Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to rise today, with my colleague, Senator John Breaux, to engage in a colloquy about a serious matter that has only recently come to our attention.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, America's strength comes from its grassroots. It isn't Government that provides the spirit of America; it is the grassroots. Government policy should strengthen the people to establish their priorities, and that's what my amendment does. It strengthens the States to create more access and more appreciation and more education in the arts for all the children of America. I believe that our local control of education allows reading through phonics. I believe in old math so that we learn our multiplication tables in addition to how to work a computer and a calculator. I also think as basic to that is to let our children have access to the arts so that they can produce world-class art and arts appreciation. It shows that it is part of our basic education that we would have a national priority. Mr. President, my amendment keeps the national commitment to the arts, and it keeps the control in the grassroots and the heartland of America. I think it is the best balance.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Has all time expired other than my 1 minute?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the last minute of the debate, so I will take my time up until the last minute and then yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the remarks of the Senator from Iowa and say that it is most certainly not my intention to do away with our national commitment to the arts. In fact, the opposite is true. That is why I keep the funding level because I do believe that all of our children will gain from having more access to and appreciation of the arts in our country. I want the budding artists of Iowa to have equal access to the education that budding artists in New York have.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is now my intention to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to just briefly describe my amendment, and then it is my intention to yield 2 minutes to Senator DeWine. And then of course I know Senator Harkin is here to speak on the other side. My amendment leaves the amount for the commitment to the arts at the same level as the committee bill does. It does, however, make some reforms that I think will improve the NEA and most certainly will improve the commitment to the arts and reconfirm the commitment to arts that we have. It cuts the administrative costs of the NEA to 5 percent. I think, since the large part of the bill will require block granting to the States, that the administration does not need to be $17 million. I think $5 million then would be quite adequate to administer the national part of the bill. The Federal grants to national groups would be 20 percent of the total grant. In the Federal grants, we have a requirement for State matching funds, which I think is a healthy thing for us to require, so that any project that is funded with national dollars will also have a State commitment. Grants may not be used for obscene works, and they will go for groups and institutions. The rest of the money, the 75 percent, would be grants to the States so that the each State or territory is guaranteed at least what they had in 1997. And, in fact, every State, except California and New York, would get more funding for their arts commissions than they had last year. Each State except California and New York will get more money than they got in 1997, and they will be able to spend it according to the wishes of their own arts commissions. I think it is very important that this happen. With the 20 percent Federal grants to the national groups, I think California and New York will be able to make up some of the loss that they will receive because they have had the highest number of dollars that have gone to the national arts. In this, I think we have a good way to keep our commitment to the arts to increase the access to the arts by children and people in all the States of our great country. And I think it also will give the leeway for the national groups that deserve the support of the National Government, because we do want to keep the very top, top quality in our arts so we can be proud, as a Nation, that we do have the world class opera, the world class ballet, the world class art museums that would actually be worthy of the civilization that our country has formed in its 221 years of democracy. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment to the NEA bill, which is the appropriate order.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill, with me being recognized regarding my amendment on the NEA. Following 20 minutes of debate on that amendment, the Senate will vote on or in relation to that NEA amendment. Therefore, Senators can anticipate the first rollcall at approximately 9:30 this morning. It will be probably around 9:40. Following that vote, it is hoped that Members will cooperate with the managers of the Interior appropriations bill in offering their amendments and working on short time agreements. The majority leader has stated that we will complete action on this bill today. With that in mind, Senators can anticipate additional rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank the Members.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will leave it to the discretion of the manager what is the right order because of course there will be a number of amendments dealing with the NEA. My particular amendment takes the dollar amount that is in the bill and reallocates it and established a way to spend it. There will be amendments offered that will do other things. And I think it is really a healthy thing that we are going to be debating the NEA and what kind of funding the NEA has and how it is allocated, because I think a number of people in our country have concerns about some of the types of grants that the NEA has approved. There have been inappropriate uses of NEA funding. The National Endowment for the Arts I think is a program that everyone hoped would establish as a priority a commitment to the arts in this country. I believe that is a proper commitment for our country to encourage arts in our country, to make arts accessible to all the people of our country, to educate our children in the importance of the arts. All of these things