Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very simple resolution. It is the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution that says, very simply, we oppose President Clinton's decision to deploy American troops into Bosnia. The second part is also very simple. It says we support the troops of our country 100 percent. Congress must exercise its responsibility under the Constitution. We must say ``no'' when there is a bad decision that will cost American lives. Congress has not been consulted. Congress has not authorized this deployment. It is not an emergency. The President is talking about a year. Congress should not authorize any deployment of troops that will put them in harm's way for a 1-year period. This is not within the parameters of the NATO agreement. I have a copy of the NATO agreement here with me. If any Member of the U.S. Senate can show me the provision in this agreement that somehow makes it our responsibility to send troops into a civil war in a country that is not a NATO country, I invite them to come to the floor and do that. Mr. President, it is not there. The NATO treaty is a mutual defense pact among nations that were trying to make sure that we would have the ability to repel a large and onerous foreign invader. There is no such potential foreign invader for our NATO countries and, therefore, rather than run around the world and react to crisis upon crisis where there is not a U.S. security threat, it is time for us to look at NATO and our agreement and make it strong by planning ahead, by having a strategic vision about what is needed now to make Europe stable. America wants to be part of making Europe stable, but, Mr. President, going into a civil war in Bosnia is not the way to make Europe stable. The way to make Europe stable is to help the people of Bosnia by making sure there is parity, by making sure that the people are able to defend themselves, but not to put United States troops on the ground. I am just going to end this morning by quoting from a letter that I got from one of my constituents, and I think it really sums it up: I remain to be convinced that we have a greater moral obligation to the Bosnians than we do to our own soldiers and their families. Mr. President, this is a bad decision, and it is the responsibility of Congress to fulfill our constitutional duty to say, ``No, Mr. President. Come to us. Let's discuss it before you deploy American troops. Sending them to Haiti without our authorization, expanding the mission in Somalia without our authorization has not worked, and sending our troops to Bosnia without our authorization will not work.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. For 15 minutes and Senator Frist and Senator Domenici.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, let me just say that Senator Frist also should be put in that group, and I will not object. He has been here all morning. He finally left. I told him that I would protect his rights. I have no objection to the people who have been waiting, but I think we should add Senator Frist and Senator Specter, who is also on his way in, for 15 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure it goes back and forth, a Republican and a Democrat.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has been waiting. We will yield him time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when I have reached 6 minutes, if I reach that point. Mr. President, I was not a Member of the Senate when the debate occurred on Desert Storm, but I was nevertheless glued to the television watching every single person, back and forth across the aisle, talking about their vote of conscience. I thought it was the Senate's finest hour. Now I find myself in the position of making a similar vote. Although we are not going to an actual war, we are nevertheless voting whether to send our troops into hostilities where the President says we can expect casualties. I feel so strongly, Mr. President, that this is the wrong decision. I feel that it is the wrong decision and that the price that we might have to pay for the mistake is too high. The cost of an American life is too high a price to support an erroneous decision. I do not like not supporting the President in a foreign policy matter. I think we should bend over backward to do that. But I look at two things. I look at my responsibility as a Member of Congress not to rubberstamp the President in the matter of going to war, and I cannot do what I think is wrong when I also believe that we could have a small loss of face now to save a bigger disaster in the future. We may lose a little face because we do something different from the actual commitment the President made. The President committed to 20,000 troops on the ground for this peace agreement. There were other things the President could have offered to help the people of Bosnia keep a peace agreement. Arming and training the Moslems is the right thing to do. Although I cannot support the Dole- McCain amendment, I do think they are right in insisting that the arming and training of the Moslems happen; that it is consistent with this Senate's vote time after time after time over the last 2 years to lift the arms embargo, because anyone who has been there, as I have been, believes that there will not be stability in that part of the world until the three warring parties have some parity. That is what will keep the factions from going after each other in the future. So arming and training the Moslems could have been done without our having troops on the ground. That would have been a fair division with our allies, and it would have fulfilled the responsibilities of the United States. But that is not what the President did. The President said we will have troops on the ground. He raised the expectations, and now