Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the unanimous consent agreement was to allow me to offer my amendment, and then I will defer to the Senator from California.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Secondly, I ask the manager of the bill if he still wants me to offer the other amendment that I was to offer, or would he prefer to go forward with Senator Feinstein, and I can always do that after the votes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am prepared to leave the floor, but I have two things. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3409.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of Congress regarding the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces to execute the national security strategy of the United States. So many people are now talking about the hollow military that we seem to be going into, and I think it is time that Congress address the concern that all of us have that we may be driving our military down to the point that we will not be able to respond if something happens where we are needed anywhere in the world. So, I make the following findings: That since 1989: The national defense budget has been cut in half as a percentage of the gross domestic product; The national defense budget has been cut by over $120 billion in real terms; The U.S. military force structure has been reduced by more than 30 percent; The Department of Defense's operations and maintenance accounts have been reduced by 40 percent; The Department of Defense's procurement funding has declined by more than 50 percent; U.S. military operational commitments have increased fourfold. It is clear the Army has reduced its ranks by over 630,000 soldiers and civilians, closed over 700 installations at home and overseas and cut 10 divisions from its force structure. The Army has reduced its presence in Europe from 215,000 to 65,000 personnel. The Army has averaged 14 deployments every four years, increased significantly from the Cold War trend of one deployment every four years. The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent,while experiencing a four-fold increase in operation commitments. In 1992, 37 percent of the Navy's fleet was deployed at any given time. Today that number is 57 percent; at its present rate, it will climb to 62 percent by 2005. The Navy Surface Warfare Officer community will fall short of its needs a 40 percent increase in retention to meet requirements; The Air Force is 18 percent short of its retention goal for second- term airmen. We know the Air Force is more than 800 pilots short, and we know that our experienced pilots have not re-upped, even in the face of a $60,000 bonus. The Army faces critical personnel shortages in combat units, forcing unit commanders to borrow troops from other units just to participate in training exercises. In 1997, the Army averaged 31,000 soldiers deployed away from their home station in support of military operations in 70 countries with the average deployment lasting 125 days. Critical shortfalls in meeting recruiting and retention goals is seriously affecting the ability of the Army to train and deploy. The Army reduced its recruiting goal for 1998 by 12,000 personnel. The Navy reports it will fall short of enlisted sailor recruitment for 1998 by 10,000. One in ten Air Force front-line units are not combat ready. Ten Air Force technical specialties, representing thousands of airmen, deployed away from their home station for longer than the Air Force standard 120-day mark in 1997. In 1997, U.S. Marines in the operating forces have deployed on more than 200 exercises, rotational deployments, or actual contingencies. U.S. Marine Corps maintenance forces are only able to maintain 92 percent ground equipment and 77 percent aviation equipment readiness rates due to excessive deployments of troops and equipment; The National Security Strategy of the United States assumes the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevail in two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously. Mr. President, all of us, including the distinguished Senator from Kansas who is a former marine, know that ``nearly'' has been inserted into our national security strategy. Our strategy used to be that we would have the ability to prevail in two major regional conflicts simultaneously. Today, we are saying ``nearly simultaneously,'' yet none of us who have studied these issues believe that we are ready, today, even for this ramped down mission. To execute the National Security of the United States, the U.S. Army's five later-deploying divisions, which constitute almost half of the Army's active combat forces, are critical if the success of specific war plans can be achieved. According to commanders in these divisions, the practice of under staffing squads and crews that are responsible for training, and assigning personnel to other units as fillers for exercises and operations, has become common and is degrading unit capability and readiness. In the aggregate, the Army's later-deploying divisions were assigned 93 percent of their authorized personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 1998. In one specific case, the 1st Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent in the aggregate; however, its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent. At the 10th Infantry Division, only 138 of 162 infantry squads were fully or minimally filled, and 36 of the filled squads were unqualified. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the five later-deploying divisions critical to the execution of the U.S. National Security Strategy were short nearly 1,900 of the total 25,357 Non-Commissioned Officers authorized, and as of February 15, 1998, this shortage had grown to almost 2,200. Rotation of units to Bosnia is having a direct and negative impact on the ability of later-deploying divisions to maintain the training and readiness levels needed to executive their mission in a major regional conflict. Indications of this include; The reassignment by the Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of 63 soldiers within the brigade to serve in infantry squads of a deploying unit of 800 troops, stripping non-deploying infantry and armor units of maintenance personnel, and reassigning Non-Commissioned Officers and support personnel to the task force from throughout the brigade; Cancellation of gunnery exercises for at least two armor battalions in later-deploying divisions, causing 43 of 116 tank crews to lose their qualifications on the weapon system; Hiring of outside contract personnel by 1st Armored and 1st Infantry later-deploying divisions to perform routine maintenance. Mr. President, these are the facts. Every one of the facts that I have read is absolutely in print, in the report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, in the DOD budget for fiscal year 1999, and a compilation of statements from the Department of Defense vice chiefs in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and every other part of what I have just read has been documented. These are from the Defense Department's own statistics. So I am asking for the sense of Congress, that we declare that: The readiness of U.S. military forces to execute the National Security Strategy of the United States is being eroded from a combination of declining defense budgets and expanded missions; The ongoing, open-ended commitment of U.S. forces to the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia is causing assigned and supporting units to compromise their principle wartime assignments. Defense appropriations are not keeping pace with the expanding needs of the Armed Forces. So I am asking for a report by June 1, 1999 from: the President of the United States to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives, and to the Committees on Appropriations in both Houses, a report on the military readiness of the Armed Forces of the United States. The President shall include in the report a detailed discussion of the competition for resources service-by-service caused by the ongoing commitment to the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, including in those units that are supporting but not directly deployed to Bosnia. What we are asking, Mr. President, is for an assessment of where we are. We have all talked about the problems we have seen in small instances and different pieces of testimony. What I have done in this sense of the Senate is put it all together. I have taken from the Department of Defense its own authorization, its own budget, its Quadrennial Defense Review, from statements made before one of our two committees that talked about the problems in specific detail. I think it is time that we in Congress now say we have put it all together and we want a report on the state of our readiness. Let's look at all of the factors and let's determine that we have a problem, that we have to determine what to do about it, and let's go forward and try to work with the administration, with the President, with the Secretary of Defense, and look at the big picture, and the big picture and the goal for all of us is that we would be able to meet the national security strategy of the United States, that we would be able to prevail in two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously. I prefer simultaneously, but, nevertheless, we are not even up to the goal that we have stated, and we want to do what is our responsibility in the U.S. Congress, and that is, ask for the report, let's study the problem and let's come up with a solution together with the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support me in this sense of Congress. It is just the beginning of our responsibility to address what we see as the problems in our military and that we would then be able to take the report and take the necessary steps to correct the backward motion that we are making with regard to the military readiness and the security of our country. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Fienga from my staff be allowed on the floor during the debate on the defense appropriations bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and Senator Sessions have both asked to speak for approximately 10 minutes each, and then I would like to close on my amendment with about 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, amendment No. 3413 is to condition the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of an orderly and honorable reduction of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia. It is a fact that the U.S. Armed Forces have accomplished the military mission assigned to them as a component of the implementation and stabilization forces. The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is subject to the oversight authority of Congress. Mr. President, this is the first time that Congress will vote on any kind of resolution that would establish some kind of policy on Bosnia since the President decided that it would be an unending mission. On November 27, 1995, the President said that America would be part of a multinational military implementation force that would terminate in about a year. The President declared the expiration of the mandate to be December 20, 1996. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time expressed the critical importance of establishing a firm deadline in the absence of which there is a potential for expansion of the mission of U.S. forces. That was a forceful statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He said it is a recipe for mission creep not to have a termination date. On October 3, 1996, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced the intention of the United States to delay removal until March 1997. In November of 1996, the President announced that we would delay until June of 1998. The President did not request authorization by the Congress of a policy that would result in the further deployment of U.S. forces in Bosnia until June 1998. Notwithstanding the passage of two previously established deadlines, the reaffirmation of those deadlines by senior national security officials, and the endorsement by those same national security officials of the importance of having a deadline, nevertheless, the President announced on December 17, 1997, that establishing a deadline had been a mistake and that U.S. ground combat forces would be committed to the NATO-led mission in Bosnia for an indefinite amount of time. What my amendment does is very simple. It says that funds appropriated will not be made available except as conditioned below; that the President will bring the number of troops down to 6,500 by February of next year and 5,000 by October of 1999, so we are staying within this fiscal year. Now, the exceptions are very broad at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of Defense that U.S. forces would have enough forces to protect themselves as the drawdowns proceed. So we are, of course, going to give the protection to the forces as the drawdown goes forward. This doesn't take us out of Bosnia, which many in this body feel that we should do, that we should begin this at the base, for an honorable withdrawal. It just says, by the end of the fiscal year of the budget that we are considering, that our troop level would be down from about 8,500 to about 5,000. This should start the process of working with our allies to have a better distribution and sharing of responsibility among our allies and the United States. This is a European security issue. The United States has approximately double the number of forces that any of our European allies have. We want to be a good ally. In fact, I don't want to pull up stakes and leave Bosnia without doing it in a responsible way. I think that is our responsibility. But, in fact, many of us have asked the President repeatedly to lay the groundwork with an established and clear mission that has a chance to succeed, a mission that has a finite term so that both our allies and any enemies of our cause would know exactly what to expect from America. That would not be possible at this time. We have said we were going to leave twice, and we have not left. We have not left, and we have not laid a proper base to leave. What I am asking the President to consider and what I ask the American people to consider is that we start the process of realigning the forces in Bosnia so that our contribution would be reduced and our allies in NATO would begin to take a greater share of the burden. Why is this important? We are looking at a time when our military readiness is being called into question. In fact, if you look at all of the responsibilities that America has in the world, we are spending too much on Bosnia and putting the future security of the United States and our ability to respond in the future in other places where America may have to respond, even unilaterally, in jeopardy. That is not the course we should be taking. It is most important that America start with the issue of Bosnia and address it in a way that we should by putting it in context with our overall responsibilities in the world. The Bosnia operation has already diverted nearly $10 billion from our national defense. A growing lament at the Pentagon among senior officers is that we are in danger of returning to the hollow forces of the militaries of the late 1970s. Let me mention some of the indicators that demonstrate our military is once again at risk. Last year, the military had its worst recruiting year since 1979. The Army failed to meet its objective to recruit infantry soldiers, the single most important specialty in the Army. A Senate Budget Committee investigator recently reported finding serious Army-wide personnel and readiness problems. At the National Training Center, where our troops go for advanced training, units rotating in typically come with a 60 percent shortage in mechanics and often a 50 percent shortage in infantry. These shortages were blamed on the fact that these personnel, especially the mechanics, are deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. More than 350 Air Force pilots turned down the $60,000 bonuses they would have received to remain in the cockpit another 5 years--a 29 percent acceptance rate. That is compared with 59 percent last year and 81 percent in 1995. That is a stark trend. The Air Force is finding that whatever the perks, it can't hold its best pilots. Last year, about 500 pilots resigned. Most of them were lured by the airlines. This year the number will be 700, and the Air Force says it is not able to train enough new pilots to replace them. When I have gone and visited our bases overseas and at home and I ask our enlisted military men and women why we are losing our experienced people, almost every time the answer is: Too much time away from our families on operations that don't seem that necessary. A Senate Budget Committee investigator also found that some small units are now being led by junior people because sergeants are off on peacekeeping duty. As a result, subunits from basic squads on up do not train with the leaders they would go to war with--breaking the rule of training just as you would go to war. Since 1991, the United States has cut its Armed Forces by about a third. It may be more difficult, more risky, and possibly more costly to invade Iraq right now. We are going to debate and vote on a resolution today, hopefully, expressing our support for the President's strong actions toward Iraq. But the fact is, if anything went wrong, we would have to divert troops from every theater in the world to prevail. Defense cuts of almost 50 percent over the last decade have put our security at risk. But this has been made worse by the diversion of U.S. resources and readiness to places where there is no security threat to the United States, such as Bosnia, Haiti, and elsewhere. We have spent more time discussing Bosnia than missile defense, which is a security risk to our country. We are not developing a policy that is going to put our country in the best position to deal with the myriad of issues that will face this country and our security in the next century. President Clinton and his administration are missing a big-picture view of the world and the proper role for the United States. Our growing involvement in Bosnia is a good example of that. Just last week, U.S. forces were directly involved in tracking down and capturing a war criminal. The Dayton accords have made it clear that apprehension of war criminals would be the responsibility of the parties to Dayton-- civilian police and government officials. In fact, a little more than 1 year ago now, the former NATO commander, George Joulwan, told the Congress this: The military are not policemen. And I think the proper responsibility rests on the parties. That is what Dayton says. . .[I]f we are not careful, we will go down this slippery slope where the military will be put in the position of hunting down war criminals. That is not within the mandate. That is Gen. George Joulwan. I joined with many of my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the decision to send troops to Bosnia. One of our principal concerns was that, once there, our mission would be indefinite, and that it might lead to mission creep. We were bolstered in our concerns by former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili. They both warned that without a specific deadline for withdrawal there would be the potential for expanding the mission. I am concerned that Secretary Perry's warnings are coming true. While we were on a recent recess, the President announced that thousands of U.S. troops would remain in Bosnia after the June 30 deadline, remembering that the Senate had unanimously endorsed that deadline of June 30, 1998, which his administration had established. After 240 U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon in 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger established six principles upon which the decision to send U.S. ground troops should be based. Here is what he said: The U.S. should not commit forces unless the engagement is in our vital national interest. If we do commit forces, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. We should know how those objectives can be accomplished, and we should send the appropriate forces to complete the objectives. We must constantly reassess and adjust our relationship between our objectives and forces, if necessary. The commitment of troops should be a last resort, not the first. We have violated virtually every one of Secretary Weinberger's principles in Bosnia. It was supposed to be a 1-year peacekeeping operation that would keep the factions apart until their own forces could come in and keep the peace from the ground up. They would have local elections and general elections for their national leadership. They would begin to resettle refugees. Dayton has long since passed. I was in Brcko a year ago, 1 week before the eruption there in which U.S. troops were harmed. I was able to see how far we had come. I have been to Bosnia four times. What I saw in Brcko was the resettling of refugees who did not even meet their next-door neighbors from the other factions, and I thought this is going to take a long time. The atrocities committed right in Brcko against thousands of Muslims are as bad as anything I have ever heard reported from the Nazi atrocities of World War II. Yet, we are trying to say ``come and live together like Americans do.'' It looks like we are trying to create multiethnic neighborhoods, forcing people to do this prematurely, after the atrocities that have occurred in that country. This in itself can be antipeaceful. I think it is going to prolong the uprisings if we try to force this before the people themselves are ready--before the wounds have healed. So I hope that we can let things settle, let the peace settle in, and let's do what we said we were going to do. Let's start training the people who are there to be a peacekeeping and police force. This could be done in an orderly way. We could begin with a NATO force that transitions and trains the forces that would come in behind them. They will be able to keep their peace, but it will not be an incentive for them to take over this job if they know that we are going to be there to do it for them. I hope that we can create the base for an honorable exit. My amendment just tries to get a more equitable distribution of forces so that the burden is more equally shared between the United States and our NATO allies in Europe. It validates the legitimate responsibility that Congress has to authorize the long-term deployment of forces around the world by requiring a vote on the President's plan. Without this amendment, we will be looking at American troops in Bosnia indefinitely. We will be looking at a never-ending commitment, and we will be taking resources that are vitally necessary for our own security and for our responsibilities around the world. It is most important that we establish a policy that can succeed. Keeping thousands of American troops in a 30,000-troop enclave in Bosnia in perpetuity is not good military strategy and is not based on good policy. Remember what Shalikashvili said: ``Having a defined deadline is important to avoid mission creep.'' We have learned that before and we should not forget the lesson. I think it is important for us to begin to act like the superpower that we are. When a superpower makes a commitment, it must be willing to back it up and do what it says it is going to do. It is so important that we act firmly. It