are worthy goals. But because we have seen the funding of obscenity, of pornography, of things that you could not even in your most modest attempts to describe as art, many people have opposed the NEA. And many people have said, ``We don't need it. Why would we want the Government involved in this?'' I certainly have great respect for that view. I do believe that there should be a commitment in this country to the arts. I speak as a person who grew up in a town of 15,000. My parents were very careful to try to make sure that I had access to the arts. They gave me ballet lessons for 13 years. You would have thought it would have taken. But after 13 years, I decided that maybe there was something else in my life that would be more successful than ballet. They also made sure that I went to the nearest big city, when possible, to go to the symphony. They drove me to Houston, sometimes to Galveston, to see plays or to go to an art museum. But, you know, many children in America are not as fortunate as I was because perhaps they do not have parents who thought this was important or that this would make their education more complete. Some children do not have that opportunity. I want all children in America to have this opportunity, whether they come from families that do not have time to appreciate the arts because they are working so hard to make ends meet; or whether they come from a rural community that does not have easy access to a major city or regional arts center. I want to try to give that same opportunity that I think was important in my life to every child in America. I would like to see school districts adopt arts appreciation programs because it is proven in the testing of our children in school that where children do have access to the arts, where they have arts appreciation or arts classes in their school curricula, they also do better in math and science and reading. That is a proven fact. So we are not talking about something that is just extra that would be nice if we could afford it. We are talking about giving children a more well-rounded education and giving children the chance, by having the full range of education, to do better in the basic subjects. So that is why I believe it is important for our country to have a commitment to arts education and to provide access to the arts for all the children so that some of them can grow up to be artists or to appreciate the arts and pass that involvement or appreciation on to future generations. I cannot imagine a country that is as developed, as technologically advanced as ours, that does not also have an appreciation for and a commitment to the arts. That is why I am putting forward an amendment to this bill that would keep the allocation for 1998 exactly where the committee has it, $100,060,000 to be exact. But under my amendment, I would rearrange the priorities. Instead of having the NEA make all of the grants with this money, I think it is time that we allocate to the States, in block grants, the bulk of the money. I think it is time that we have a more just and equitable distribution of arts funding. For one thing, I think giving the money in block grants to the States--and I will talk about the very few restrictions we would put on this--gives the States the ability to fashion programs that will best meet the needs and priorities of their States. They can divide this money among, for example, arts access or education in the schools, transportation from rural areas to regional arts centers, or insurance programs for art museums to be able to sponsor national exhibitions that would otherwise not be seen by the citizens of that region outside of New York or Washington, DC, or California or Texas. I think it is important that states have that flexibility. Also, under my amendment States would have the flexibility to invest up to 25 percent of their Federal funding in an endowment. I think that is important because I would like to see more States have permanent endowments for funding of arts and access to the arts within the State. So here is what my amendment does. First, it limits the administrative costs of the NEA. Instead of allowing the 17 percent of the funding that the NEA now uses for administrative costs, my amendment would set a cap of 5 percent, reducing the money spent on administration to $5 million down from approximately $17 million. I think 5 percent should be enough for the allocation that the NEA would be able to grant to national art works. The NEA grants to national groups or institutions would be 20 percent. The NEA would be allowed 5 percent for administrative costs to administer 20 percent of the total for grants to national groups or institutions. My amendment would not allow grants to individuals, but only to institutions or groups. NEA would absolutely be prohibited from granting any obscene works. NEA could also not grant seasonal grants such as, for example, giving the Metropolitan Opera $1 million for its season, whatever works might be performed during that season. Grants would be for a specific project that the Metropolitan Opera would have to specify, so that the NEA would be able to know exactly what it was funding. My amendment would also prohibit grantees from giving subgrants to other groups. In other words, 20 percent, or $20 million, would be available for national grants to groups or institutions. Such groups would be opera companies, symphonies, art museums, ballets, or other groups or institutions that clearly serve a national purpose or exhibit a national stature. These national grants would require matching grants. If the grantee-- an art museum, for example--had a total budget of $3 million or less, it could cover up to one-third of the art project with Federal grant money. This way, two-thirds of the cost of the project would have to come from the local community or State. If the grantee--for example, an art museum--has an annual budget of over $3 million, the maximum Federal funds the grantee could use for the project would be one-fifth of the total cost of the project. So for large institutions, the maximum contribution of Federal dollars would be 20 percent and the other 80 percent would have to come from local or State matching funds. These matching requirements would apply to the $20 million allocated national grants. However, under my amendment the bulk of the Federal funds would go to the States in block grants, namely 75 percent or $75 million. That will guarantee level funding from fiscal year 1997 for every State and territory of the United States, up to 6.6 percent of the total funds available to the States for fiscal year 1998. The only two states that would not be guaranteed level funding from fiscal year 1997 would be New York and California. However, those States would be expected to seek a large portion of the $20 million in national grants. So under my proposal 75 percent of the Federal funds would go to the States in block grants, and almost every State in this country will get more of the arts funding under this allocation. Behind me on the charts you will see the differences in the funding for each State. Most States will have a significant amount of funding beyond fiscal year 1997. I think it is time that States have more opportunity to support their school systems or their regional arts centers and provide more access to the arts by more people in this country. States may use up to 25 percent of their funds to establish or enhance a permanent arts endowment. I think it is a worthy goal to give States this incentive. Under my amendment, States may contribute any amount of money in addition to the 25 percent, but they must match whatever portion they use for an endowment by at least 1 to 1. In other words, if the State of Oklahoma decides to have an endowment for the arts, it can take up to 25 percent of its Federal allocation but it must match that amount, dollar for dollar, with funds from other State, local, or private funds. Of course, my hope is that eventually every State will have a permanent arts endowment so that they will be able always to ensure access to art that is available within their own communities and within their own States. But permanent endowments will also in the long run assure the States will be able to attract from the outside some of the national touring art shows, such as the wonderful Monet exhibition that traveled to the Fort Worth Kimball Art Museum. Many people in my part of the country would not have been able to see that exhibition had it not traveled to Fort Worth, TX. This is the case all over the country. Right now the NEA serves a valuable role in supporting an insurance indemnity program that has allowed international blockbuster shows, such as the Jewels of the Romanovs, to travel around the country. People all over America, because of this insurance program, will have access to see the jewels from the Romanov dynasty in Russia that I hear are really incredible. Thanks to NEA funds, Americans have also had the opportunity to see the presentation of Tennessee Williams' ``The Glass Menagerie.'' Shakespeare's ``As You Like It'' went to 45 communities in 26 States because the NEA helped them with the cost of touring. Those productions traveled to Cincinnati, OH; Keene, NH; and Orange, TX. I think Senator Baucus earlier today talked about the Shakespeare plays viewed in Montana would not have traveled to Montana but for the help from the NEA. I think it is exciting when Senator Baucus says that someone in Montana said he had never even thought of reading Shakespeare until he was able to attend his first Shakespeare outdoor play and began to love Shakespeare and studying Shakespeare seriously. These are the kind of things that I think having a small national funding priority will continue to do for this country. In Abilene, TX, the NEA has been helpful in starting the Abilene opera. There are so many people in west Texas who had never seen the opera and, in fact, thought the opera was a stuffy event that nobody would really enjoy but would just attend for social purposes. When they went to their first opera, the first opera they have ever had in Abilene, they came back just thinking, ``what a joy, what a treasure.'' These people are now going to encourage people to contribute locally so that they can enjoy more opera productions. NEA funds were the seed corn that gave access to people who had never even seen an opera who now not only have seen one, but loved it and are contributing to bringing that experience to other people, especially children, in the west Texas area. Regional touring by the best American dance companies to rural towns and small cities has been helped by the NEA. The production of performance specials and art documentaries by the Education Broadcasting Corp., WNET, in New York are now viewed by millions of Americans because that seed corn was planted by the NEA. So that is why I am not among those who want to just do away with the NEA, because I believe that Americans overall will be more culturally aware and enjoy culture more, if they have the opportunity and exposure to the arts, which is ensured by our having a national commitment to the arts. I don't want to do away with that. Do we need to change the NEA? Yes. Do we need to impose strict prohibitions against obscenity and pornography? Absolutely, because it has been shown that because there have not been enough limits on the NEA, truly inappropriate use of our tax dollars has occurred. But I don't think that means we walk away from this commitment. I think it means that we change NEA, that we get control of it, that we make sure that the money is being used for what we intended it to be used for. But we don't walk away from it. Let me give another example: Del Rio, TX, is on the border of Mexico. The average per capita income of Del Rio is about one-half of the national per-capita income. The population of Del Rio is 80 percent Hispanic. Yet, despite the economic difficulties that Del Rio faces, the people have a long history of commitment to the arts. In 1992, they converted their old firehouse into an arts center. The new arts center now holds free exhibitions of work of national, regional, and local artists. It conducts art instruction classes. It offers free children's classes in the summer and supports a children's dance troupe that performs at civic and cultural events. All of this is helped by seed money from the NEA. Mr. President, I think we have an opportunity here to get control of a funding program that has been abused in the past. But it has not been abused 100 percent. It has been abused but it has also done so much good for places like Del Rio, TX, like Beaumont, TX, like Cincinnati, OH, like Keene, NH. There are so many wonderful stories of young people getting their first access to the arts and their first appreciation for the arts because the NEA gave some grant money, some seed corn, to