we are voting whether to support that decision. I wish to refer to an article that was written last month by James Webb, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the former administration, the Bush administration. And he talks about the need for strategic thinking, to determine exactly what our treaty commitments are as we go into the post-cold-war era. And he says: ``It is time that the United States had a global strategy before it puts out any more fires.'' That really sums it up. We are running around the world putting out fires at the cost of billions of defense dollars and possibly hurting our long-term readiness for the future. What he said we should be doing is absolutely correct. We should have a set of principles from which we react to crises. ``President Nixon,'' he quotes, ``was the last President that set out a military policy, and it was fairly simple: Honor all treaty commitments in responding to those who invade the lands of our allies.'' We have a NATO Treaty. If one of the NATO countries is invaded, we would be obligated under that treaty to respond. This mission has expanded far beyond the NATO Treaty into a civil war in a non-NATO country, and yet we are being told NATO will fall if we do not come through with troops on the ground. It does not hold water, and it does not adhere to that very good and sound principle. The second principle: Provide a nuclear umbrella to the world against the threats of other nuclear powers. Mr. President, you know that we have debated theater missile defense on this very floor within the last month, and it has been a bone of contention. I strongly favor the theater missile defense.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Once again, Madam President, I thank all Senators for allowing us to do this so that every Member of the Senate who might be looking for a timetable would know that the votes do start at 10:15, and that the time between now and then will be equally divided. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. And I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Hatch and Chafee be added to the next available Republican slots, which I believe would follow Leahy and Simon.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator from Virginia let me make one more unanimous-consent request?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with sadness, tempered by gratitude, I rise today to mourn the passing of the late Chaplain of the Senate, the Rev. Richard C. Halverson. Recently he left this Chamber and this world, but the impression he left is all around us. Mr. President, we all know that national politics is often wracked by deep disagreement. The task of steering history's most civilized Nation on a wise course through democratic means arouses strong passions. Only spiritual guidance and divine grace could steady this Chamber during the tempests of every age, and we are fortunate to debate in soft tones, and to determine great questions as a civilized community. For the last 14 years, America herself was blessed to have Dr. Halverson, the Senate's Christian humanist, to keep our civilization decent. Whenever a member of out little civilization lost a loved one--or gained one--the Chaplain's office was a proven source of consolation and hope. I took the oath here not too long ago, and I remember, among a flood of invitations, one from the good Chaplain asked to come to the weekly Senate prayer breakfast. There are many bipartisan meetings in the Capitol, but the calm communion of Catholics, Jews, and Protestants was tripartisan as well as profoundly contemplative. I treasure those Wednesday morning gatherings as occasions to make deep and abiding friendships with my colleagues. Mr. President, John Stuart Mill wrote that ``one person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.'' Here in this Chamber, one Chaplain with unshakeable belief was a social power equal to all 100 of us, each with a host of interests and beliefs. He calmed our fears, he kept us together, and every morning he called us to prayer. Now, as he taught us, I join my colleagues in praying for his soul.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to support the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution. The Hutchison-Inhofe resolution is very simple. It has two parts. The first part says Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces into the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to implement the general framework agreement for peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina and to its associated annexes. Section 2 says: The Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the general agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated annexes. That is it, Mr. President. It is very simple and very clear. I wish to state from the beginning a few parameters around the debate that I am getting ready to make. First, I think there is no politics in the debate on this issue. I truly believe that every Senator is making a vote of conscience. It is a tough decision. It is not easy for anyone. And I do not think anyone's integrity can be impugned by saying there is some political reason for how that person decides to vote. In fact, as you know, anytime you are sponsoring a resolution or an amendment in this body, if you care about it, you ask people for their votes. You try to talk them into voting for your issue, especially if it is something that affects your State. I have not asked anyone for a vote on this issue. I would not feel right asking someone to vote against his or her conscience on something that important. So this is not a matter where you work the floor to try to get support for what you are doing. What you do is take a position and say this is the way I think we should go, and everyone who agrees with you will be on that resolution. And in fact the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution has 28 cosponsors. I do not know how many votes we will get for the reasons that I have stated. I just have not asked. Mr. President, I would like to say I respect the President. I think he thinks he is doing the right thing. I think he did a good job of bringing people to the peace table to talk. I disagree with his decision to deploy American troops on the ground in Bosnia, but I certainly respect the office and I think he believes he is doing what is right. I wish to make the point--and it is what I said to the troops I met with last Saturday night at midnight at Killeen, TX, at Fort Hood, as the troops were getting ready to go to the airplanes to take off for Bosnia. I told them that I believe--and I know it is true, it is a fact--that 100 percent of the Senate is going to support the troops. Now, we are going to disagree on the policy, but we are not going to disagree that we support the troops, and they are going to have everything they need for their security if they are deployed in this mission. They will have the equipment. They will have the weapons. They will have the shelter. They will have the electric socks if they need them. They will have the training. And most important, they will have the spirit. They will have the spirit of knowing that the American people may disagree with the fact that they are going, but they support the troops 100 percent because they are giving their time and they are putting their lives on the line for our country. We are the greatest country in the world, and we appreciate every single one of them. I visited with some pregnant wives. I visited with some new wives, two-day-old wives. I visited with parents who had come in from all over the country to say an early goodbye to their loved ones, men and women who were getting ready to take off. They knew I did not want them to go, but they knew I was going to do everything in my power to bring them home safely. It gives me the greatest feeling in the world to visit with our troops. There is nothing more wonderful than an American in service to his or her country. They have the most wonderful attitude--positive thinking. They are well trained. They are professionals. They are ready to go when the Commander in Chief gives them the call. So now we must decide if we are going to support what we consider to be a bad decision. I think it is a legitimate question to ask, why oppose now; the troops are on the way. I am opposing now for three reasons. I am opposing because I disagree with this policy, and I wish to discourage future such missions. I disagree with this policy, and I believe it is my constitutional responsibility not to rubberstamp it. I disagree with this policy, and I hope to give the President every opportunity to back away from this decision--the basic tenets of the peace treaty are not in place--before he does the mass deployment. If the Serbs in Sarajevo continue to burn the American flag, if they are not committed in body and mind to this peace agreement, I hope the President will say, ``No. No, we are not going to deploy American troops if the peace treaty is not intact.'' That is why I am putting this resolution in with 27 of my colleagues, to make sure that the President has every opportunity to say there is disagreement in Congress on this issue, and I am not going to send the troops into harm's way if a peace agreement is not intact. And if they are burning the American flag, the peace agreement is not intact. So let me take each one of my reasons and flush them out a little bit. I disagree with the policy, and I wish to discourage future missions. I do not want this to be a precedent for the future. The President has said NATO will fall if we do not do this. I disagree with that. I think NATO has a place in the post-cold-war era. But NATO was put together as a mutual defense pact when there was a big-time aggressor, the U.S.S.R. There is no big time aggressor, so we must look at our responsibility under the NATO treaty. We must look at the role of NATO in the world we live in today, not the world we lived in in 1945. And we need to say, what is the role? We need to debate it, if we are going to expand it, and we need for Congress to approve it, if we are going to have a new treaty with NATO. And we must do this thinking ahead, not by moving crisis to crisis, not by going to Somalia and saying we are going to try to capture a warlord, and then when we lose 18 rangers walk away, not by going into Haiti without the approval of Congress and $1 billion and 1 year later seeing the same problems arising in Haiti that they had before we landed. And now we have Bosnia, a civil war in a non-NATO country, and we are told NATO is going to fall if we are not there in a non-NATO country, in a civil war. Mr. President, that does not pass the commonsense test. We should have a strong NATO. To do that, we must determine what NATO's role is in the future, and we must not act crisis to crisis and send our kids into harm's way for a false reason. We could dissipate our strength if we bounce from one civil war to another across the globe because we do not have infinite resources. We have finite resources, Mr. President, and we have spent $1 billion in Somalia. We are going to spend $3 to $5 billion in Bosnia. What are we going to do when we are really needed in a crisis that does threaten U.S. security? What if North Korea, with nuclear capabilities, erupts? What if Saddam Hussein decides to take another march? Are we going to have the resources if we have spent $3 to $5 billion in a civil war when we could have spent less helping the people of Bosnia rebuild their country, which we want to do? Mr. President, we have not thought this through, and one of the reasons it has not been thought through is because Congress was not consulted. Which brings me, Mr. President, to my second reason for continuing to oppose the President's decision, and that is the role of Congress in the declaration of war, or sending our troops into hostilities, which are the equivalent of war under the Constitution. I do not like to oppose the President on a foreign policy issue, but I have a responsibility as a Member of Congress that was given to me in the Constitution of this country. I want to talk about that because that is a disagreement on this floor. It is not partisan. But many people believe that Congress really does not have a role in this, that the President has the right to do what he is doing. The President does indeed have the right to command our forces. He is the Commander in Chief, and he has the right to act in an emergency because Congress gave him that right in the War Powers Act. We did not want him to be hamstrung. We did not want him not to be able to send troops in if American lives were at stake, and if he did not have time to come to Congress. But, Mr. President, sending our troops into Haiti for 1 year without ever asking Congress' permission, or even asking their opinion, is wrong. That is a violation of the Constitution. And we are getting ready to do it again on Bosnia. I have the Federalist Papers right here. The Federalist Papers, of course, were written by three people who were crucial in the decisionmaking in writing our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 69, written by Alexander Hamilton, he discusses the role of the President as Commander in Chief, and he is comparing it to the role of the King of England, which, of course, we had just left and tried to make a better country because many people were dissatisfied with a monarchy. So here is what Alexander Hamilton said about the war powers of the President. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York at the time have at all times the entire command-- Not part-- . . . of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second, the President is to be commander-in- chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-- I move to No. 74 by Alexander Hamilton, where he says: Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. Mr. President, he was speaking to us. He was saying, do not have one person able to declare the war and to run the war. And James Madison said exactly the same thing: Those who were to ``conduct a war'' could not be safe judges on whether to start one. James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said the checks-and- balances system ``will not hurry us into war.'' He said, ``It is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.'' He was very clear, as were the others who have spoken on this issue. They did not want the President to be able to send our troops into distressed situations without consulting with Congress. They wanted it to be hard. They wanted it to be muddy. That is why they put both people in charge, the President and the Congress, and they wanted them to work together so it would be difficult. Louis Fisher, who wrote an article with some of the quotes that I have just given you, is a professor and an author. He has written the book ``Presidential War Power.'' He says: It might be argued that ``war power'' is not involved because Mr. Clinton will use American forces for peace, not war. ``America's role will not be about fighting a war,'' he said. He said he refused ``to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia,'' and ``I believe we must help to secure the Bosnian peace.'' Mr. Fisher says, ``Mr. Clinton has already authorized air strikes against the Serbs.'' He now intends to send ground troops. By making an overwhelming show of force, he says, ``American troops will lessen the need to use force.'' Note the word lessen. Anyone who takes on our troops, he says, ``will suffer the consequences.'' Mr. President, if that is not the equivalent of what would be considered war when the Constitution was written, what could be more clear? Mr. Fisher goes on to say: Whenever the President acts unilaterally in using military force against another nation, the constitutional rights of Congress and the people are undermined. I agree with Mr. Fisher: We are not upholding our part in the Constitution if we let this pass. The third area of disagreement that is very important for why I continue to oppose this deployment is because I want to narrow the mission. I want there to be a time limit. The War Powers Act is supposed to give emergency capabilities to the President to go in when he cannot come to Congress. This President is asking for a year. That is not an emergency. We have been looking at this situation for 3 years. We have asked the President to lift the arms embargo. He has refused to do it, and now we are put in the position of knowing that if there is going to be any kind of cease-fire that will last in that part of the world, it has to be when there is parity among the three warring factions. We wanted to lift the arms embargo so that parity would be there now. The President said no. In effect, the President did lift the arms embargo, but he made us the ones who used the arms when we started bombing the Serbs. So I want to narrow the mission, and I want there to be a time limit so that the expectations will not be there any further than 1 year. It is the expectations that got us into this mess because the President, without consulting with Congress, went forward and said, oh, yes, we will put troops on the ground, when he had so many other options. And troops on the ground should have been the last. Instead, they were the first. So then people come and say, well, the only way you can show your commitment to peace in the Balkans is troops on the ground. When, in fact, there are many ways that we could have shown our commitment to peace in the Balkans that would have been much more effective than American troops on the ground because now the President says we cannot arm and train the Moslems because we are on the ground precisely. We should have said we would arm and train the Moslems and not put troops on the ground so we would not be taking sides at the time that we were trying to bring parity into the region. And we must have parity in the region if, when we leave, there is going to be any equity in the region. So, Mr. President, many of my colleagues want to speak on this very important issue. I will just close with the last reason that I am going to oppose the President's decision, and that is the Larry Joyce test. One day when I was on the plane going back to Dallas from Washington, DC, a man walked up to me and said, ``Hi, Senator. I'm one of your constituents. My name is Larry Joyce.'' And I said, as I normally would to someone like that, ``Well, hi, Larry. How are you doing? What were you doing in Washington?'' And he said, ``I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.'' And I said, ``Did he die in Somalia?'' And he said, ``Yes, he did.'' And as tears streamed down his face, he said, ``Senator, I went to Vietnam twice. I am a military man. And now my only son, on his very first mission as a Ranger, is not coming home. Senator, I would just like to know why.'' I did not feel good about an answer to Larry Joyce because I do not think our troops should have been doing what they were doing in Somalia. Now, his son did not die in vain because he was doing what he had signed up to do, and he was doing it with honor, and he was a great kid, Casey Joyce, just the kind of young man or the kind of young woman that I see as I visit our bases across the country. But I said that night I would never vote to send our troops into harm's way if I could not give the mother or father a good answer about why. Mr. President, sending our troops into Bosnia under these circumstances is not meeting the test. Mr. President, I am urging the President of the United States to reconsider his decision, to make sure that he is sure, before he deploys American troops, that it is a U.S. security interest--not just an interest, which we certainly have and which we can fulfill without American lives on the line. I want the President to reconsider his decision, and I hope that he will. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The second point I want to make, Mr. President, and it is very much in the forefront right now, and that is the situation where the President has asked for our support to send troops to Bosnia. Mr. President, I do not think we should send troops to Bosnia, and I do not feel that the President has made the case, made the difference, shown the difference, between a national interest and a national security interest that would warrant the loss of our precious American lives. Our young American men and women that signed up to be in the military did sign up knowing that they might be put in harm's way. They did that willingly because they believed that they should be able and willing and ready to fight for our freedom, and to protect the freedom and strength of the United States of America. There is one thing implicit, Mr. President, in that decision. That is that we would have the judgment to send them where our national security interest was at stake. I do not think our national security interest is at stake, Mr. President. That is why I am so strongly urging that the President reconsider, that the President look at what is happening right now. People talking about changing the agreement in Paris that has been already initialed in Dayton; Serbs talking about not thinking Americans are neutral in this; talking about throwing rocks at Americans when they come in. Mr. President, can we be thinking of the security of those troops as we are wondering if this is a national security issue that should warrant the loss of their lives? Mr. President, I do not think the case has been made. I am going to fight it in every way that I can. I think we have other options to support the people of Bosnia. I do want to support those people. They have suffered greatly. I want to help them. There are many ways that we can. I do not think American troops on the ground should be the only test to show that we are committed to the people of Bosnia. We are committed. We can show it in many other ways. I want to keep our troops home. I want to save our troops for when there is a security threat to the United States. We can go out and help the people of the world who are not as fortunate as we are, and we are a generous people and we will do that. But giving our lives in those causes is not what I think is necessary, nor is it the responsible role of Congress to let it happen. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to rise to speak, as many of my colleagues have, on two very important issues that the Senate is facing right now. I think there are great differences between the administration's position and the position of Congress. The first, of course, is the balanced budget. We are trying to keep the promise we made to the people that we will have a balanced budget in 7 years. The President has altered his position, starting in his campaign with a 5-year balanced budget, but then after he was elected saying, ``Well, 10 years is good enough, 9 years, 8 years.'' Now he has committed to a 7-year balanced budget. The only problem is the President is doing what he has been doing for the last 2\1/2\ years, and that is giving lip service now to a 7-year balanced budget, but his offer on the table is, ``I need $7 billion or $8 billion more in spending.'' Fine, Mr. President. Where are we going to