Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my understanding that this pilot program could also be funded through title IV of the pending bill, research, development, test, and evaluation, particularly the Defense-wide funding provisions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is anticipated that this program will deter theft, aid in the investigation of fuel theft, and facilitate determining the source of surface and underground pollution in locations where the Department and civilian companies maintain separate fuel storage facilities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to enter a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. As the chairman knows, title III, subtitle C, section 339 of the recently adopted Defense authorization bill provides for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to determine if hydrocarbon fuels used by the Department of Defense can be tagged for analysis and identification. Mr. President, $5 million was authorized to conduct this program.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I assure the distinguished chairman, if the other two pending amendments' authors come to the floor, I will yield. I wanted to speak about an amendment that has just been agreed to. The chairman offered the Hutchison-Lott-Lieberman-McCain-Warner amendment earlier. It is something we have been working on, actually, for the last few days, trying to come up with language that everyone could support. In fact, everyone has now agreed to support it, so it is a sense of the Senate with 100 percent approval of language that says we are very concerned about the situation in Bosnia, we are concerned about the indicted war criminals not being brought to justice. All of us are concerned about that, because, under the Dayton accords, the three parties to the agreement, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Croats, were supposed to do that and it has not happened. At the same time, our amendment states that the administration should consult closely and in a timely manner with the Congress on the NATO- led Stabilization Force's mission concerning the apprehension of indicted war criminals, including any changes in the mission which could affect American forces. I think this is a very responsible statement for the Senate to make because it is very important if there is a change in mission with regard to the apprehension of war criminals and if American forces are going to be involved, that the Congress understand that fully because that is not our understanding today nor is it part of the Dayton accords. So, having been burned in Somalia when there was mission creep without the complete accord of Congress, I think it is important that we learn from history and take the responsible role that Congress should take. I am concerned that we do this in a very, very clear thinking, responsible way. I look at the Washington Times from this morning where the headline is, ``Serbs Threaten End Of Dayton Pact.'' It has a quote from an ex-teacher--an ex-teacher. He says: ``I used to wave to them, the NATO troops, and had my little daughter wave when they pass by. But now I told her to spit at them.'' I think we have to understand that what we do has consequences. I hope NATO will carefully look at how we go about changing any kind of mission. Certainly we expect, in Congress, to have a role in that. But I also think it is important that we go back to the Dayton accords. The Dayton accords provide the three parties will apprehend war criminals. I hope that is what happens, because there were heinous crimes committed--heinous crimes. No civilized nation, no civilized person could look at what happened in Srebrenica--it was clearly an assassination of men and boys. It was ethnic cleansing. That's what it actually was. We ought to stand against that. We do stand against it. But, let's make sure that as we go forward we do it in a measured, responsible way so what we do is helpful, that we keep the Dayton accords, and that we do not have mission creep with American troops that would put them in harm's way, or in a combat situation if they are not prepared--if we are not prepared--for that eventuality. So I think we have taken a responsible step. I appreciate the work of the chairman. I appreciate the work of the Democrats and Republicans on this issue where we do want to speak with a unified voice. It is important that we do. That is what we have done today. passenger safety modifications

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will shortly offer an amendment to this bill. It is an amendment that many of us are working on. We worked on it last week for the Defense authorization bill. It deals with Bosnia and exactly what our mission is in Bosnia, and the possibility that we are looking at a change to that mission without congressional consultation. I want to step back and talk about U.S. foreign policy in general over the last 4 years since I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate. What concerns me is the lack of focus and the lack of stability in our foreign policy that, unfortunately, creates a vacuum that can be filled by either our allies or our adversaries. Since the last 4 years have seen many missions with U.S. troops both under the U.N. umbrella and the NATO umbrella, I think it is important for us to take a step back and look at what happens when there is a vacuum. As I have observed since President Clinton has been in office, it seems that someone is always wanting the United States to do more. Sometimes it is our allies