the power to declare war. I do not know that our Founders had even thought about peacekeeping missions and the nuances that we would have on declaring war. I do not think they thought about a Commander in Chief sending our troops into what is talked about as peace, but which, in fact, is sending our troops into military conflicts. I think they would have envisioned that Congress should authorize a peacekeeping mission that the President and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have said is going to put troops in harm's way, where there may be casualties, and I believe our Founders would have wanted authorization by Congress. They did not want it to be easy to send our troops into harm's way. That is why they made it the decision of Congress to declare war, while the Commander in Chief would run the operation. The Commander in Chief does have the right to run the military. There is no question about it. But it is very clear in the Constitution that Congress should be consulted and authorized any time our troops are sent into harm's way. I was holding the floor for the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, who has now arrived. I yield the floor to him for his comments.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent Senator Snowe be sequenced following Senator Bradley in speaking order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we need to get aunanimous consent on the next sequence of speakers. I wish to do that so that people know how to plan their afternoon. This is the second list after the one that was agreed to earlier, and it would include Senator DeWine, then Feinstein, then Lott, then Biden, then Ashcroft, Kohl, Hatfield, Levin, Inhofe, Byrd, Faircloth, Wellstone, D'Amato, Murray, Leahy, Simon, Bradley, and Nunn, and there will be Republicans between Murray, Leahy, Simon, Bradley, and Nunn. Senator Murkowski would be after Senator Byrd. I ask unanimous consent that we put that order in place so that people can begin to plan. And I urge, but do not ask for unanimous consent, that people hold their remarks to 5 minutes so that everyone will have a chance, with the hope that we would be able to vote around midafternoon on the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution and then around 5 on the Dole-McCain resolution.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, yes, I would like to vote as early as we can. I think most people are speaking in general terms so I think midafternoon. And then I would like to see the final vote on yours around 5 so that the House could have the opportunity, if that is possible.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Certainly.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to finish my statement, unless the majority leader is seeking recognition.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Nebraska has been waiting, and I am not going to take long because I want him to have his chance. But I do want to take this time to respond to the Senator from Connecticut who said he did not understand how someone can say they support the troops but do not support the mission. I just want to say, I think it is very easy to say you do support the troops but you do not support the mission. I think we have sent troops into harm's way in this country when we should not have done it. No one would ever not support the people who are giving their lives, putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom.