Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Mississippi. He has shown such leadership in bringing to our attention the importance of a missile defense system for this country. We have all been shocked this week to hear what is happening across the globe with India actually testing a nuclear weapon and starting an arms race, tension that we haven't seen in a long time. I can't think of another country in the world that would be testing its own missile defense system out in the open as we are, the THAAD missile that my colleague just talked about, but we did. Yes, it didn't work. And, yes, we are all disappointed and we are hoping that we can learn from what didn't work on that test and perfect it. But that is why we have tests of defensive systems. But I think what Senator Cochran has done is, he is putting in context how important it is that we put our full force behind the priority of defending our shores and our troops, wherever they may be, anywhere in the world, against any incoming ballistic missile, a Scud missile or an intercontinental missile. Senator Cochran is right. The Senate had a very important vote yesterday, and by only one vote--by only one vote in the Senate, we were not able to move and clearly say that this country's first priority is going to be a defensive system for the ballistic missiles that we know 30 countries are now in the process of perfecting. So I commend him for the statement he just made, for the efforts he has been making over the last year, and for the future efforts that we are all going to make to continue to press this very important issue. As we are debating the defense authorization bill for our country, I can think of no higher priority than to make sure that the shores of our country are protected against an incoming ballistic missile, whether it be from a rogue nation or terrorist act. That our people would know that we would be protected is the very highest priority. We are debating right now how to fund and make sure that our troops have everything they need to do the job to protect us. They should have that same protection anywhere that they would be representing the United States of America. In any theater anywhere in the world, we should be able to have a defense against an incoming ballistic missile. So I commend the Senator from Mississippi, and I want to say we will not rest until we have won this issue, that we would be able to deploy right now our first priority, a defensive system for incoming ballistic missiles.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is hoped that Senators will come to the floor to debate this important piece of legislation and offer amendments under short time agreements. Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session in an attempt to make progress on the defense bill. Also, the Senate has reached time agreements with respect to the Abraham immigration bill and the WIPO copyright treaty legislation, and those bills could be considered during Thursday's session. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for reference, those are the confirmations of U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow from Michigan and U.S. District Judge George Steeh from Michigan. The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows: the judiciary Arthur J. Tarnow, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. George Caram Steeh, III, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 572 and 573. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 255, which was received from the House.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2057, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 14. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then begin a period for the transaction of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator DeWine, 15 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 15 minutes; Senator Allard, 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that a statement of explanation by the majority leader be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 230, submitted earlier today by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 263, which was received from the House.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 262, which was received from the House.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on May 13, 1998, by the President of the United States: Treaty with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Treaty Document No. 105-44). I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 7:45 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, who has provided great leadership in this area. In fact, I said to the Senator from Mississippi yesterday, if I am ever going to need a consultant on the timing of introducing bills, I am going to call him immediately, because, of course, what has happened just in the last 5 days, proves how absolutely correct the Senator from Mississippi has been in pursuing this very important legislation. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his leadership. It is clear that the greatest security threat the United States faces today is that we do not have a defense for incoming ballistic missiles. In fact, if you look back at the latest war that we have had, the gulf war, the largest number of casualties in that war was from a single ballistic missile attack. We had the Patriot, and the Patriot was actually a missile that was supposed to hit airplanes. We quickly tried to make the Patriot into something that would hit missiles, and, phenomenally, it actually had a 30-percent success rate. But when we have our troops in the field and we have the capability to do better than 30 percent, how could we even think of not going full force to protect our troops in any theater where they might be, anywhere in the world, and to protect the citizens of the United States within the sovereign territory of our country? How could we be sitting on technology without saying this is our highest defense priority? Today, we have a chance to say this is our highest defense priority. Because if we cannot protect our citizens in our country and our troops in the field, we are leaving ourselves open. And we don't have to do that. Today, we know that over 30 countries in the world have ballistic missile technology. The Senator from Mississippi has gone through what some of these countries now have. Just in the last 5 days, we have seen North Korea threaten to go back on the agreement they made and refuel their nuclear reactors. We have seen, in the last few weeks, that China has been buying our technology without our permission--except for the President letting people do it, presumably because they contributed to his campaign. Pakistan is now deploying a missile with a 1,500 kilometer range. India, as we know, in the last 2 days has actually-- has actually--tested nuclear weapons. So, of course, the arms race between Pakistan and India has been rekindled. Iraq--we fought the Desert Storm war because Iraq was getting ballistic missile technology, and we know they have chemical and biological weapons. Iran--they are receiving assistance from the Russians to develop missile systems. Russia is willing to export a good part of their scientific basis for nuclear weapons, and we don't know how secure is what is left in Russia. So, how can we look at the facts and not address them vigorously, if we are doing what is right for the American people? We have the capability to do this if we make it a priority. The Senator from Mississippi is introducing a bill that basically says this is a priority, that we will go forward full bore with the capabilities that we have, doing the technological research, doing the testing. All of us are very disappointed that the recent THAAD test was not successful. But we should not back away from it. We should be going forward full bore to try to make sure that we have a national missile defense system, an intercontinental missile system, and a theater missile ballistic system that would defend against any incoming missiles. Let me make another argument, and that is, as we are going through all of the countries that we know are now building ballistic missile capability with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, what would be the very best deterrence from them making that investment? What would be the best deterrence, so India would not feel that it is necessary for their security to test ballistic missiles? The best deterrence would be the capability to deter a launched missile in its boost phase. Simply put, if we can take a missile as it is just being launched and turn it back on the country that is trying to send that missile, isn't that the best deterrence for that country not to send the missile in the first place? Because, obviously, no country is going to launch a ballistic missile if it is going to come back on its own people. So, if we can get that defense technology, perhaps that is the best way to stop this arms race. Most certainly, the joint threat to us, and to our allies, should be our highest priority. This bill establishes missile defense as a top priority because it says we are going to fund ballistic missile defenses and we are going to deploy them as soon as the technology is there. The argument against it is incomprehensible to me, although I do not in any way suggest that those making the argument aren't doing it with good faith. I am positive that they believe they are doing the right thing. But to say that the world's greatest superpower is going to wait and see what other countries might get, what ballistic missile technology, and then set on a program full bore that would defend against that--they could not be talking as representatives of the only superpower left in the world. They cannot be thinking what a superpower must do, which is to do what no one else in this world has the capability to do. We are the only country that has the capability to put the resources behind a ballistic missile defense capability. We are the only country that can do that. Why would we hesitate for one moment? Why would we leave one of our troops in the field unprotected for one more moment than is absolutely necessary? There is no excuse. Why would we leave the people of our country unprotected for one more moment than is necessary, when we have the resources to go full force? It is not an argument from the superpower to say when we know that someone has perfected a technology that could reach the United States then we will deploy our full forces. How many people will die or be maimed because we are not going full force right now? What better quality-of-life issue is there for our military than to give them every safety precaution, protecting them in the field that we have the capability to do? We are the leadership of the greatest superpower in the world. We must say we cannot wait for one more moment for the full priority to be given to missile defense technology and capability for our country, for the people who live here, from potential terrorist attacks, and for anyone representing the United States of America in the field. When our young men and women pledge their lives for our freedom, how can we not give them every protection they deserve to have when they are, in fact, defending our ability to speak on this floor today? Mr. President, I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will in a very bipartisan vote say, ``We will not walk away from our responsibility to provide the protection to our people that they expect and the protection of our troops in the field, wherever they might be, fighting for our freedom or for the freedom of oppressed people in other places.'' We must give them the protection that we have the capability to do. It is a very clear-cut issue. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention the dedication of the Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center of Geographic Education at Southwest Texas State University. Located near the Texas Hill Country in San Marcos, Texas, Southwest Texas opened its doors 95 years ago to 330 students. Today, Southwest Texas is a major, innovative university with a growing student population of over 21,000. During its history, Southwest Texas graduates have distinguished themselves in numerous career fields, including research and teaching. Today, Southwest Texas builds upon this legacy of success and commitment to higher education by dedicating the new Grosvenor Center. The university has distinguished itself nationally in the area of geographic research and education. In fact, Southwest Texas's Department of Geography and Planning has been recognized as the best undergraduate geography program in the nation by the Journal of Geography, the Association of American Geographers, and a national Program Effectiveness survey. Southwest Texas has the largest geography department in the country with 590 undergraduate and 165 graduate students. Southwest Texas is the home of the Texas Alliance for Geographic Education, which is one of the premier geography alliances in the nation, according to the National Geographic Society. The Alliance has more than 5,000 teachers as members. It has sponsored numerous geography institutes and workshops for educators and has led efforts to generate participation in Geography Awareness Week. The Alliance is a strong supporter of the Texas Geography Bee, which is a statewide competition for young people to test their geographic knowledge before advancing on to the national contest. Not surprisingly, Southwest Texas has chosen to name its new Center for Geographic Education after Gil Grosvenor, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Geographic Society. With this decision, Southwest Texas salutes Mr. Grosvenor's outstanding leadership in the drive to improve education in the field of geography. His pioneering work to advance Geography Awareness Week, the Geography Bee, and state geography alliances, has dramatized the need for quality geography education in America's classrooms. I want to commend Mr. Grosvenor for his lifetime commitment to the advancement and dissemination of geographic knowledge and understanding. Under the leadership of Gil Grosvenor, National Geographic has done more to make geography alive and interesting than any other organization. We all owe Mr. Grosvenor and the National Geographic Society a huge debt of gratitude for their tremendous contributions over the years. Mr. President, hundreds of geographers from across the country will converge on the Southwest Texas campus today to inaugurate the new Center. Lady Bird Johnson is also an expected guest, along with elected officials and many alumni from the Department of Geography and Planning. In the evening, Mr. Grosvenor will serve as a special guest at a dinner in the ballroom of the LBJ Student Center. On Friday, Mr. Grosvenor will have the honor and distinction of delivering the 1st Annual Grosvenor Lecture at the Alkek Library Teaching Theater on campus. Mr. Grosvenor is expected to focus his address on the critical importance of providing quality geography education in America's schools. It is with great pleasure that I join in the celebration of the dedication of Southwest Texas's new Grosvenor Center. I congratulate all those involved in making this effort a reality and ensuring that geography education plays an important and integral role in the classrooms of today, as well as tomorrow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues that the Senate Finance Chairman has produced an excellent bill which will help protest software companies and their customers from intrusive IRS audits. I would ask the Chairman to consider the issue of whether or not to extend the same requirements for non-disclosure and non-complete agreements to IRS employees as this bill requires of outside consultants.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to say how pleased I am to be working with my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, who was honored last night on the Senate floor for having cast the most number of votes of any Senator in the history of our country--15,000. It was quite awesome. I am pleased to have someone of his stature and experience to take the lead on this very important act that we hope the Senate will pass in the form of an amendment to the defense authorization bill, or failing that, the appropriations bill, because it is time that Congress step up to the line and fulfill its constitutional responsibility for allocating the military dollars. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from West Virginia has stated, our bill will begin the orderly and honorable withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. U.S. forces in Bosnia have accomplished the military mission assigned to them. They were sent to enforce the Dayton peace accords by keeping the warring factions separated. We all owe our troops a debt of gratitude for having done this with no combat loss of life to any American. I have just returned this weekend from my seventh trip to the Balkans. I saw a well-trained professional force capable of performing any mission that we would give them as long as we give them the support they need. But I also saw a force on a mission with no clear direction and certainly no exit strategy. It has no end date. These troops have been spending more and more time away from home than at any other point in their careers. The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia is subject to the oversight authority of Congress. When we narrowly voted to support this mission in 1995, I voted against it because I was afraid what would happen is exactly what is happening. We are now in an open-ended mission. This was not supposed to be an open- ended mission. It was supposed to be a 1-year commitment. That deadline was missed and the next deadline was missed. It is very important that we have an exit strategy. The Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have said an exit strategy and an exit date is most important if we are not going to have mission creep. But, in fact, what I fear is that we do have mission creep in Bosnia, and as a matter of fact, we also have deadline creep. NATO forces have increased their participation in police activities, something for which they are not trained. General Joulwan has said our military forces are not trained for police missions, and yet that is what they are doing more and more. U.S. commanders in NATO have stated on several occasions that, in accordance with the Dayton peace accords, the principal responsibility for law enforcement rests with the parties to the Dayton agreement--the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims. In a recent letter to Congress, President Clinton identified a host of additional missions that seem to go well beyond the peacekeeping scope of the U.S. forces in Bosnia and are aimed really at nation- building. These include--and I quote from his letter-- ``supporting * * * the conduct of elections and the installation of elected officials,'' and ``supporting * * * media reform efforts.'' During our recent trip we were briefed that establishing a rule of law and a judiciary were also among the criteria that must be established prior to our troops' withdrawal. Mr. President, these are goals that could take 50 years to achieve, and they define a mission without an exit strategy. I would just say that the distinguished Senator who is presiding at this moment was also in the meetings we had in Bosnia this weekend. I think I speak for all of us who were there in saying that what we were told about an end date is a recipe for a mission with no exit strategy. Congress has had little to say, as the President has authorized an ever-longer commitment of troops for an ever-growing number of missions. I believe that exceeds the war power authority of the President, although this is debatable and I cannot say that it is totally clear. But while the Constitution leaves some issues unsettled regarding war powers, there is no such conflict over the power of the purse. The Congress alone has the power. We have the responsibility to provide the money for our military and to look at the big picture. The big picture, Mr. President, is that our troops are being flung around the world in police missions and peacekeeping missions, and we are losing the edge that a superpower must have to be able to act when no one else can or no one else will. Senator Byrd and I do not want Congress to ever shrink from its constitutional responsibility. And it is Senator Byrd who understands the Constitution better than anyone on this floor. But I, as a new Member, am trying to see things in a way that our Founding Fathers intended and to remain true to the balance of power that they attempted to create. Our bill is aimed at getting our European allies to start taking a greater share of the responsibility for their own regional security matters. This will free the United States to respond where our allies cannot or will not and where the United States is the only power that is capable of doing so. It is in the interest of our allies that we maintain the capability to keep the world safe from threats that would endanger our mutual security. The United States has nearly twice the number of troops on the ground as our next closest ally, Great Britain. We have three times more than the French and German allies. Our bill provides for a gradual-phased timetable of reduction of the level of U.S. troops so that by February in the year 2000 the American ground combat level would not exceed 2,500. This timetable is consistent with the stated objectives of the Clinton administration. In a recent letter to several Senators, President Clinton said, ``The deployment will not be open-ended. . .SFOR will be progressively reduced. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia and I hope to aid the administration by offering a credible and orderly timetable for such reductions so that we can provide the ability to finance the mission with some sense that we will know what to expect. Our bill provides 6,900 troops by June 30, 1998; 5,000 by February 2, 1999; 3,500 by June 30, 1999; and 2,500 by February 2, 2000. Our bill exempts from these totals those forces that are needed to protect the U.S. troops as the drawdowns proceed. We also exempt those forces necessary to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities. Most important, we exempt any U.S. ground forces which may be deployed as part of NATO containment operations in regions surrounding the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is my belief that one of our principal objectives in the Balkans should be to prevent the conflict in Bosnia from spilling over into neighboring European countries. Should the President propose to establish a NATO containment perimeter around Bosnia, our bill would permit that. Why is our legislation needed? What does it have to do with military readiness? Just last week this Congress approved adding a half a billion dollars to the Bosnia operation. This brings our total to $8 billion. The