asking us to send more aid, put more troops on the ground, go into police missions--missions to capture; not kill. If you look at the use of our troops over the last 4 years, we have, in fact, been drawn into conflicts sometimes not really even knowing why we were involved. Starting with Somalia. Somalia was a U.N. mission. Our mission was to feed starving people and starving children in Somalia because we heard the reports coming back and saw the pictures of starving people. No one in the world could look at those pictures and not say we have to do something. So under the U.N. auspices, we did go to feed the starving people. But then there was a mission creep--from feeding starving people to capturing a warlord, Aideed. Because we had a mission creep that Congress was not prepared for, we lost 18 Army Rangers without even realizing that the U.S. mission had changed. What was the result? The result is that Aideed outlasted the United States. There was not much of a change in Somalia. Yet, we lost 18 Army Rangers. Then consider Haiti. Under the guise of installing a democratically elected President, United States forces in a U.N. mission invaded the island of Haiti. We spent $1 billion, American Defense dollars, dollars that we took from other Defense priorities, whether it was training or technology or new equipment. Today we are seeing the unraveling of the democratically elected President and that regime in Haiti--$1 billion later. Then we move to Bosnia. It seems that, since the day I walked onto the Senate floor in 1993, we have been trying to deal with the unrest, the war, and the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. We started by trying to lift the arms embargo on one part of the population in the former Yugoslavia, because other elements of that population had arms. Some had gotten their arms even though there was an arms embargo. But the Muslim population received very few arms. Many of us in the Senate felt that if we could lift that arms embargo and let the Muslims have a fair fight, perhaps that war would have ended a lot sooner. But the President refused--refused--to provide the U.S. leadership needed to lift the U.N. arms embargo. Then we saw in 1995 a massacre of Muslim men and boys. We think as many as 10,000 died in Srebrenica and other places. It was clear that the U.N. mission could not do what it was supposed to do, which was to keep some sort of peace in Bosnia. We reached the Dayton peace accords and NATO entered Bosnia. The United States was pushed into putting U.S. troops on the ground. I believe they were pushed to do it because there was a vacuum of leadership and our allies said the only way that we could show our interest and support of Bosnia and peace is to have troops on the ground. Many of us felt that there were other things that we could do besides putting our troops on the ground that would have been helpful to peace in Bosnia--including putting our money into helping the Bosnian people build an infrastructure and economic base that would have led, I think, to a better peace settlement than we are seeing right now. We are seeing a bubbling up of the hostilities in Bosnia despite the fact that our troops are there. We are seeing the bubbling up of hostilities because there is still no economic base. It is that economic base, I think, that would provide hope for the future. But, instead, the President said we would put troops on the ground to keep the warring parties apart for 1 year--for 1 year. At the end of 1995, the President said we would be there for 1 year--until the end of 1996. As the end of that year approached, the President said we need to stay there--doing the same thing, not seeing much progress. He said it would be June 30, 1998 before we could withdraw. The Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, reiterated when he came into office in his Senate hearing that it would in fact be June 1998. Just last week in the Senate took up a resolution to confirm that June 30, 1998 will be the end. We did so so all participants can count on it and they can start making plans for it, so that there won't be a vacuum that anyone else could fill with mandates for the United States. But the President has now said that he thinks it would be wrong for the Senate to confirm June 30, 1998 as the withdrawal date. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.) Madam President, I think this is the beginning of another muddled message. The President says we are going to be out June 30, 1998. His Secretary of Defense-designate this year said we are going to be out June 30, 1998. Congress proposed for us to start planning for that eventuality by saying we are going to set that limit, it will be in the law, the funding will be cut off. And the President says, no, don't do that. So he must be leaving himself an option, which is a message to both our allies and any adversaries. That leaves room once again for someone else to come in and establish American policy for us. Now, on top of all of this, we are hearing about a different mission in Bosnia. We hear our Secretary of State talking about capturing the war criminals, seeking the war criminals out. Once again, I think we need to go back and look at the parameters of the mission very clearly. We must learn from what happened in Somalia. When there is mission creep that Congress does not approve, it is in effect putting our troops into a combat role that Congress has not sanctioned. That is what we are beginning to see in Bosnia. It was clearly stated in the Dayton accords that we hoped that the war