Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act of 1980, Tuesday, May 25, 10 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on State Progress in Retail Electricity Competition.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 140, a bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in the State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 734, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1999; S. 762, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on the inclusion of the Miami Circle Biscayne National Park; S. 938, a bill to eliminate restrictions on the acquisitions of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and for other purposes; S. 939, a bill to correct spelling errors in the statutory designations of Hawaiian National Parks; S. 946, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site to the Archivist of the United States for the construction of a visitor center; and S. 955, a bill to allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by law, by purchase. subcommittee on near eastern and south asian affairs

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. ROBERTS. With the debate we have had on the floor, although there is support--and the better part of judgment would be for me to simply yield the floor--we will try to split the shingle one more time. The debate is centered around whether or not the new Strategic Concept adopted at the 50th anniversary of NATO is legally binding, a treaty, or different from the 1991 Concept, let alone the 1949 Concept. Let me just say that the 1991 document really stressed that--as a matter of fact, it assured--no NATO weaponry will ever be used offensively. We are sure doing that now in regard to Kosovo. In addition, in terms of the 19 parties who met in Washington, I am sure that each one of them certainly thought it was binding. And if the men and women in the uniform of all our allies do not think it is binding, I think they had better look for a new definition. I believe any document that contains even tacit commitment by the United States and other nations to engage in new types of NATO missions--and let me simply say that these missions are now described as problems with drugs, problems with social progress, with reform, with ethnic strife; about the only thing that is not in there is don't put gum in the water fountain--outside the domain of the original treaty, as well as a commitment to structure military forces accordingly, can be considered an international agreement. I refer again to the U.S. Department of State Circular 175, the Procedure on Treaties, that sets forth eight considerations available for determining whether or not an agreement or an accord should be submitted to the Senate for ratification. Four of them I will repeat again: The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the Nation as a whole--if Kosovo is not a risk, I do not know what is--whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress; past U.S. practices as to similar agreements; the preference of Congress as to a particular type of agreement. It seems to me, if I recall the debate and the two copies of the original 1949 document, and then the Strategic Concept document, No. 1, they said no offensive weapons. No. 2, they said we are going to stay within our borders and we will meet with you before we go outside the borders and go wandering in the territory of a sovereign nation. Then lastly, we are going to consult with the U.N. It is going to be in cooperation with the U.N. All that is different. I think to say that it is not different in regard to 1991 is simply not accurate. I don't know. I suppose per se, legally--I am not a lawyer--that this Strategic Concept is not a treaty. But it sure walks like a treaty duck and it quacks like a treaty duck and it is wandering into different areas like a treaty duck. In the quacking and the walking, it is causing a lot of problems. I simply say, in closing, I do respect the Senator from Michigan and his support and the Senator from Delaware for his accommodating my amendment. It is true that the Senator from Delaware said that I was in the House of Representatives, the other body, what Senator Byrd refers to as the lower body. In 1990 we were not asleep. We were not asleep at all. We admired the Senator from Delaware from afar. We were spellbound, as a matter of fact, by his oratorical skills, his sartorial splendor, and his ability to be heard above all in the Senate, regardless of whether the acoustical system was working or not. So I thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments. I urge Senators to support this amendment and send a strong message that we are adhering to our constitutional right when we change an agreement that in effect directly affects the lives of our American men and women and our national security, that the Senate stepped up to the plate. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the distinguished chairman--what was the request, Mr. Chairman, 3 minutes, 5 minutes?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman of New Mexico be added as a cosponsor of the Roberts amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I can get my remarks done in 5, so I ask unanimous consent that we add 8 minutes, along with the other 8 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Does the chairman want to speak on this? Is that correct? You wish to speak on the Roberts amendment?

Mr. ROBERTS. But was there a request by unanimous consent that either party wanted some additional time? The minority has 8 minutes remaining; is that not correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I inquire, after all that, how much time do we have remaining on either side?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no problem.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, basically how much additional time to the time we have left has the Senator asked for? I am not sure there are any more Members who want to speak on the minority side. I can wrap up in 5 minutes or less. I am adding cosponsors every minute, so I am happy to stay here for a while.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know if the Senator from Delaware would like to speak at this moment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire of the distinguished acting Presiding Officer how much time remains?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, be added as an original cosponsor of the Roberts amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that ``In title X at the end of subtitle D'' be added to my original amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I say to the Senator, I am not sure. I had thought we had an agreement that there would not be an objection to the amendment by unanimous consent. That obviously is not the case. We are going to have to consider this. Let us work on this. I will be happy to visit here on the floor with the Senator from Delaware and my good friend from Michigan. I am not entirely clear, after listening to the Senator, that his description of this amendment is the one that I have. Let us work it out, and if push comes to shove, although I think it is entirely reasonable for a Senator to be allowed to amend his own amendment, if this has caused some concern on the part of both Senators, we can always bring this up as a separate amendment, which may be the best case. If, in fact, you say ``legal,'' you put the word ``legal'' in there, obviously I do not think the President is going to have any obligation to report on anything. In terms of obligation, if I might say so, if the Senator will continue to yield, if Kosovo is not an obligation, I am not standing here on the floor of the Senate. That is my response. Why don't we visit about this if we can, and then, if necessary, we will just introduce an amendment at a later time as a separate amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do have that clarification in the form of an amendment, which I send to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that in title X, at the end of subtitle D, that this amendment would be added.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado, my friend and colleague, 3 minutes of the remaining time.