a local community, which was matched by that local community. Something was made possible because of the national commitment to the arts that has spurred many young people to go into arts as a profession. Artists or dancers or musicians who now belong to a symphony--all of these contributors to the arts in America began their careers from seed corn that came from a national commitment to the arts. Now, I do understand how people have become very frustrated. But let's do something positive and productive with this frustration. Let's make something very good out of a modest commitment to national arts. Let's give our young children a chance either to excel in the arts or by an appreciation of the arts to make them more well rounded, to allow them to be literate in whatever circles they may walk. Let's allow them to have the same access that their European counterparts have. Many times I have been told that our young people do not have the cultural awareness that many of their age group in European countries have. I think they should. I think they should also appreciate the contribution of Americans to the great art of the world. The more young people to whom we can offer arts access and appreciation, the more of a contribution America will make to the world art community. I think we have something that is worth keeping, and I think it is our responsibility to support it in a responsible way. That is why under my amendment I preserve the allocation of dollars but redistribute those dollars to allow the States to use arts funds in the way that will best give access to all people in their State. I oppose throwing out the national commitment to the arts, because we have proof that it helps our young people in all of their educational endeavors to have an appreciation and an awareness of the arts. We also know that art adds to the quality of life in our country. If we are the greatest, freest, fairest nation on the Earth, which I believe we are, I think a commitment to the arts is part of keeping the well-rounded, cultural, thorough education of our young people at the premier level that we also value for the preservation of our freedom and democracy that are beacons to the world. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor an amendment. I will look forward to working with the manager of this bill to introduce it at the most appropriate time. I think this is an important debate that we should be having. I hope in the end when all is said and done that the bill we send to the President will say we have a national commitment to the arts in this country. We want to make sure it is done in the way that will give the most access to the arts to the most people of our country and that will give Americans an appreciation for what America contributes to the world art community. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be filed. I just ask the distinguished manager of this bill if I could work with him to have it brought up at the appropriate time. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for those remarks. I think that he, too, is approaching this in a positive way. Like the Senator from Washington, who is chairing this very important subcommittee, I don't have ideas that I consider to be in concrete and I am not unwilling to change allocations or hear other views. But I think if you are going to make constructive change, you have to start with an outline. I think that is what the Senator from Washington has done. While he has brought the bill to the floor, essentially not changing the status quo, he has always been open to suggestions on ways to make it better. I think, in the end, in conference, if the Senate will speak in what I hope is a decisive way on the approach that it wants to take, then I would like to see us work with the House to do something that will be constructive that will preserve our national commitment to the arts. But I would hope that whatever we do, we make the American people feel comfortable and give them something they think is worth their hard earned tax dollars, something that will give their children better access to the arts and enhance their education, if you will, something that the American people would write if they were standing here on the floor. I am speaking from my roots. I am speaking as a person who has benefited greatly from growing up in a town of 15,000, with the strong values that this small town gave me, but with wonderful parents for whom I can never fully express my appreciation. They knew that while I learned the values represented in that small town, there were other important things for my education, such as appreciation for the arts, for which they would have to make an extra effort to give me. They did make that extra effort. But, Mr. President, not everyone has parents like I had. What I want when we finish this bill is for us to have made up for the fact that every parent is not as responsible as mine were and does not give every child the same access that I had, the same opportunities that I had. I want to see that we in the Congress kept our commitment to funding of the arts for our children all over America, from whatever part of the country. If we can take that responsible action, then every girl who grows up in a town of 15,000 with no arts of its own will have the same access that I was fortunate enough to have, and I think we will be a better country and make a stronger contribution to the arts of the world if we keep this commitment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senator the Community Employment Alliance [CEA], which is sponsored by the Enterprise Foundation. It is my hope that the Department of Labor may identify the CEA as a project for full consideration under research, demonstration, and pilot program funds being made available to the Department in the 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. CEA is working in eight cities nationwide, including San Antonio and Dallas in my home State, to develop an effective job opportunity system for low-income individuals, particularly those on public assistance. CEA offers a new, comprehensive model for developing job opportunities for low-income citizens based on the utilization of community-based organizations, in conjunction with private sector and Government resources. CEA's approach envisions the development of compacts involving city and State governments, local and regional business leaders, and community-based organizations. Each local alliance will formulate strategies and implement programs for creating an effective job opportunity system for welfare recipients. The ultimate goal of the CEA, therefore, is to improve job prospects for unemployed and underemployed residents of distressed inner-city neighborhoods through well-coordinated, high performance economic and work force development activities. I believe that it is this type of integrated approach that will help move more Americans from welfare to work. Mr. SPECTER. I thank Senator Hutchison for bringing this important project to my attention and the attention of the committee. There is much work to be done in assisting those on welfare to gain a better life. Approaches to this problem which fully integrate business, civic, and community leaders are in my view the most likely to succeed. Therefore, I believe that the Department of Labor should, in fact, give full consideration to the request for funds made by the Community Employment Alliance for this purpose.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will just inform the Senator from Arizona that I will be happy to yield back a minute of my time since he so generously has given me the last time. Mr. President, let me just say that I am a supporter of medical education. I have supported every amendment that has come through here, and I have sponsored amendments that add to the medical schools' part of Medicare funding. I want medical schools to be funded. But, Mr. President, this is not the way to do it. In fact, the University of Texas, which is a school that has one of the best medical schools in the whole United States, has said this is bogus, and they have refused to take the extra funds in this way not to train medical doctors. They are not in the business of not training medical doctors, and they have refused this money because this is the wrong way to go. Only in Washington would we address the issue of an oversupply of doctors by funding not teaching doctors. Some would say, if this were a debate to increase spending not to educate lawyers, maybe it would be worthwhile. But, in fact, we are not going to do anything so silly as to pay not to train doctors or lawyers or any other professionals in this country. This is not the way to address the issue of oversupply. The issue of oversupply is real. The issue of training doctors is very important. In fact, I would like to increase funding. I wish that we could substitute what we would save here and put it into other parts of Medicare funding, perhaps rural medical education, which is suffering greatly. I believe in teaching hospitals. I do not believe in paying hospitals not to teach, and I hope we can correct that inequity. I hope we can legislate in a responsible way. I hope that we can put our money into Medicare, into medical education, into training doctors, into rural health care where we need the money, but I do not want to spend one dime not to train doctors with added funds. It doesn't pass the smell test, and I am proud to say that the University of Texas, from my home State, is not taking these dollars because they believe this is bogus. They need money to train doctors in the best way, but this is not the best way. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, all of us have heartfelt grief for the people of Great Britain. That is why the Senate is acting in this resolution, saying this is a woman and a leader who cared so much about AIDS victims, people who did not have the chance in life that she did. I think she really did show many of us that if we will just reach out a helping hand to those less fortunate, it will make a difference. The Senate stands today in unanimous agreement that we grieve with the people of Great Britain and we will set aside a day of recognition and one in which all of us will be thinking about her accomplishments, the tragic, senseless death that she suffered, and hope that through her children and the Royal Family and all of the British Government and the people of Great Britain good things will come from the leadership she showed and the compassion she showed for others and that because she lived we will all be better people.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 118, submitted earlier today by Senators Hatch and Leahy.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 4. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of amendment No. 1077 to the Labor, HHS appropriations bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. For the information of all Members, tomorrow the Senate will immediately resume consideration of amendment No. 1077 offered by Senator Coats to S. 1061, the Labor, HHS appropriations bill. It is hoped that a vote on the Coats amendment will occur by mid morning. In addition, Members can anticipate additional votes on amendments currently pending to the Labor, HHS appropriations bill and other amendments expected to be offered to the bill throughout Thursday's session of the Senate as we make progress on this important legislation. As always, Members will be notified as any votes are scheduled. It is hoped that the Senate will complete action on the Labor, HHS appropriations bill tomorrow. Also, as a reminder to all Members, a cloture motion was filed this evening on the motion to proceed to the FDA reform bill. Therefore, Members can anticipate a vote to occur on the cloture motion Friday morning.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on September 3, 1997, by the President of the United States: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Trinidad and Tobago (Treaty Document No. 105-22); Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Barbados (Treaty Document No. 105-23); Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada and St. Lucia (Treaty Document No. 105-24); Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with related Optional Protocol (Treaty Document No. 105-25). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time, that they be referred, with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks. I am pleased that he took the time to go over and visit our troops in Bosnia, to find out for himself what the situation was there. He is a distinguished new member of the Armed Services Committee. I think it is important that all Senators try to go over there because we have a lot at stake. Our troops are on the ground. Up to 12,000 will be there very soon. Their lives are at stake. In addition to that, our taxpayers are footing the bill for $3 billion a year so far, and they have the right to ask, what are we doing there? What are we doing with the $3 billion? Are we doing something that will have a chance to succeed? Those are fair questions. Americans are generous people. They are valiant. They are committed to freedom, and they want everyone in the world to live in freedom. They would risk their lives, as they have in this century, for the freedom of people who live in Europe and other places. They are willing to risk their lives. They are willing to pay from their pocketbooks, from their families the money if a policy has a reasonable chance to succeed. I am today raising the question, do we have a reasonable chance to succeed with the underlying policy? There is no question that our troops are doing a great job. There is no question that our new commander, Gen. Wes Clark, is absolutely correct when he says, you fool with American troops and you are going to face the consequences. I am glad we have issued the ultimatum because everybody is on fair notice that you can't throw rocks and shoot at American troops and get by with it. But it is the underlying policy that I question today. I am calling on the President of the United States, with the leadership of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, to step back and look at the policy. Are we trying to put the American standard of multiethnic, peaceful democracy into a place that is not ready? I think we are. And I think we are risking a lot doing it. So I am asking the President and his Cabinet members to come together and say, let's look again at Dayton. Let's look at whether the time is now for resettling refugees, for forcing people to live in this Federation with a joint Government of Croats and Muslims and Serbs, all of whom have committed, or had committed on them, terrible atrocities. And we are now saying come together, form a government, have a joint presidency, have a joint government, create a school system that will accommodate a Muslim religion and a Catholic religion and come together and bring all of this in in the next 9 months. Let us step back. Let us revisit Dayton. Let us see if we can make a Dayton that has a chance to succeed. I will support leaving our troops on the ground beyond June 1998; I will support the money it takes if we have a policy that has a reasonable chance to succeed, that will bring a peaceful coexistence. And I think the time has come to look at a division where people can come together of like mind and form a government that will serve their purposes where they can invest in infrastructure, where we can help them invest in infrastructure, and they can build their factories and they can have jobs and begin to live in peace with their neighbors who are different from them. That happens all over Europe. In fact, the lesson of history is that many times people who cannot live together split apart. You can name example after example. And it can be done peacefully. Why not let them come together in their own groups, form their governments, create their livelihoods. In the former Bosnia, there were taxes on the minority ethnic groups. There were restraints on what certain minority ethnics could do. They could not be doctors. They could not be small business people around the corner selling hardware. They could not be lawyers. They could only have certain farming-type jobs. That is not a recipe for success. Why not look at a division that might work. Let them have their government. Let them have an economy. Let us help them build the sewer lines and the roads and the streets and the airports and the factories so they can pull themselves up. Let them trade with their neighbors. Let that be the beginning of getting along together, whether they are Catholic or whether they are Muslim or whether they are orthodox, and then perhaps eventually, after they have had good relationships for years, they will be able to mix and move in to the other country. I hope that the President of the United States will not continue to say, well, if we just keep trying, we just stay at it, we will have an infinite commitment of American troops and American dollars along with our European allies, all of whom are also stretched in their budgets, all of whom care about their soldiers and their troops just as we do, all of whom, I believe, would like to see a policy that has a chance for success. They are there on the ground because they, too, are generous people. So I ask the President of the United States, I ask Madeleine Albright, I ask Bill Cohen, go back to the drawing board. Look at something that might have a chance to work. Do not be in a rut trying to put a round peg in a square hole. It is time to look for a round hole. What we are doing now is not working. Maybe a division will not work either, but let us try something that has a better chance. Let us learn from the experience and let us go forward. Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot more about this. I hope we will not wait 9 months to determine that this is not going to work. Let us start now. Let us give our troops a chance now. Let us give our taxpayers a chance now. Let us give the people of Bosnia more hope than they are seeing now. Senator Roberts talked about the experience of these poor Muslim people trying to move back into their old homes and the Serb factions kept them out, beat them up, finally burned their homes up. Mr. President, that is not a recipe for success. Let us step back. Let us give peace a chance by looking at something new. And let us do something now rather than frittering away 9 months and not having any better chance than we have today. Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of the leader, I would like to close the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am glad the Senator is on this point because in the original mission statement in the Dayton accords there was a provision to capture war criminals, but it was going to be a police force within the Federation. It was going to be a police force made up of all three of the sectors that would go after war criminals, hopefully in a way that would be responsible. That police force has not materialized. As the Senator from Kansas has said, we are substituting our NATO forces for the police force that is the mission in the Dayton accords. That is a change of mission by any way you read it.