Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I put an amendment on the floor in the open body of the Senate about 6:45 last night. About 10:30 I saw the senior senator from Nebraska protesting that I had put an amendment in that he had just now heard about. This was not some new amendment. This was an amendment that embodied language that has already been passed by this body. Every sentence in it has already been voted on and passed by the U.S. Senate. So what does the amendment do? Because we are being held up in the Defense authorization bill, I wanted to make sure that the very important language that we had already passed would be part of the appropriations bill. It is important because it is a key issue between the Republicans and the Democrats. I think that has become very clear because that is now why we know that the authorization bill is being held up and the threat of holding up this bill has now been made. What does the amendment do? The amendment provides for Department of Energy to maintain and enhance of our nuclear deterrent capabilities. The bill provides further direction to the DOE to make necessary decisions to clean up nuclear waste sites.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand that when the report is released it may say that rather than having two F/A18 squadrons, the Marine Corps Reserve is considering a squad with a different mix of Harriers, Cobras and Hueys. The problem is, Mr. President, there remains a question of funding the nearly $280 million necessary to implement this new mix. Furthermore, I understand that even if they were able to find $280 million to pay for these aircraft, they still have not addressed the increased training costs that would be caused by basing [[Page S 12196]] these aircraft in North Carolina, as some have suggested. When the F/A18 squadrons are activated they will be based in major metropolitan areas where the demographic pool for potential reservists is larger. Standing up two F/A18 squadrons in the Marine Corps Reserves achieves two objectives. First, it assures that Marine Expeditionary Forces have enough dedicated airborne firepower. Second, it achieves this necessary goal at the least cost possible.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton and commend him for the great job he has done putting together a very difficult bill. There are important parts of this bill that will have a lasting impact. One of those is the extension of the Endangered Species Act moratorium which I sponsored, and was enacted, several months ago to try to wait until we have reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act so that future listings will have the stamp of congressional intent in a revised Endangered Species Act. This moratorium is a very important part of the legislation before us. We have seen so many jobs lost, so many people devastated in their ability to use their land and farm and ranch and make their livelihoods, because of the Endangered Species Act being overzealously enforced. I believe that the Endangered Species Act was passed with all the right intentions, and I think many of the things that are done by Fish and Wildlife are very good. But we have seen such excesses that the water supply of two cities in my State, Amarillo and San Antonio, have been endangered by bait fish, the Arkansas River shiner and the fountain darter in the Edwards aquifer. We now see the same thing coming forward with the same Edwards aquifer, only this time it is three beetles that have now been proposed as endangered, despite the effect on the water supply of the 10th largest city in America. So I do appreciate the fact that we are extending the moratorium until the earlier of reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, or until the end of 1996, which will give Congress the time to set parameters for the Endangered Species Act that will assure that we have balanced the needs of people with species. We added money to the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget during floor debate on this bill. I expect that the listing money will be used only to delist some of the endangered species that really should not be on the list, and the prelisting money for species conservation so that we will not have to list new endangered species. That would be a very good use of our taxpayer dollars. The second thing that I think is very important that we put in this bill, and I want to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for agreeing to do it, is in the National Biological Survey language. We make sure that a private property owner must give permission for any new surveys under this act, and including aerial surveys. We have had instances in my State and others where airplanes paid for by the National Biological Survey have flown over private property without permission taking pictures for habitat studies. That is now prohibited in this act. That is why I think it is very important that we pass the act and say, once again, that private property is protected by the Constitution of the United States. I think the Congress is speaking today to make sure that everyone understands--that the people in Washington, in Government understand-- that we are going to protect private property rights, and I think we have taken a step in the right direction today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment because I agree with many of those who have spoken so far that we are a nation that should be committed to the American culture, and it should be a priority. I should like to speak from personal experience. I grew up in La Marque, TX, a town of 15,000. Now, obviously we did not have cultural centers in La Marque, TX, but because of the NEA and because of the commitment that we have in America to making sure our young people do have the ability to have access to the arts, I was able to go 35 miles to Houston, TX, to see the ballet, to see the opera, to see the symphony. And from that, I received an awareness of a very important performing arts culture that I would not have had as a young girl in a very small town. That is duplicated all over this country. In Abilene, TX, a town of under 50,000, they now have a burgeoning opera helped by the NEA, and just this past month they performed ``La Traviata,'' and it was a sellout at every performance. Do