take that spending from? Silence from the White House. That is not the kind of leadership that we need if we are going to truly sit down with a commitment to a 7-year balanced budget and say, ``All right, here are the parameters, here are the spending limits. Now let's negotiate within these parameters.'' You cannot say, I need $7 billion out of the sky, but yes, I am committed to a 7-year balanced budget, but I am not going to suggest where we would take it from. That is because the tough decisions are always the decisions on where you have to cut or slow spending or eliminate programs that do not work. When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, we have to cut spending. That is how we are going to meet the test. Mr. President, $7 billion more to spend, without saying where it is going to come from, is always the easy position. I would love to spend the money on these programs. There is probably not one of them that is not a good program. But does it meet the test of our taxpayers feeling that it is worth their hard-earned dollars to put money in these programs rather than live within our means, like every household and every small business in this country must do. That is the question, and that is the test we are facing right now. When I am home, people say to me, ``Don't blink.'' I am here to say, we are not going to blink. We are going to do what is right for this country. I hope the President will come to the table and say not only where he would like to spend more money but from where he believes we should take it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I would object to my own request on behalf of Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1438, introduced today by Senator Dole, is at the desk, and I would ask for its first reading.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wish to say briefly that I have just heard the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator McCain state that they would be introducing a resolution--I am sure a bipartisan resolution--to support the President's efforts to send troops to Bosnia. Madam President, there are no two people I know in the Senate that I respect more, and certainly no two people in the Senate who have given more in the military service of our country than Senator McCain and Senator Dole. I respect them, and I know that they are coming to this decision in a way that is very thoughtful and statesmanlike. I am very sad that this is going to happen because I disagree totally with the conclusions they have reached. I think every Member is going to have to really search his or her conscience to decide what is the responsibility of a Senator or a Member of Congress in this type of action. I know all of us are going to vote our conscience. I do not think anyone will come to their conclusion based on anything except what they think is right. I am sure debate will be heated, but I think it is very important that we have an alternative to the resolution introduced by the majority leader because many of us feel that this is the wrong decision and that for us to exercise our responsibility as Members of the Senate, we must speak out against deploying troops to Bosnia. So there will be an alternative and I hope we will be able to vote on a clear alternative, and that is a resolution to disapprove this deployment of our troops. We will go into debate more in the next week, and I do appreciate the fact that we are going to have the opportunity next week, rather than some later time after it is too late to try to have an impact on the President's decision. I have read the Constitution. It is very clear to me that the Founders of our country were specific in not giving the war powers to the President alone. In fact, in The Federalist Papers, both Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton specifically said this is not a monarchy, therefore, the President alone should not be able to wage war. So the question becomes, what is a war? Are we sending our troops into a hostile situation in which they will be in harm's way? And does that mean that they are in a war? I believe sending troops into a situation in which we believe there is a good chance for fatalities must be done by the President and Congress together, not by the President alone. I think it is most important, and I think it was part of the balance of powers, that the founders of our country were very careful to put in our Constitution that this kind of decision not be made by one person. I am very concerned that we are also setting a precedent for our troops to be deployed on the ground in border conflicts, in ethnic conflicts, in civil wars that were never contemplated when we signed on to in the NATO Treaty. Nowhere in the NATO Treaty does it say that we should be required to go into a country that is not a NATO country, a country which has not been invaded by a hostile force, a country which is, in fact, in a civil war. So, Madam President, the debate will come. And people will be very emotional about it. I am very emotional about it. I want to take my responsibility as a Member of the U.S. Senate, as a person given that responsibility by the voters of my State with obligations that are constitutional, to try to make sure that not only do our young men and women in the armed services have everything that we can give them when they chose to give their lives to protect our freedom, but that they also have the leadership that has the judgment to know that only when it is a U.S. security interest at stake is it worth the risk of their lives. And, Madam President, I hope we can make the case that that is not the situation in Bosnia. I want to help the Bosnian people. We have done our part. We have shouldered about 60 or 70 percent of the cost of this effort so far. We have been there for the