criminals, the indicted war criminals, would be apprehended and that it would be done by the three parties to the agreement: the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Croats. I want to read a series of statements that confirm what our mission is and what our mission isn't. On July 3 of this year, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns stated that a Bosnia Serb television report that NATO peacekeepers had been ordered to arrest Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic on site was ``absolutely and unequivocally false.'' In support of that position, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Gen. George Joulwan, reaffirmed on Monday, July 7, last week, that the principal responsibility for apprehending war criminals lies with the parties themselves, meaning the Bosnian parties--in accordance with the Dayton accords. On March 18 of this year, General Joulwan testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military are not policemen. ``I think''--again quoting General Joulwan--``the proper responsibility rests on the parties, the Bosnian parties. That is what Dayton says. . . . If we are not careful, we will go down this slippery slope where the military will be put into hunting down war criminals. This is not within my mandate.'' On July 9, last week, the prospective Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged his understanding of his predecessor's mandate and affirmed his intention to execute the policy in the same way as General Joulwan has. On November 17 of last year the Secretary of Defense stated, in response to a specific question regarding the apprehension of war criminals in Bosnia, that ``the mission is to provide a secure environment so that all of the other civil functions can go on. . . . It is not to perform apprehension functions.'' On December 18 of last year, the Secretary of Defense reaffirmed that ``the apprehension of war criminals was not an IFOR mission and it will not be an SFOR mission. Locating and arresting the criminals is a mission for a police force.'' On March 3 of this year, the Secretary of Defense stated that the apprehension of war criminals was not a part of the mission. It is a police function. It is not a military-type mission. Madam President, a change in United States and NATO policy regarding alleged war criminals in Bosnia could expose United States and NATO troops to direct combat action and ultimately do what none of us want, and that is jeopardize the peacekeeping progress to date. United States and NATO forces have made progress in Bosnia. This could allow the situation to deteriorate to the conditions that existed before the NATO IFOR and SFOR missions were established. Madam President, we cannot let mission creep hurt what we have done so far. We have spent 6 billion American taxpayer dollars on this mission. We have our soldiers on the ground in Bosnia right now. We cannot walk away from this mission prematurely, but we need to set the parameters of this mission and reiterate them. And the parameters are that our troops' work will be done June 30, 1998, and the mission remains the same unless the President comes back to Congress to change it. And that is: if we run across a war criminal, yes, we would apprehend that criminal. But when we say we are going to be part of a force that is going to go and seek out war criminals, war criminals that have armies still under their control, that is a very different mission. We are beginning to talk about a combat mission that we did not sign up for in the original IFOR and SFOR missions, which were very clear with Congress. I have seen General Joulwan time after time get out his book that is underlined and earmarked. It is his mission statement, and he has stuck to the mission. If we are going to change the mission, we need to know it, and we need to provide the extra alertness that would be required for changing the mission. Congress should be consulted if we are going to go out and seek war criminals. And I would say to the Serbs that we are not doing that now. We are not doing that. And when I read statements by Serbs that were passed out at the recent funeral of a war criminal, typed in broken English and appearing in Serb-held areas in northeast Bosnia promising a ``head for a head'' and warning that ``Somalia was too gentle for U.S. troops,'' I am sending a message: There is no change in the mission as far as U.S. troops go. There should not be such a change without the full accord of Congress. Many of us in Congress did not want to use our troops in this way. All of us admire and respect our troops because they have done a wonderful job fulfilling their mission, but if we are going to change that mission, we must make that decision, and we must do it knowing what the risks are. Madam President, what we should not do is permit mission creep, something that inches forward without our specific authorization and consultation, but which would put our troops into a different situation, a combat situation, a high alert situation, without understanding the full consequences of doing that. So I am standing here today saying I hope all of the Senate will be able to agree on language which says that we want the war criminals at the Hague; these people who have been indicted, who have committed atrocities, should be brought to justice. But we cannot change the mission of American troops under NATO auspices without a full airing. We cannot put our troops in the position of being targets unless we go into a different state of high alert. So I hope that we will stand together on this to say that we want to be part of a plan that determines how those criminals will be brought to justice. But right now, in the Dayton accords, it is provided that the parties, the Bosnian Serbs, the Muslims, and the Croats, will go after war criminals, as they should. It should be an international police force, but it is not a military mission as George Joulwan, as General Clark, and as our Secretaries of Defense have said for the last 2 years. And if we are going into a different kind of mission, we ask the President to come forward. Do not let this mission start creeping without our assent, without our consultation. It is the least we can do for the security of the United States, for the taxpayers of America, for our troops on the ground, and for the integrity of our word and our commitment. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as soon as this is worked out, I will not hold up the vote, but I just want to commend everyone for getting this very important bill through the Senate. The distinguished committee chairman, Senator Thurmond, our wonderful President pro tempore, has worked hardest to make sure that we have the armed services authorization with the policies in place that we need to provide for the strong national defense of this country. I commend him and his ranking member, Senator Levin, and all of those on the committee who have tried to make sure that we are using our tax dollars in an efficient way but with the foremost goal of providing the security of our country and for the support of the troops both in training, quality of life, and the technology that we need to make sure that our troops are the safest they can be when they are in the field and that they have the best equipment of any troops in the world, so that when they are called on to fight for the security of our Nation, they will be able to do the job. I commend the committee and I commend its leaders. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his courage in pursuing this matter. I want to thank the Senators from Michigan, from Arizona, from South Carolina, from Rhode Island, and from Oklahoma who are working on this to make sure that we have something that everyone can support. I think it is a very strong message to the administration that sets out the concerns of the Senate. I think with what the House did on this issue, it is going to be very clear that Congress expects a June 30 exit date for the United States. I think, certainly, if something occurs, that we should be able to discuss after that time, but I think if we plan from today, we are giving plenty of notice to everyone what our intentions are. I think the most important issue that we must address in the next year is the issue that was promised to Senator Dole and Senator McCain by the President. That is that there would be arming and training of the police force, of the Bosnians, so that they would be able to have a sense of order in their country when the NATO forces would withdraw. I am concerned that that training and arming is not taking place, and that we may come upon the June 30 deadline for our exit and they won't be fully supplied with policemen and with the armed services that will be able to keep the peace. We have a year to correct that. I hope that the administration will make sure that our word is kept, that we would have a good solid police force that would be able to keep the peace in Bosnia after June 30, 1998. But I think the sense of the Senate provides for other options, other alternatives, as we have stated in the sense of the Senate, that if, in fact, it is not finally a peaceful situation, that the United States could leave and perhaps a NATO force without the United States could stay. And we are going to be there in a support role. We have always been there in a support role for peacekeeping. But I think we must keep our word. The Senate has spoken. The House has spoken, and now is the time for the administration to hear the message and get along with the business of getting an exit strategy, putting these people in control of their government, giving them the training that they need to be able to sustain that peace themselves. I appreciate very much the very bipartisan support for this sense of the Senate. I hope that the administration will hear our words and begin the strategy for the June 1998 exit of U.S. troops. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to support what the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is trying to do, because I think it is most important that the U.S. Senate speak at this very crucial time to say, let's set a mission, let's set a timetable, let's be very clear with our allies about what that is going to be and, Mr. President, let's keep our word. Let's keep our word when we say this is our mission, this is our role, this is our responsibility, we are going to be there for you and we are going to leave June 30, 1998. The chronology is very clear. We have been trying to help the people of the former Yugoslavia for years. Many of us believed that they had the right to have a fair fight, but they didn't have a fair fight because part of that country was held to an arms embargo that did not allow them to fight for their lives, their families, their land and their sovereignty. We put amendment upon amendment on the floor to give those people a chance to have a fair fight: Lift the arms embargo on the Muslims, let them have a fair fight. But we could never adopt that--actually, we did adopt it, but we could never get the attention of the President. In 