we have problems with the NEA? Absolutely, we do. We all acknowledge that there are problems with the way things have been handled where taxpayers have been required to fund offensive art. Is the answer to do away with the American commitment to our culture? Absolutely not. What we must do is make sure we are funding what is uniquely American and what is educational for young people from small towns as well as young people in our inner cities about what is good in the world. An appreciation of the arts is a very important part of overall education. Senator Bennett of Utah and myself came up with a new bill to reorganize the NEA. Senator Jeffords and Senator Kassebaum came up with other ways to reorganize the NEA. Each is coming at this in a different way but not in such a different way that we will not be able to make some changes to improve the NEA, the NEH, and our museum services so that they will be available for more people in our country and so that we also will be able to keep the national treasures such as we have in Washington and New York. I think we can come up with a fair allocation. In our bill that Senator Bennett spoke about earlier today, we make sure that the funding goes to organizations of the arts, not to individual artists that might do things that would offend the conscience of mainstream America. We also have an outright ban of any kind of obscenity, pornography or anything that would violate the standards of common decency. Some people in the arts community like to say, ``Oh, but you cannot define decency. That would be too hard. That would offend our artistic license.'' I could not disagree more. There is a standard of common decency. And when we are using American taxpayer dollars, I think we can easily determine what should be used for arts appreciation and what is inappropriate. Do those people have a right to go out and use private funds to have their interpretation of art? Absolutely. But do we have to have Government funding of that? No. I think we can make a clear distinction with American taxpayer dollars. So, yes, we have some problems. But we can face those problems without giving up the commitment to America's culture and to educate our children about the importance of appreciating the opera, appreciating our art museums, appreciating symphonies, and the ballet. Because I grew up in a town that was close to Houston where we had regional art centers, I was able to go to Houston every Saturday morning and participate in the Houston Youth Symphony ballet. So I had the opportunity to perform, to have access to this kind of very important part of my education. I want to make sure that the young girls and boys growing up all over our country have regional centers and that we have a commitment to that so that they will grow up to be able to appreciate and understand the importance of arts in our country. I want to end with a quote from John Ruskin, the great British art historian of the last century, who set down the standard for nations when he wrote, ``Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art.'' Mr. President, I want to make sure that we have the book of art and the book of words along with our great standard of deeds in this country for our future generations to appreciate. And that is the purpose of this amendment and the purpose of Senator Bennett and myself working with Senator Jeffords and Senator Kassebaum to make sure that the NEA does what our standards would require that they do; and that is, provide the support for the excellence in the arts for our future generations to be able to have the access that we would like for them to have. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think from the debate that we have heard so far on this issue, that we see clearly the fundamental differences about what welfare should be and how we make it what we want it to be. We are taking up a reform of historic magnitude. We have laid the framework for a revolution in the way our country goes about giving help to those who have been told for too long that they are incapable of helping themselves. Over the past 30 years, our welfare system has become an agent of despair [[Page S 11754]] for those who are trapped in its coils. And if we know one thing about our current welfare system, it is that we are not getting our money's worth. There are two constituencies that we must serve in this reform-- the taxpayer and the welfare recipient. Neither the taxpayers, who foot the bill, nor the beneficiaries themselves are getting fair treatment under the present welfare program. You do not help anyone by encouraging self-destructive behavior. The original intent of welfare was something very different from what we have in place today. In the 1930's Americans wanted to open our hands and our hearts to the most desperate victims of the Great Depression, indigent widows and their children. Then beginning in 1965, our War on Poverty attempted to nudge those on the bottom rung of the ladder in the direction of middle-class security. But we have failed miserably. The percentage of Americans living in poverty has risen steadily at the same time that our welfare apparatus has grown. What we have created instead is a self-perpetuating monster that sustains the most distressing ills of our society--illegitimacy, the disintegration of the family, weakening of the work ethic, and crippling dependency. Indirectly, it feeds ever-rising levels of functional illiteracy, violence, and juvenile crime. The American people are demanding to know why, after an expenditure of $5 trillion, there are more people living in poverty today than ever before in our country. A partial explanation is the growth of the welfare delivery sector of the Government and the private sector hangers-on. It is in their interest to make sure that more and more money is spent on poverty programs without regard to whether we are reducing the number of people living in poverty. The American people also wonder, after spending $5 trillion, that anyone could think a continuation of the present system with more money could be even a step in the direction of solving this problem. The fact is, those who administer these programs and those who advocate them have no incentive to encourage welfare beneficiaries to move forward with their lives. Dependency is presented