parties to come together. We have been a catalyst for the peace agreement. And I give the President credit for that. He deserves credit for bringing the people to the peace table and for hammering out this peace agreement. But I think it is most important that we have many options to help the people of Bosnia. I do not think United States troops on the ground are among the best things that we can do for the Bosnian people, not for NATO, and not for America. It is not in our best interest to send ground troops to Bosnia. The President of the United States has unfortunately allowed our allies and others in the world to somehow argue that the only way we can show our commitment to peace is to have ground troops. I think there are many other ways we can support this peace agreement. We can continue to provide air support. We can continue to play a strategic role. We are giving money now, and we will continue to give money. We can provide intelligence support for them, which we have been doing, and which we can do. We can arm and train the Moslems without being part of this peacekeeping force. In fact, I think that would be a far better policy. So, many options are there for us to help the Bosnian people. But placing American troops in harm's way is not an option that I think is right, not for America, not for NATO, and not for the people of Bosnia. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

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 following my remarks.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. For the information of all Senators, at 4 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1833 regarding partial-birth abortions. There will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Also, as a reminder to all Senators, under a previous consent agreement, at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, the Senate will begin debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1058, the securities litigation bill. Senators can therefore expect rollcall votes during Tuesday's session.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. And for the information of all Senators, debate will begin on the partial-birth abortion ban at 4 p.m. on Monday. However, no votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. on Monday, December 4, the Senate turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 249, H.R. 1833, the partial-birth abortions ban, for debate only.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 3 o'clock p.m. on Monday, December 4; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business until the hour of 4 o'clock p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Dorgan amendment. I do very much appreciate the chairman of the committee putting forward this legislation. Our budget resolution envisions that the ICC will go out of existence. I think it is important that we pass this legislation. But I do not think it was the intent of the committee to change all the rules under which we have been operating as it concerns mergers in this area. I think turning over the power to the Department of Justice and changing the criteria that are being used for antitrust purposes would not be a very good thing for us to do, and there is no reason to do it. We are talking about saving money here. We are talking about doing away with the duplication of administration. I do not think we have to also change all of the rules and the precedents that have been set for the last 70 years in railroad mergers. There are many people who have legitimate concerns about some of the railroad mergers that are being considered right now. But these were brought into play before we brought this bill to the floor. And I think to change the rules is not necessary, nor desirable. I think we have the capabilities to judge any mergers. We have the ability to judge the issues under the standards that we have had before in transferring that to the Department of Transportation. The second reason I think it is important to keep the standards we have is that the Department of Transportation and the new Board that will be created will have the transportation background. They will specialize in this area. That will be their area of expertise and concern. I do not think it does us any good to go to the Department of Justice, which has so many other areas of interest, and I do not think that having this transfer does anything for the merits of the issue, and it could hurt by changing precedent that has been in place. One of the things that is so important in our judicial system is the value of precedent. We place a great deal of emphasis on being able to determine from what has happened in the past what will be allowed in the future. That is one of the ways that businesses make their decisions. They would look at a merger, they would look at a precedent, and they would make a business decision if this is something that would go through and what the concerns would be. I think it is important we keep that value of precedent so that we will have an orderly business climate that allows people to make good business decisions without disrupting 70 years of precedent in this area. So I hope that we can defeat the Dorgan amendment and stick with the committee bill. I think it is a good bill. It has many merits. It is certainly going to save money. We are on the road to eliminating the ICC because it is not necessary. Let us not throw out the value of what has gone on in the past just because we are putting it into a more efficient system. I think it could cost us much more in the long run and certainly cost competitiveness and cost to customers if we increase the regulatory environment and therefore cause people to have to raise prices. So I hope we can defeat this amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.