1995, we saw the horror of horrors, the massacre at Srebrenica 2 years ago where we believe, and are not even sure yet how many, but we believe as many as 10,000 Bosnians were systematically murdered. At the end of 1995, we sent in troops to keep the warring parties apart and try to have a peace which was put together at Dayton. We said that we would be there for a year at the end of 1995. At the end of 1996, the President said that it would be June 1998, and the Secretary of Defense was very clear that we would set the mission and we would set the timetable. What the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is now trying to do is say, once again, we expect that timetable to be fair warning to everyone of what our intentions are. I think it is very necessary for the Senate to speak on this, Mr. President, because we are seeing an alarming mission creep happening in that country as we speak. I think our allies in NATO have every right to go forward with the missions which they have laid out. The mission of the United States has been made very clear, that if a war criminal is there in front of us, of course, we would capture that person. But we committed, and it has been said as late as this week by both General Joulwan and Wes Clark, who is the incoming head of NATO, that our mission would not be to go out and capture the war criminals, not because we don't think they should be captured--of course they should--and the responsibility under Dayton for that is with the parties, it is with the Bosnian Government. I think we should do everything we can to help provide a framework for the capturing of these people, but American troops should not be part of that kind of effort, because we are the targets. We are the superpower. I want us to be helpful, to bring peace to Bosnia, and I want those people who committed those atrocities to be brought to justice. It is unthinkable that within the last 2 years we would have seen the kind of atrocities that were perpetrated by those indicted at The Hague who were representing the Bosnian Serbs. So I want those people to be captured. I think it is important that they be brought to justice. But, Mr. President, if we are going to be part of any such operation, it is incumbent on this administration to come back to Congress and change the mission rather than having a mission creep, such as we saw in Somalia where we were not aware that we had changed the mission from feeding starving children to capturing a warlord, and it cost us 18 Rangers, because we are different. Our people who came back from Somalia said that when our troops would go with others down the streets of Somalia, the people would not be hostile to the Turkish troops, they would not be hostile to other troops, but when the Americans came forward, the hostilities would erupt. We are a major superpower in the world. We are the only superpower probably that has a history of not being aggressive toward trying to take over other governments. We want to be a beacon for what is good in the world. So I think it is important that we are helpful to our allies without being in every firefight. I hope that we can set a standard and a mission that will uphold those principles, that we are the beacon of the world for what is good. I hope we can come to a bipartisan agreement that will assure that our mission is clear. That is why I hope that we can work with the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in his mission to be very clear in speaking as a United States Senate that we are going to keep our word in Bosnia, that we want to help the people there, we want to help them build their infrastructure, we want them to have new factories, we want them to have a peace that is based on economic security. I think the money that we are spending there is very important and perhaps if we are clear in our mission and our timetable, we will be able to show that economic stability will produce a lasting peace, perhaps better than just keeping warring parties apart. I think we have to be very careful as we move forward. I think we have to be clear in our mission, and we have to keep our word. We have to do what we say we are going to do, and our mission has been reiterated by our Department of Defense and our military leaders. I don't want the Senate to go forward without speaking on this issue. I hope that we can work with Senator Feingold, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, Senator Levin, Senator Thurmond, Senator Inhofe, and myself to make sure that our mission is clear and our timetable is set. Senator Lott, our majority leader, has been very clear with all of our allies and with us and to the press that the June 30, 1998, timetable is real, and if we don't speak forcefully, then by inches, we could change a mission that would be dangerous to our troops and, most important, dangerous to the steps we have taken in the Dayton peace accords, because if we have a flareup because of a change in mission, it could result in tearing down everything we have done so far in that country. It could decimate the Dayton peace accords if we allow a mission creep to go forward, a timetable to get fuzzy that we have not approved and have been clear that is what the United States commitment is. I hope that we will come to terms on Senator Feingold's amendment. I hope that we will come to terms on the mission that are very clear with regard to war criminals and what our role will be, such as the amendment that Senator Warner and I and others are working on with the help from Senator Lott and Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe. It is very clear that when a superpower speaks, our allies, as well as our adversaries, should be able to count on our word being good. Our word on when we will leave Bosnia should be good. It is June 30, 1998. The President has said so; the Secretary of Defense has said so. So let's make sure we support that and we do everything to prepare that country for peace. Ratcheting up the hostilities is a perilous course. I hope this Senate will speak for America so that we can remain the beacon of the superpower that does not have a personal interest but wants the world to do what is right. That is our mission, and I hope the Senate will speak. Thank you, Mr. President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the solemn importance of the investigative hearings that have just begun by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee under the leadership of the distinguished chairman, Senator Thompson, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Glenn. While it is unfortunate that some in Congress have attempted to portray this investigation as an effort by one side to make political hay, I want to briefly discuss why these hearings are crucial for all Americans of whatever party or ideology. Through the hard work and bipartisan effort of the Governmental Affairs Committee, there has been evidence uncovered and indications of much more evidence to come that our American political system was put up for sale and that an alarming number of foreign interests were ready and willing to buy. While there have been indications of a wide array of illegal activities in connection with the 1996 Presidential election, much of which the public is aware, Senator Thompson yesterday indicated that there may be much the American people do not yet know. The chairman stated yesterday that his committee has evidence that points to a concerted effort by the Chinese Government to improperly or illegally influence American foreign policy toward that country and toward Taiwan. Mr. President, if this is, indeed, the case, then in my view the American people must know the truth. They have a right to know whether the U.S. Government and U.S. officials who were charged with the duty of serving the interests of the American people instead served their own special interests and the interests of others. The U.S. Senate is attempting to find the truth through this investigation and I am hopeful and confident that it will do so. Central to the investigation at this point is a name now well-known to the American people, John Huang. Mr. Huang has been a highly paid executive of a major foreign bank. He was appointed to be a high-level trade official at the Commerce Department with access to an array of classified documents. And finally, he was for a time a key fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. While alone each of these positions is laudable, in part what this investigation seeks to determine is whether or not Mr. Huang served in all of these capacities at the same time, which would be a crime. Although it is becoming increasingly apparent that Mr. Huang did not act alone in his efforts to serve as an international influence broker, it is nevertheless interesting to discover that of the $3.4 million in donations to the Democratic Party that Mr. Huang raised, the Democratic Party has returned almost half of that money, $1.6 million, to the donors because the contributions were probably made illegally. Now Mr. Huang has asked the Senate for immunity from future prosecution if he testifies before the Governmental Affairs Committee. Whether Mr. Huang is ultimately granted immunity or not, his conduct and that of dozens of others who have been subpoenaed must be uncovered. This will inevitably involve a give-and-take process between the majority and the minority on the committee. That is to be expected, given the sensitive nature of this inquiry. But simply because the investigation touches on sensitive issues does not mean that it should not move forward. In fact, the history of our country has been one of constant vigilance against the kind of secret manipulation of power that is at the center of this investigation. Only by fully exposing wrongdoing can we be satisfied that all that can be done is being done to tell those who would seek to thwart our system that America's foreign and domestic policy is not for sale. Mr. President, in addition to the critical need to expose the illegal activities of those in positions of authority in our Government, let me also say that we in Congress should act to address the related issue of campaign finance reform. Let me be clear: the Governmental Affairs Committee and this Senate have the duty and obligation to immediately and fully investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing with regard to the most recent Federal election. But once the criminal investigation is complete, I am confident that the evidence brought out at these hearings will help shed light on how we might reform our campaign fundraising laws to prevent many of the abuses of the system that this investigation will also highlight. I have introduced a bill in the Senate that I believe can serve as a vehicle to not only achieve consensus on this important and contentious issue, but that will put a stop to the types of excesses and abuses of our system that have eroded the integrity and public confidence from our Federal political system. For example, my bill specifically prohibits contributions from any foreign entity or any foreign person, including