as acceptable and inevitable. Individual responsibility and all it implies is discounted. This is neither beneficial nor benign. We have lured those in need down a dead-end street. The welfare reform measures we are considering today would short circuit the bureaucracy which the Federal Government has created and hand most of the responsibility over to the States. This will free each State to experiment with new strategies for welfare, new approaches to giving beneficiaries incentives to work and contribute to the American economy. This State involvement with the welfare apparatus is a pivotal element of our reform plans. Unless the Federal Government steps aside and lets the States go forward, we will lose the innovation that the States have put into the system. That is where the creativity has been. And in many instances this has happened in part because the States, unlike Congress, are required by their constitutions to come up with a balanced budget every year. Because they are closer to the people and can respond to changing conditions more quickly than the Federal Government, the States have been able to come up with effective, innovative programs in their reform efforts. Nearly 30 States have requested waivers from the Federal Government to enact reforms. Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson says the welfare rolls in his State have dropped 19 percent while the national rate has increased to 32 percent. Here are some of his innovative programs: learnfare, which requires welfare teenagers to stay in school; marriagefare, which creates incentives to marry and have no additional children while still on welfare; and workfare, which ends cash assistance after 2 years and requires work in return for other benefits. Because of forward-looking programs like these, the States have earned the reputation for being laboratories for innovation. Passage of the bill we have under consideration today will encourage the States to achieve reform quickly and give them the freedom to continue their experimentation. It is time for the Federal Government to step aside and let the States run with the ball. Mr. President, the American people are entitled to know that we mean business here today. The Republican welfare reform bill we are debating will: End welfare as a way of life by limiting the amount and time of assistance that can be made available. It will require able-bodied recipients to work, not enrolled in an endless series of job training programs, but begin to work, showing up every day like the rest of us do, no later than 2 years after the assistance begins. Reinforce families and cultivate personal responsibility. States will be able to deny cash payments to teenage mothers but instead require single teens to stay in school and live with adult supervision, preferably their parents or grandparents. Applicants for benefits will be required to cooperate in establishing the paternity of their children. Deadbeat parents will be confronted with the painful consequences of their irresponsibility. That is how our bill will affect welfare beneficiaries. But it has other ramifications as well. No State will lose its present Federal allotment, and growth States will have an increase each year to help with growing needs. I am going to talk about this later in the debate when there will be an amendment on allocation of Federal dollars. I have worked very hard on a formula that I think is fair, fair to the States that are not growing, fair to the States that are growing, and fair to the States that get more in the beginning and fair to the States that get more in the end. It is a good formula. It takes into account each specific State's unique problems. The Federal welfare bureaucracy will be reduced by 30 percent. Federal welfare spending will drop by more than $65 billion below current projected levels over the next 7 years. We must not lose sight of the goalpost. We are actually going to reduce the cost of welfare in this country for the first time in a long, long time. This bill will empower the States as never before. What is more, moving the responsibility for these programs to the States will give taxpayers more direct say in the targeting of welfare assistance. Last, and perhaps most important, Mr. President, I, like most Americans, believe that no one should have an unrestricted right to live off the toil of others. The crucial element in this welfare legislation is its work provisions. Under this bill, work means work as most Americans understand it. It means participants will have to go to work every day and, yes, maybe do things they do not particularly like to do. We have all had that experience in life. The decisions of welfare beneficiaries, like ours, will have consequences. A welfare recipient whose assistance is reduced for failing to work will no longer be able to turn around and get a handout from another source in the form of food stamps or housing assistance increases. States will be able to require welfare applicants to look for a job before they ever get a welfare check. That will be their option. This bill requires 25 percent of each State's welfare caseload to be working by 1996 and 50 percent to be working by the year 2000. The States can exceed these requirements if they choose, and we hope they will. The bill imposes a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. Mr. President, when we have enacted this legislation, we will be able to look the American people in the eye and tell them that we have made a difference, that we are trying to make things better for both constituencies: The taxpayers who are footing the bill and the welfare recipients who we want to give a hand up to. We want the welfare beneficiaries to have the dignity that comes with making a contribution, with giving an honest day's labor for the money they receive. They will be better off and their children will be better off if we can make individual responsibility a part of this country once again. If everyone would work together on a bipartisan basis, we can have a bipartisan victory, a victory for the recipients who will know the pride of earning a living, paying their own way in society, and a victory for the taxpayers who are working people who are trying to meet their own family responsibilities. [[Page S 11755]] Mr. President, that is what this bill is all about. I hope that at the end of this week, we will be able to go back home and tell the American people that we have made a giant step forward for both the recipients of welfare and the taxpayers who have carried a heavy load and know it has not worked. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with the passage of NAFTA, cities and towns along the border are increasingly interested in expanding the opportunities for trade and economic growth. An essential factor in this growth is the presence of new or expanded border stations at new river or land border crossings. These stations house agents of the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Department of Agriculture. New or expanded facilities are essential in encouraging trade and in meeting the objectives and dreams of NAFTA. The normal procedure for the construction of border stations is for the General Services Administration to build and own them. The rationale is that these buildings are long-term investments of the Federal Government and Federal ownership is the most cost-effective form of ownership. Up to now the funding for these projects has come through two channels. One is the congressionally authorized Southwest Border Station Capital Improvement Program started in 1988. It has funded improvements along the southern border. The other is for the U.S. Customs Service, the INS, the Department of Agriculture to provide GSA with a list annually of desired border station projects. They are then included in GSA's capital budget. Both methods were successful prior to the passage of NAFTA in meeting the need for border station facilities in a manner that, if not always as timely as desired by State and local governments and private sponsors, did provide funding. Three events have changed the situation: First, increased demand for new border crossings. The passage of NAFTA has increased the importance of trade with Mexico and Canada as a source of jobs and income. This has caused towns and cities on both sides for the border to seek additional border crossings in order to accommodate expected future traffic. Second, reduced Federal funding for construction. Budget cuts are reducing the funds available for new construction, including border stations. GSA is under pressure to reduce construction projects by hundreds of millions of dollars. Third, reduced Federal flexibility to meet the demand for new stations. Because of budget scoring rules introduced under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, GSA cannot economically lease a border station. If a local government or sponsor is willing to build and lease the facility to GSA for 20 years, GSA under the new scoring rules must provide all the money up front for the stream of payments over the 20-year period. This makes the leasing alternative as expensive as new construction in a time of reduced budgets. GSA cannot spread the cost over 20 years, even though they can lease the border station. No homeowner would be able to afford a mortgage if these rules applied. This is particularly frustrating to local sponsors since many are willing to lease the stations and then give them to GSA after the lease term. realities and remedies NAFTA is a reality--the demand for new crossing will not diminish, but increase. Federal budget reduction is a reality--the availability of Federal funds for border stations is not increasing, but diminishing. The budget scoring of leasing transactions for border stations is the consequence of much broader issues that Congress and the administration were dealing with that had nothing to do with border stations. Changing the scoring rules for border stations resolves the problem. Under this language, the Administrator of General Services will report on leasing arrangements whereby the GSA can enter into lease with State and local governments, as well as private sponsors, for the construction of border stations for a period of up to 30 years. The language provides that such a report will acknowledge that at the end of the lease term the Federal Government owns the border stations. amendment no. 2244 Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2244) for Mr. Bingaman. At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici, in the budget resolution, provided that there would be no increases in salaries of Members of Congress until this budget is balanced. I think that is a fair contract with the American people. Senator Thompson today is implementing that decision and we must do it in every appropriations bill that comes forward. That is necessary for us to show that we are going to do what every American is doing when times are hard. By freezing the salaries, we can contribute to this ending of the budget deficit so that our children and grandchildren will have a chance to grow up with the kinds of childhoods we have been able to grow up in and love in America. So I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and our leader for making sure that we are going to do the right thing. You have seen, the American people have seen, Mr. President, you have seen in the last few weeks and days and hours how hard it is for us to make the necessary cuts to do what is right for America. But we are going to do it. We are showing that we are going to do it, that we have the commitment, that we have the tenacity, that we have the will to do what is right, no matter how hard it is, so that our children will be able to inherit an America that is free from debt at some point in their future so that they will not have to pay taxes so onerous that they will not have the quality of life that we enjoy today. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the importance of maintaining a safe and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent, and in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, the issue is not testing of new weapons. It is assuring a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent. If the United States is to maintain a nuclear weapons capability, we must be able to assure the safety and reliability of our existing stockpile. Unless we have the capability to continue experiments and testing, we cannot ensure either. We must continue to make needed investments in nuclear weapons stockpile maintenance. Nothing in the bill that is pending before us will violate any treaty or obligation, nor will it violate self-imposed moratorium on nuclear testing. Hydronuclear testing will not violate any existing U.S. treaty commitments, nor would it violate the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that we are trying to negotiate. But such testing does provides the essential margin of safety we need--short of the resumption of full-scale nuclear testing. I would add that the President has reserved the right to resume testing, if deemed to be vital to our national security interests and maintenance of our nuclear deterrent. The amendment that has been proposed will nullify our ability to assure to stockpile safety and reliability. We will not get to the goal of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty if we unilaterally preclude ourselves from conducting essential stockpile maintenance and relaiblity activities, including hydronuclear testing. One critical component of U.S. nuclear stockpile management is the Pantex Nuclear Weapons Plant, a Department of Energy [DOE] facility located in Amarillo, TX. The Pantex plant, along with Savannah River, Y-12 and the Kansas City plant, is one of the few remaining production sites with existing infrastructure and capabilities that, if upgraded in place, can cost-effectively and meet the needs of nuclear weapons stockpile management and missile material disposition requirements identified in the Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review. However, Mr. President, I remain very concerned that the Department of Energy's published 5-year budget plan calls for cuts in weapons activities of up to 40 percent in fiscal year 1997 and beyond. The DOE portion of the Defense authorization bill should be used for its intended purpose--to meet the nuclear deterrent capability our national security needs require. Our nuclear weapons complex is undergoing a crucial reconfiguration. I am concerned that decisions could be made which would both compromise the integrity of our nuclear deterrent and needlessly waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The current and future existence and full utilization of our production sites, working with the national labs, is critical to maintaining an effective and efficient nuclear deterrent. Pantex, as the sole site in the United States for assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of nuclear warheads, as well as the primary site for interim storage of plutonium components removed from these weapons, is key to a cost-effective, competent nuclear deterrent in a scaled-back complex. Some proposals in DOE would suggest that Pantex and the other production sites be phased out, with the Nevada test site becoming the sole production site for the complex. This course, however, would not only deprive our country of the ability to remanufacture and deal with significant weapons production if the need ever arose, but would also result in the needless recreation of a multibillion-dollar infrastructure at Nevada which already exists at the existing production sites. By retaining and upgrading Pantex as the primary stockpile stewardship and management facility, we would also realize other cost savings, in the form of avoided transport cost and duplicative environmental, security, and safety expenditures. We must ensure an orderly and safe transition to civilian stewardship of nuclear materials decommissioned from military use. I believe that one of the most critical national security issues facing our country today is the safe, environmentally sound, and secure storage and disposition of these materials. An example of this transition would be purification and fabrication of weapons components. Such capacity could complement a reactor for the dedicated source of tritium production, by fabricating mixed oxide fuel from plutonium components for disposition in such a reactor. One key element to implementation of this transition for the entire complex is the National Resource Center for Plutonium, which is operated by a consortium of Texas universities. The center was funded at $9 million in fiscal year 1995, and the administration and the House-passed version of the Defense authorization bill recommended authority for $10 million in fiscal year 1996, with recommendations for continuing support in fiscal year 1997. This center enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the national labs, in its work with [[Page S 11368]] fissile material disposition supplements. I would like to personally thank Chairman Thurmond and Senators Lott and Kempthorne for the outstanding work done by the Senate Armed Services Committee in bringing needed attention to nuclear stockpile management and the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent capabilities, which addresses, head-on, the concerns raised in the Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review. Mr. President, the position outlined in the Senate Armed Services Committee Defense authorization bill provides the Department of Energy with clear guidance to maintain and enhance our nuclear deterrent capabilities. At the same time, the bill provides direction to DOE to make the necessary decisions to clean up nuclear waste sites; to address the issue of plutonium and highly enriched uranium disposition; to consider new reactor options for disposition of fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials--plutonium--through fabrication of mox fuel and the burning up of mox fuel in a reactor; and finally to make a rational choice, in the very near term, for a dedicated source of tritium production. Mr. President, nuclear weapons stockpile management is a critical element in putting us on the right course to meet our critical national security requirements and this legislation sets us on the right course and gives needed direction and support to the Department of Energy. I am proud to be part of and supportive of the efforts of the Senate Armed Services Committee to address in a meaningful and realistic manner our Nation's critical national security and defense needs. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think there is a fundamental issue here, and that is, as the world changes, is the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress going to continue to meet the challenges of the new world that we face today? The world has changed since the ABM Treaty. No longer are we a bipolar world. We now know--and it has been published often in newspapers--that there are numerous countries that have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Do they have the ability to attack the United States with these weapons? We believe that some might. So the question is: Are we going to unilaterally disarm our ability to defend our shores from a potential attack? That is the issue. We cannot, in any way, limit our capability to meet the challenges of the post cold war, multipolar world that we are living in today. So I hope that we will not do anything that will lessen our ability to defend our shores. We must have a theater ballistic missile defense. We must continue to go forward to make sure we have the technology to defend ourselves against any incoming missiles, or to defend our armed services in any theater in which they may be fighting. That is the core issue today. So I hope that our colleagues understand the significance of this argument. This is not, in any way, partisan; it ought not be in any way a matter for discussion, really; it is a matter of priorities and what our leadership role is. I hope that we will put aside partisan views on this issue and look at our responsibility to defend our shores and our future generations. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Two or three minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the matter before us today is very serious and extremely important. It is not an issue for partisanship. It is an issue that demands of each of us our best judgment of what is right and wrong. What is right about this matter is that the Senate Ethics Committee has been scrupulous about investigating every charge and accusation lodged against the Senator from Oregon. It is unprecedented in Senate history that so much time and effort has been devoted to assembling the facts on such a matter. What is wrong is that this amendment threatens to render null and void all that has been done to date. The Ethics Committee must be allowed to finish its work and make its recommendations. At that point the full Senate will be called upon to agree or disagree and act on the recommendation. The full Senate will be heard on this matter. The question is whether we will wait to hear the Ethics Committee decision as our rules require us to do. If we are not going to wait for the Ethics Committee's full report and recommendations before acting, we might as well disband the committee completely and conduct all future proceedings on the floor of the Senate. I think that bypassing the committee and conducting public hearings at this critical moment in the Packwood case would be a terrible mistake. If we open these hearings and overrule our bipartisan Ethics Committee today, we will set the precedent that its authority can be usurped at any time the majority intends to make political points or whatever motive the majority might have. I have been asked how my position on this question pending before the Senate squares with my position regarding sexual harassment in the Navy. In the case of the Tailhook incident, the Navy conducted its investigation. I was asked if the investigations were adequate. In my judgment, they were not. The case before us is very different. We have an investigation in process. No recommendation has yet been made. But some of our Members want to make a judgment on its adequacy before it is finished. And I think that is wrong; wrong for the Senate and wrong for the process we have established for ethics cases. I believe we should not change the rules in the middle of the case. If we decide the rules should be changed, we should do so when and if we have acted on the Ethics Committee recommendation and judged it to be inadequate. I believe fair play to all concerned is to give our respect to the process and to wait for the Ethics Committee to act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, yesterday I proposed an amendment to instruct the United States delegation as to the sense of the Congress regarding the representative American perspective the United States delegation should promote at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women which will be held in Beijing, China from September 4 to 15, 1995. I am pleased that the amendment was adopted today by voice vote. My amendment instructs the U.S. delegates to recognize the importance of motherhood, to uphold the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society upon which healthy cultures are built, and to define or agree with definitions of gender only as the biological classification of male and female. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that an amendment of this nature was even necessary. Most Americans would respond that of course a U.S. delegation to an international conference would be eager to uphold the family as the fundamental unit of society and of course, that there are only two genders, male and female. However, the delegates to the Fourth World Conference on Women have made these simple concepts an issue, and therefore, we need to be clear that our U.S. delegation represents the views of most Americans. At the last preconference meeting, held in New York City in March 1995, one nation suggested that the word ``mother'' be removed from the platform document and replaced with ``caretaker.'' What about the traditional family? We have heard a great deal of discussion lately about families and the important role they play in the well-being of children and society. Conservatives and liberals alike are lamenting the breakdown of the American family and the dire consequences--such as increased crime, high teen pregnancy rates, drug use and lower educational performance which result from a breakdown in the family and family values. On all sides of the political spectrum there is a growing understanding that the family is the single most important factor in combating these problems. Finally, on the issue of gender Mr. President, this issue on its face seems ridiculous. At the March 15, 1995 Preparatory Committee meeting for the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, delegates prepared a draft platform. The word gender appears 184 times in that document. The use of gender had