President has asked for another $2 billion for the next year. That makes a $10 billion operation, five times the original estimate this administration gave Congress. Where is this money coming from? It is coming from future readiness. We are borrowing from the future to pay for a mission that is clearly capable of being performed by countries other than the world's only superpower. If they can do this, the United States can be ready to respond in other areas where we have mutual security threats with our allies, such as the Middle East and Asia. There are ample indications that our readiness has begun to suffer as we have drawn forces and resources off to support regional conflicts. In the U.S. Pacific Command, the commander in chief testified before Congress that some forces required for long-term commitments in the Asia-Pacific area of responsibility are now positioned in the Persian Gulf. He further reports that the Pacific fleet is short over 1,900 sailors in key technical ratings. In the Pacific Air Forces, the F-16 cannibalization rate is 12.8 percent--a more than 100 percent increase since 1995 due to lack of spare parts. The Army faces similar shortfalls. A recent Army Times report revealed that while the 1st Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent, its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent. Noncommissioned officers are also in short supply in the divisions, particularly sergeants. In the 10th Division, 24 of 162 infantry squads were not fully or only minimally filled. According to Major General Carl Ernst, commanding general of the Army's premier infantry training post at Fort Monroe, VA, this is having a serious negative impact on the Army. General Ernst recently told a congressional panel at Fort Monroe, ``We are now dangerously close to the breaking point.'' What about the Air Force? In the Air Force, only 29 percent of the pilots eligible for a $60,000 bonus to sign up for 5 more years signed up. That is half the number that took that bonus last year. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our military cannot continue to provide peacekeeping operations all over the world. This causes them to lose the skills for which they have been trained and dulls their fighting edge. We are letting it happen because the operations tempo is too high and the amount of money we have is finite. What is suffering is the quality of life of our military. We are losing our most experienced people. Also our modernization suffers as we try to keep our best planes in the air, with the parts that they need to function, and, perhaps most important, the systems that we will need to meet the future security risks of our country and those of all of our allies. This includes the threat of an incoming ballistic missile with a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. We know that 30 countries in the world have ballistic missile capabilities, yet we are not deploying as quickly as possible any defenses. What the Senator from West Virginia and I are asking is that our allies, who are perfectly capable of performing these peacekeeping missions as well as anyone can, take that responsibility. Let the United States build our forces through modernization and technology and develop missile defense systems so that we can be there if there is a real threat to our mutual security. We cannot have a military that is unable to respond. We must not have a military that is not respected by our allies, nor our adversaries. The Senator from West Virginia has stood for the constitutional responsibility of Congress. I hope to follow in his footsteps in always reminding our Senate of the importance that we uphold our one-third of the balance of power in our Government. Our one-third is that we must be the stewards of the funds. Only Congress was empowered to declare war. I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be sending troops abroad in operations other than war. They intended it to be a tough decision, to put our troops in harm's way. Mr. President, I am going to stand for the U.S. Senate's responsibility to assure that we do not fling our troops around the world in operations other than war and dissipate our resources and our readiness. I am proud to cosponsor with the Senator from West Virginia the bill that will begin the orderly and responsible exit from Bosnia, with our allies, as a team, coming together and sharing this burden in a way that meets the regional test and meets our responsibility in the world to do that which no one else can. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this area. I hope we will have the strongest bipartisan support for our bill so that we can make this law, so that our allies will know that when we say we are going to do something--whether it is something they like or don't like--that we will keep our word. That is in their best interests as well as ours. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, how much time is left on our amendment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to say how pleased I am to be working with my colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, who was honored last night on the Senate floor for having cast the most number of votes of any Senator in the history of our country--15,000. It was quite awesome. I am pleased to have someone of his stature and experience to take the lead on this very important act that we hope the Senate will pass in the form of an amendment to the defense authorization bill, or failing that, the appropriations bill, because it is time that Congress step up to the line and fulfill its constitutional responsibility for allocating the military dollars. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from West Virginia has stated, our bill will begin the orderly and honorable withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. U.S. forces in Bosnia have accomplished the military mission assigned to them. They were sent to enforce the Dayton peace accords by keeping the warring factions separated. We all owe our troops a debt of gratitude for having done this with no combat loss of life to any American. I have just returned this weekend from my seventh trip to the Balkans. I saw a well-trained professional force capable of performing any mission that we would give them as long as we give them the support they need. But I also saw a force on a mission with no clear direction and certainly no exit strategy. It has no end date. These troops have been spending more and more time away from home than at any other point in their careers. The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia is subject to the oversight authority of Congress. When we narrowly voted to support this mission in 1995, I voted against it because I was afraid what would happen is exactly what is happening. We are now in an open-ended mission. This was not supposed to be an open- ended mission. It was supposed to be a 1-year commitment. That deadline was missed and the next deadline was missed. It is very important that we have an exit strategy. The Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have said an exit strategy and an exit date is most important if we are not going to have mission creep. But, in fact, what I fear is that we do have mission creep in Bosnia, and as a matter of fact, we also have deadline creep. NATO forces have increased their participation in police activities, something for which they are not trained. General Joulwan has said our military forces are not trained for police missions, and yet that is what they are doing more and more. U.S. commanders in NATO have stated on several occasions that, in accordance with the Dayton peace accords, the principal responsibility for law enforcement rests with the parties to the Dayton agreement--the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims. In a recent letter to Congress, President Clinton identified a host of additional missions that seem to go well beyond the peacekeeping scope of the U.S. forces in Bosnia and are aimed really at nation- building. These include--and I quote from his letter-- ``supporting * * * the conduct of elections and the installation of elected officials,'' and ``supporting * * * media reform efforts.'' During our recent trip we were briefed that establishing a rule of law and a judiciary were also among the criteria that must be established prior to our troops' withdrawal. Mr. President, these are goals that could take 50 years to achieve, and they define a mission without an exit strategy. I would just say that the distinguished Senator who is presiding at this moment was also in the meetings we had in Bosnia this weekend. I think I speak for all of us who were there in saying that what we were told about an end date is a recipe for a mission with no exit strategy. Congress has had little to say, as the President has authorized an ever-longer commitment of troops for an ever-growing number of missions. I believe that exceeds the war power authority of the President, although this is debatable and I cannot say that it is totally clear. But while the Constitution leaves some issues unsettled regarding war powers, there is no such conflict over the power of the purse. The Congress alone has the power. We have the responsibility to provide the money for our military and to look at the big picture. The big picture, Mr. President, is that our troops are being flung around the world in police missions and peacekeeping missions, and we are losing the edge that a superpower must have to be able to act when no one else can or no one else will. Senator Byrd and I do not want Congress to ever shrink from its constitutional responsibility. And it is Senator Byrd who understands the Constitution better than anyone on this floor. But I, as a new Member, am trying to see things in a way that our Founding Fathers intended and to remain true to the balance of power that they attempted to create. Our bill is aimed at getting our European allies to start taking a greater share of the responsibility for their own regional security matters. This will free the United States to respond where our allies cannot or will not and where the United States is the only power that is capable of doing so. It is in the interest of our allies that we maintain the capability to keep the world safe from threats that would endanger our mutual security. The United States has nearly twice the number of troops on the ground as our next closest ally, Great Britain. We have three times more than the French and German allies. Our bill provides for a gradual-phased timetable of reduction of the level of U.S. troops so that by February in the year 2000 the American ground combat level would not exceed 2,500. This timetable is consistent with the stated objectives of the Clinton administration. In a recent letter to several Senators, President Clinton said, ``The deployment will not be open-ended. . .SFOR will be progressively reduced. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia and I hope to aid the administration by offering a credible and orderly timetable for such reductions so that we can provide the ability to finance the mission with some sense that we will know what to expect. Our bill provides 6,900 troops by June 30, 1998; 5,000 by February 2, 1999; 3,500 by June 30, 1999; and 2,500 by February 2, 2000. Our bill exempts from these totals those forces that are needed to protect the U.S. troops as the drawdowns proceed. We also exempt those forces necessary to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities. Most important, we exempt any U.S. ground forces which may be deployed as part of NATO containment operations in regions surrounding the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is my belief that one of our principal objectives in the Balkans should be to prevent the conflict in Bosnia from spilling over into neighboring European countries. Should the President propose to establish a NATO containment perimeter around Bosnia, our bill would permit that. Why is our legislation needed? What does it have to do with military readiness? Just last week this Congress approved adding a half a billion dollars to the Bosnia operation. This brings our total to $8 billion. The President has asked for another $2 billion for the next year. That makes a $10 billion operation, five times the original estimate this administration gave Congress. Where is this money coming from? It is coming from future readiness. We are borrowing from the future to pay for a mission that is clearly capable of being performed by countries other than the world's only superpower. If they can do this, the United States can be ready to respond in other areas where we have mutual security threats with our allies, such as the Middle East and Asia. There are ample indications that our readiness has begun to suffer as we have drawn forces and resources off to support regional conflicts. In the U.S. Pacific Command, the commander in chief testified before Congress that some forces required for long-term commitments in the Asia-Pacific area of responsibility are now positioned in the Persian Gulf. He further reports that the Pacific fleet is short over 1,900 sailors in key technical ratings. In the Pacific Air Forces, the F-16 cannibalization rate is 12.8 percent--a more than 100 percent increase since 1995 due to lack of spare parts. The Army faces similar shortfalls. A recent Army Times report revealed that while the 1st Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent, its combat support and service support specialties were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and majors were filled at 73 percent. Noncommissioned officers are also in short supply in the divisions, particularly sergeants. In the 10th Division, 24 of 162 infantry squads were not fully or only minimally filled. According to Major General Carl Ernst, commanding general of the Army's premier infantry training post at Fort Monroe, VA, this is having a serious negative impact on the Army. General Ernst recently told a congressional panel at Fort Monroe, ``We are now dangerously close to the breaking point.'' What about the Air Force? In the Air Force, only 29 percent of the pilots eligible for a $60,000 bonus to sign up for 5 more years signed up. That is half the number that took that bonus last year. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our military cannot continue to provide peacekeeping operations all over the world. This causes them to lose the skills for which they have been trained and dulls their fighting edge. We are letting it happen because the operations tempo is too high and the amount of money we have is finite. What is suffering is the quality of life of our military. We are losing our most experienced people. Also our modernization suffers as we try to keep our best planes in the air, with the parts that they need to function, and, perhaps most important, the systems that we will need to meet the future security risks of our country and those of all of our allies. This includes the threat of an incoming ballistic missile with a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. We know that 30 countries in the world have ballistic missile capabilities, yet we are not deploying as quickly as possible any defenses. What the Senator from West Virginia and I are asking is that our allies, who are perfectly capable of performing these peacekeeping missions as well as anyone can, take that responsibility. Let the United States build our forces through modernization and technology and develop missile defense systems so that we can be there if there is a real threat to our mutual security. We cannot have a military that is unable to respond. We must not have a military that is not respected by our allies, nor our adversaries. The Senator from West Virginia has stood for the constitutional responsibility of Congress. I hope to follow in his footsteps in always reminding our Senate of the importance that we uphold our one-third of the balance of power in our Government. Our one-third is that we must be the stewards of the funds. Only Congress was empowered to declare war. I do not believe that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be sending troops abroad in operations other than war. They intended it to be a tough decision, to put our troops in harm's way. Mr. President, I am going to stand for the U.S. Senate's responsibility to assure that we do not fling our troops around the world in operations other than war and dissipate our resources and our readiness. I am proud to cosponsor with the Senator from West Virginia the bill that will begin the orderly and responsible exit from Bosnia, with our allies, as a team, coming together and sharing this burden in a way that meets the regional test and meets our responsibility in the world to do that which no one else can. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this area. I hope we will have the strongest bipartisan support for our bill so that we can make this law, so that our allies will know that when we say we are going to do something--whether it is something they like or don't like--that we will keep our word. That is in their best interests as well as ours. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, how much time is left on our amendment?