was important in Iraq. It is important in Bosnia that when we set deadlines, we meet them, so that everyone knows what to expect. It is most important, Mr. President, that we look at our security forces and the money that we are spending on our defense. We are lowering our defense expenditures while increasing the OPTEMPO--increasing the operations we are getting involved in around the world. This is despite warning after warning from past Presidents, from past Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, from the experts who have seen history and have learned from it. We can do things that no one else in the world can do. We can provide an umbrella of defense for ballistic missiles, for nuclear weaponry, but that takes a commitment of money and a commitment of will. If we are dissipating to the tune of about $3 billion a year in a peacekeeping mission, which can be done just as well by any of our other allies, we are walking away from the responsibility we have to our allies to protect them in a way that only we can, because only we have the resources to do it. Mr. President, I don't see how our colleagues can express alarm about the decline in U.S. readiness, and at the same time, ignore the policies that are causing the decline. It is our responsibility to act when our troops are going to be sent to an overseas conflict or missions of any kind when they are long-term. The President has now said it is going to be long-term--in fact, unending. If we don't have any set time, we will forget and the Bosnia operation will be in perpetuity. Those who are relying on us will continue to. Why shouldn't they? What incentive do they have to start the training of their own forces, which was envisioned in the Dayton accords? I hope my colleagues will look at this very small first step in exercising Congress' responsibility. This is a precedent that has been set by Congresses in the past. We have set time deadlines. We have stopped the funding for operations that Congress did not think should be continued. This has happened in Cambodia, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, and even in Korea, in the Philippines, and in Japan. We have spoken. In the past, Congress has stepped up to its responsibility. I hope it will today. Mr. President, I will stop at this point because others want to speak. I do hope that my colleagues will focus carefully on this step. It is not even a major step of withdrawing from Bosnia. It is to just say we want our allies to accept more of the responsibility so that our troops will be able to do what they do best, and that is to train for the contingency that only we can address; that we will have the money to be able to invest in the technology that will protect the world from ballistic missiles and nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; and that we will not lose our most experienced personnel because they are worn out from mission fatigue on operations they do not see as threats to U.S. security. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Amendment No. 3413 has to do with Bosnia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct. I have spoken on the first amendment, No. 3409. I am happy to yield back time on that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware, because I wanted to be able to speak on this matter. I have just come from a committee markup. But the bill that is on the floor as an amendment is actually a bill that Senator Faircloth and I introduced. I am very pleased that Senator Brownback and Senator Ashcroft and others have pursued this, because I think it is at the core of what we should be doing in this Congress; that is, to try to give people back the money they worked so hard to earn. It is so important that we address the issue of the couple from Houston whom I met recently. He is a police officer. He makes $33,500 a year. She is a teacher in the Pasadena Independent School District. She earns $28,200 per year. They were married and immediately had to pay an increased tax of over $1,000. Mr. President, this is a young couple who just got married who want to begin to save to purchase a new home, and they are hit with a $1,000 penalty because they got married. This is of the utmost importance. It is an issue that we must address this year. I appreciate that the Senator from Delaware, who is the chairman of the Finance Committee, has said if we have tax cuts, this will be the first priority. I know he agrees with us on the merits. He may disagree on process or on whether we use this bill as a vehicle. That is understandable. But in the end, Mr. President, it is very important that we speak for the working young people of our country to make sure they get a fair shake when it comes to taxes. Twenty-one million couples are paying a penalty because they are in that middle-income level, and when they get married, they get assessed an average of $1,400 a year more. Simply because they wanted to get married and raise a family, they are penalized by the U.S. Government. We must correct this inequity. That is what our bill, the Faircloth- Hutchison bill does. That is what Senator Brownback and Senator Ashcroft are trying to do with this amendment. We are together on this. If this isn't the right process, if this isn't the right time, let's find the right time. Let's commit to the right time, because we must correct this inequity. I hope the Senate will speak very firmly that this is our priority. I want to address one last issue, and that is Social Security. Do we have to compete between tax cuts and Social Security? Absolutely not. In fact, I think many of us are going to support all of the surplus of the Social Security system going into saving Social Security. That is our first priority. We are going to have a budget surplus that is separate and apart from the surplus in Social Security. We are saying that the surplus should go to tax cuts, because those of us who have been around here for a few years have begun to see that if there is any excess revenue in this budget, all of a sudden we get very creative about how to spend taxpayer dollars. We must remember, the money does not belong to us, it belongs to the people who work so hard to earn it. And it must be returned to them before somebody gets very creative with some new program that would take the money from the families who earn it. That is the issue. Let's set aside the surplus from Social Security. And let's start the process of saving Social Security and making it even better, which I think we are going to be able to do in a bipartisan way in this Senate. But let's also take the surplus from the revenue that is coming in and give it back to the people who earn it--the people to whom it makes a big difference. If they have that $1,400, that is six or seven car payments, several payments on a student loan or maybe the couple is saving for their first home. We can help them with those expenses, and we should. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for allowing me to make those points. I hope we will do the right thing. I hope we will make this our highest priority in this Congress, along with saving Social Security. We can do both. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, before the Senator would make any motion, I would like to be able to speak for a few minutes on the amendment. I didn't want to be shut out. If that is the Senator's intention, I would just ask if he would allow me at the appropriate time----

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues and our fellow citizens all across this country in honoring the memories of Detective John Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Chestnut. These two fine law enforcement officers gave their lives in the line of duty during a tragedy on Friday, July 24, 1998, while guarding the United States Capitol. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these two fine gentlemen. The United States Capitol is recognized the world over as the symbol of American freedom and of the still revolutionary idea that citizens confer power upon those who serve us in government. That it could become the scene of so heinous an act as this cannot but shake us from the complacency by which we sometimes take this all for granted. But on a beautiful summer day and with thousands of ordinary people in sight, Officers Chestnut and Gibson gave their lives as proof that everyday, in places as near as our Capitol and as far away as seven seas, men and women serve selflessly to protect the freedom that is the American birthright and the dream of millions around the globe. I commend the United States Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and the other law enforcement agencies that have performed so professionally throughout this difficult period. They are a continuing tribute to their fallen comrades, and I trust that they will be inspired to serve on in their memory.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to say that all of us in the Capitol have one overriding thought in our minds right now, and that is that our hearts go out to the families of the two officers who were slain in the line of duty last Friday. All of us were in a different place. But I will never forget where I was when learning this tragic news. I had left the Capitol that morning and had returned home to Texas. I was just stunned. And when I learned that these officers had passed away after their injuries, I was heartsick, as all of us were. There is no question that the Capitol Police are friends to all of us. When I came into the Capitol this morning and saw the black tape across their badges, it all hit. And I want to say there is not anyone here who has worked with these fine men and women who doesn't appreciate every day the job they do protecting all of us and every visitor to the Capitol. God Bless J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of the Hagel amendment, because I, too, am very concerned about the safety and soundness of our nation s credit unions. Mr. President, I was State treasurer of Texas and dealt with banks and certainly credit unions, as well as other kinds of financial institutions. I think the banking system that we have, while it could use some improvement--and perhaps there is going to be legislation in the future that is going to have a few more areas of deregulation--nevertheless, I think the banking system that has niches for the different banking institutions and the balancing of those niches has served us well. I think the credit unions have particularly been a breath of fresh air in our banking system, because they have been able to offer something that banks and savings and loan associations and other finance institutions have not been able to offer. They have had unique characteristics in that they have been member-owned and member-operated institutions. Credit unions do not operate for profit and, therefore, do not pay taxes. Credit unions have limitations on their membership, generally based on affinity among the members. They rely on volunteer boards of directors that come from their membership. They have been able, because of the lack of taxes and because of this affinity, to give great services to their members. They have been able to offer mortgages, automobile loans, and personal loans that have been very favorable to their members. And they have served a terrific purpose. I want credit unions to stay strong in order to continue giving these kinds of services to their members. We are expanding the types of membership they can have. It is certainly going to be a bigger arena. But, nevertheless, I don't think we should take that next step into allowing a risky commercial loan portfolio without the requisite reserves that are required by banks and which I think are important for safety and soundness. The