green card holders who are not citizens of this country. I believe that effecting this change of current law would be a positive result of what we have learned from the 1996 Presidential election. It is simply not healthy for our democracy to have foreign influence in the election process. That is a sacred right and a sacred responsibility that the American people have, to democratically elect our President, our Congress, and our other State and local leaders. Anything that impinges on that right is not warranted, and I hope we will be able to take action soon to prevent this type of conduct from ever happening again. In addition to the issue of foreign influence in our election process, I am hopeful that the Governmental Affairs hearings, which I think are being conducted in a very fair and bipartisan way, will also tell us what other things we should do to make sure that our campaign laws protect the integrity of our election system. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Republican conference, Senator Mack, for asking us to come forward and talk today about the importance of this investigation and the importance of the integrity of our American election system. I yield the floor to the Senator from Florida.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I wish to make the following announcement. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of S. 936, the Senate defense authorization bill. Currently, there are a number of amendments pending which will require rollcall votes and also a number of filed amendments which are expected to be debated throughout the day. As previously announced, Senators can expect a series of rollcall votes on amendments to the bill later in the day as we make progress on this important legislation. As always, Members will be notified accordingly when votes on amendments are ordered. As a reminder to all Senators, last night a cloture motion was filed on S. 936. Therefore, all first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 o'clock today. As previously stated, it is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on this bill by the end of the week. Senators should be prepared for busy sessions this week. I thank all Members for their attention.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I strongly support the provision in the bill that deals with tax-exempt status of State workers' compensation funds. Senator Gramm and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of a letter we received earlier this month from the Governor of the State of Texas urging us to clarify the Federal tax statutes to maintain the tax-exempt status of this fund in light of the important role it plays in stabilizing the market for workers' compensation insurance in Texas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

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

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. I just want to formally submit the amendment. Amendment No. 447 (Purpose: To modify the reductions for disproportionate share hospital payments)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is an amendment that we are placing--it is on the ``DSH'' issue, and we are going to do a place-holder amendment, but it was suggested I go ahead and put it in.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will send another amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. Then I want it to be set aside for future consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for accepting the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think what the Senator is asking is, is this going to affect the rest of the family? The answer is no. It is just that the prisoner would be taken out of the equation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I understand this has been cleared by both sides. This is an amendment that I offer. It is an amendment that passed on a record vote of 409 to zero in the House. It basically closes a loophole in the Food Stamp Program. The GAO did a study and determined that the Federal Government is losing nearly $4 million a year to provide food stamps for prisoners who obviously do not need food stamps. Prisoners do not qualify for food stamps because, of course, they are being fed in prison. But nevertheless, there is food stamp abuse going on where someone in a household claims a prisoner to add to the food stamp benefits. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this amendment is going to be accepted because I think it is very important that the States do a basic check of their prison rolls with their food stamp rolls to make sure that the food stamps are being used for the purpose for which they were intended. Food stamps are an entitlement, as they should be. They are given to anyone who is in need. But I think it is not fair to double dip, and we can save $4 million. In fact, that $4 million will go into some of the other very important programs that will be covered by this reconciliation bill. So I am very pleased that we are closing this loophole, and I am very pleased that we are also adding another part that provides nutrition education for the low-income households through a network of social service organizations. This is something that Senator Rick Santorum has been a leader in doing, and he is a cosponsor of this amendment. I think we can do a lot of good. So I thank the managers of the bill for accepting this amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask that we have a voice vote.

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