never been an issue as a majority of delegates assumed that the term did not need definition. In response to the various questions about the definition of gender, the conference leadership floated the definition: Gender refers to the relationship between women and men based on socially defined roles that are assigned to one sex or the other. Delegates pressed for bracketing the word gender until a definition could be agreed upon. Bella Abzug of the U.S. delegation in an angry speech contested the bracketing saying: We will not be forced back in the ``biology is destiny'' concept . . . the meaning of the word ``gender'' has evolved as differentiated from the word sex to express the reality that women's and men's roles and status are socially constructed and subject to change. Many delegates became convinced that this move to refine gender was designed to forward an entirely different agenda, and not to further the interests of ordinary women, the primary purpose of the Conference. When many of these delegations sought to define gender as ``male and female, the two sexes of human being'' that definition proved unacceptable to many Western nations and even the U.S. delegation did not want to be bound by a two-gender definition. The United Nations responded to these concerns by issuing a statement that said ``gender is a relative concept'' and its ``roles can vary with time and circumstance.'' It is for that reason that my amendment sought to ensure that the U.S. delegation agree with the definition of gender as the biological classification of male and female, which are the two sexes of the human being. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment was to ensure that those who represent the women of the United States at a world conference on women must indeed be representative of the majority of the women in America. The amendment which the Senate adopted today sends a strong message in support of motherhood and the family, and traditional values which have made America a great nation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand what the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas does. I will oppose the amendment because it was part of the package deal that the Federal Government agreed with the State of Texas to do. Although there was a change, we will discuss that during the amendment. My question is, when is this amendment going to be brought up and what is the proposed time agreement for the unanimous consent?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield for a minute, I know that was what was meant and I appreciate his correcting it because I think the Congressman does not understand the agreement. We will debate this fully but it is not the House bill and, of course, I am going to try to keep it from being in the Senate bill as well.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also strongly support the increase in stockpile management provided by the committee. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to speak to the importance of maintaining a safe and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent, and in particular, the need to make the necessary and cost-effective investments in nuclear weapons stockpile activities. The Pantex plant, along with Savannah River, Y- 12, and Kansas City plant, is one of the few remaining production sites with existing infrastructure and capabilities that can meet the national security needs identified in the Department of Defense's nuclear posture review.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I had about 2 more minutes.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, that is correct.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will just finish. I think the Senator from Indiana said very well exactly what this amendment would do. It expresses a sense of the Senate that our delegates from America should represent our American values, and the importance that we place on the family and on the role of motherhood. I think it is very important that we recognize that we have new experiences available, new opportunities for women that have come along in the last few years. But these continuing changes in our society have never diminished the unique and important value of maternal care-giving. And our amendment just says very clearly that, if we have delegates to this conference, they should express these views. I hope our colleagues will agree to this amendment. It is a sense of the Senate. I think it is very simple and straightforward. It really is the motherhood amendment, and I hope no one would choose to vote against it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment would express the sense of the Senate that the participation of the U.S. delegation to the upcoming U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women should reflect the American perspective on the value of families. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It puts the Congress on record that the U.S. delegates should advocate the importance of family as the fundamental unit of our society. Mr. President, most Americans would be surprised to learn that there is any reason for the Congress to take this step. However, some conference delegates from other nations apparently have views that depart significantly from the mainstream and have said they may seek to have them ratified during the conference. Americans are attending the conference. It should be as representatives of our American values. Much has been said on the floor of this Chamber in recent months about the importance of families and the vital role they play to ensure the well-being of our children in our society. Increased violent juvenile crime, high teen pregnancy rates, drug use, and educational failure are painful realities. In attempting to address these terrible problems, this Congress and our Nation have come to a common understanding, one that cuts across all political and social lines, that strengthening families is the single most crucial factor. We must do that if we are going to have an impact on the problems that our society faces. Mr. President, one of the cosponsors of my amendment is on the floor. I ask if the Senator would like me to yield [[Page S 10965]] for him to say why he is a cosponsor of this amendment and why he thinks this is very important.