Hagel amendment limits commercial loan activity to 7 percent of assets. That is what the bill requires for the reserves for a well financed and strong credit union. We want to make sure that the deposits of credit union members are not put more at risk than the reserves that are required to be kept, particularly when you get into commercial lending, which is much more risky than the home mortgages and automobile loans and the personal loans that credit unions have made. I remember what happened when Congress started trying to eliminate the differences among the financial institutions. And that is what caused the S&L crisis. We had S&Ls going into real estate lending without the requisite reserves. All of us paid a heavy price for that. I do not want to jeopardize the strength of our credit union. I hope that when we pass this amendment, if we pass this amendment, it will provide for the strengthening of the credit union. I will support this bill. I think it is a wonderful bill in many respects, because it is going to give more people more access to credit unions. But I think we have to make sure, as we do it, that we protect the safety and soundness of the deposit of credit union members, as well as the credit union industry itself. The last thing I want is to come back here at the end of my next term and have to look at a credit union crisis because we didn't take the very cautious step of requiring this same reserve requirement as the limit on commercial loans. That is it in a nutshell. I think the fact that Senator Hagel's amendment matches the reserves with the amount of commercial loans that will be available is a very correct decision. It is the right thing to do. It will keep the safety and soundness of credit unions, and it will allow more people to have access to those commercial loans, as well as access to the credit unions in general. But mainly we want to make sure that everyone is protected and that we don't run into any trouble in the future. I hope very much that we will pass this bill. I hope we will pass the Hagel amendment so that we have a win all the way around--giving more access to more people to join the credit union; giving more people access to the lower interest home mortgages, car loans, personal loans, but making sure that we protect those deposits so that the credit unions will be able to continue to give a little bit higher rate of interest to those that it is paying; and so that the deposits will be safe; so that the credit union itself will be safe; so that we will not have to face a financial crisis in the future that Congress would have to address with taxpayer dollars as we have seen with the S&L crisis. I thank Senator Hagel and the others for their leadership. I think this is a good, sound move. I hope we can pass this amendment and then pass the bill that will create bigger and better credit unions in our country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the OECD Development Center works to promote market-opening reforms in developing nations and has provided valuable research and resources to policy makers and analysts in developed nations and developing countries alike. the OECD Development Center was established at the initiative of the United States in 1962, and we have played a leadership role in the Center ever since. I believe it is important to note the OECD Development Center's contribution as a bridge between OECD nations and emerging economies around the world.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to explain a provision included in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill manager's amendment and to convey my thanks to Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for including it. This provision directs funding for the Student Incentive Payment (SIP) program for FY99. I am very concerned about language in the Administration's budget calling for a four-year phase-out of SIP, beginning in FY99. These payments are used to help students at state maritime schools defray the cost of their education. In exchange for an annual stipend while they are in school, these students incur a 6 year obligation in the Navy and Merchant Marine Reserve. They represent an important element of the Navy's professional mariners and a cadre of trained professionals available in the event of a national emergency when activation of the Ready Reserve Fleet is required. I commend the subcommittee for sharing my concern. The subcommittee report reflects this concern by calling upon MARAD to report on the willingness of the Navy to pay for the program. However, I understand that discussions between the Navy and MARAD are still on-going which, while encouraging, may mean that the incoming class at state maritime academies may not be able to take advantage of SIP as their classmates ahead of them have, and those behind them hopefully will. If we are going to ensure continuity, we have to fund SIP for another year in this bill. This provision restores SIP funding in the FY99 budget, preserving the program in order to allow the Navy to assume the funding responsibility beginning in FY2000. I am pleased that we have bought more time for MARAD and the Navy to negotiate the transfer of financial responsibility for this program. I am very hopeful that we will have a negotiated continuation of SIP under the Navy in FY2000 and beyond. I thank the Chairman for working with me to ensure this result.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and remember the importance of the previous two days in American history. July nineteenth and twentieth, 1998, mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This gathering of American women and men began a movement in our nation that changed the role of women in this country and, ultimately, around the world. Because of the convention's tremendous impact on the American way of life, I joined Senator Torricelli and several other Senate colleagues in recently introducing a Senate resolution honoring the women's rights movement and saluting those who made it all happen. Today I speak in honor of this occasion. Women's struggle for equality had very humble beginnings. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a housewife and mother of three sons, and Lucretia Mott, a Quaker teacher and staunch abolitionist, were ejected from the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention in London simply because they were women. Outraged at such an injustice, they were compelled to call attention to the many freedoms denied to women, including the right to vote or hold elective office, the right to own property if married, the right to obtain a professional education and the basic right to protect oneself from an abusive spouse. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Mott, along with Jane Hunt, Martha Coffin Wright and Mary Ann McClintock, called for a public convention to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women. The first meeting of the women's rights movement convened at the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. Over 300 men and women attended the two day conference, including Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass. The highlight of the convention was the reading of the Declaration of Sentiments, a document composed on Mrs. McClintock's kitchen table. The statement was based on the words of our Declaration of Independence, applying its self-evident truths to both males and females and declaring all men and women equal. The document even called for a woman's right to vote, a revolutionary idea at the time. In fact, while 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, more than 200 attendees refused to endorse such an outrageous notion. Today, it is difficult to imagine a democratic society that would not permit women to hold elective office, sign legal documents or attend the church of their choice, much less exercise the basic right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and the other founders of the women's rights movement epitomized the strength of the American woman and exhibited the courage necessary to put an end to a great injustice. They understood the road before them would be long and hard. Little did they know, however, that it would be more than 70 years before women would be granted suffrage in the United States. Today the movement is symbolized by the unfinished marble carving of the Suffrage advocates now displayed in the Capitol Rotunda. The calling of the Seneca Falls Convention and the passion of those involved forever changed the course of American history. All Americans should honor the efforts of these intrepid women and learn from their commitment to a cause in which they so deeply believed. Without the fortitude shown throughout this arduous struggle for equality, I could not be standing before you on the Senate floor today.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers for helping pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about an hour ago that addresses the devastating drought that we have been experiencing in Texas. They did it on behalf of Senator Gramm and myself. This is a very important sense of the Senate, because it direct the Secretary of Agriculture to do everything possible to relieve the drought conditions--not to provide rain, obviously, but to do everything we can to prepare for the relief that is going to be necessary due to the economic losses that Texas farmers and ranchers are facing because of the worst drought that we have seen in my memory in the State of Texas. In fact, it is now estimated that more than $4.6 billion in losses will result to the agriculture community according to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Direct losses of income to agricultural producers is $517 million, which will lead to another $1.2 billion in economic activity for the State. What we are asking the Secretary to do is to streamline the drought declaration process to provide necessary relief as quickly as possible. The Secretary has released CRP acres in 53 counties for haying and grazing. It will help to have these acres available for grazing because there is so little grass and few crops able to grow right now. Not only will haying the land provide food for the livestock, but it will take up dry grass so that it will not be a fire hazard. In addition, we have asked and the President has given us an emergency declaration so that we can start positioning equipment in places where there is imminent danger of wildfires. We are very concerned about this potential because we have had so little rain for such a long period of time. We have also ensured that the local farm agencies are equipped with full-time and emergency personnel in these drought-stricken areas to assist the producers with the disaster loan application pages. We are doing everything we can to prepare for the disaster that we are seeing unfold before our very eyes in our State right now. In fact, we have had more days of back-to-back temperatures over 100 than at any time in our State's history. As you know, when you have, day after day after day, of no rain, and over 100-degree temperatures, it does start baking our land pretty quickly. I hope the Secretary of Agriculture will continue to respond to the requests that Senator Gramm and I are making. As I will continue to do everything to prepare for the farmers who are losing their crops--as we speak right now--to give them the insurance that they need to get through this year economically. I want to thank both Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers for working with us to expedite this sense- of-the-Senate resolution. I just hope that, in lieu of rain, we will do everything else we can to prepare and give a cushion to the farmers and ranchers of my State that are suffering greatly right now.