Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Bob Bennett and I introduced a bill yesterday that redefines the Federal role in providing assistance to the arts. We believe there is an excellent case to be made for continued Federal arts and humanitiies funding. But past experience has shown clearly that the role of the Federal Government in artisitic endeavor must be focused on more citizen involvement--and more common sense. At the heart of this bill we have introduced is a belief that culture counts. Mr. President, the students on Tiananmen Square in 1989 who created a statue of freedom in the likeness of out Statue of Liberty had no difficulty identifying the unifying themes of American culture. We Americans, on the other hand, are immersed in--and sometimes overexposed to--its more contentious aspects. As a result, sometimes we see it less clearly. We debate whether we have a common culture and if so, what it is and who it represents. Federal support for the arts is a case in point. Most federally supported arts projects promote mainstream excellence and the widest possible public enjoyment. But by allocating tax dollars to a few outrageous and patently offensive projects that claimed to have cornered the market on American culture, the National Endowment for the Arts has managed to alienate legions of Americans--voters and policymakers alike. Its excesses have led many to conclude that Federal support for the arts should be terminated. That, I believe, would be an unfortunate policy, one that would dim the light of American culture to an even greater degree. Committed as I am to a balanced Federal budget, I think that Federal funding for the arts and humanities should be continued as a national policy to preserve an American heritage--if we can return to our original purpose in creating these programs, and if we can ensure that no more Federal funds end up in the hands of those who are willfully offensive. Our bill redirects Federal support for the arts, humanities and museum activities away from the self-indulgently obscene and the safely mediocre and toward the creation and support of community-based programs. By this I mean locally and regionally based theater, dance, opera and museums. To accomplish this we propose combining the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services into one agency. This new joint endowment would devolve as much of its decisionmaking authority as possible to the States--and to the people whose tax dollars support it. The new endowment would continue to make direct grants to support nationally significant endeavors in the arts and humanities. However, the bulk of public resources would go directly to the States to promote greater access to the arts in our schools and communities, to continue worthy public projects in the humanities and to strengthen local museums. The consolidation we propose would streamline the existing endowment apparatus. This new endowment would be headed up by three deputy directors--one each for the arts, for the humanities and for museum services. The current 52-member advisory board would be replaced by a national council comprised of 18 members selected for their knowledge and achievements. Six would be chosen by the Senate, six by the House, and six by the President. One of the primary objectives of this bill is to reduce the size of the existing endowment bureaucracy in Washington, and to return resources and decisionmaking responsibilities of cities, regional groups and currently underserved areas. Our bill provides that no more than 9 percent of appropriated funds go to administrative functions, and it defines two basic grant categories: 40 percent earmarked for grants of national significance and 60 percent allocated for grants to the States. A portion of the States' grants would be dedicated to strengthening primary and secondary education in the arts. It is very important that we go into our schools, and have an appreciation shown for our young people in the arts and our American culture. Humanities and museum activities would be covered by our bill. We put special emphasis on communities which for geographic or economic reasons cannot otherwise sustain arts, and arts education programs. Let me make this very clear: Our bill prohibits any money appropriated under this act from being used to fund projects which violate standards of common decency. Nor may any of these resources be used, directly or indirectly, for lobbying. Arts funding goes to institutions and organizations not individual artists. In our bill, we focus on accountability, on ensuring that allocations are cost effective--and that they are made in a way that emphasizes merit and excellence. The thrust of this bill is to conserve and showcase our State and national treasures, those great cultural institutions that are our legacy to our children--our world class museums, libraries, dance companies, orchestras, theater companies, and university presses. With the financial support of private donors, and of the States and the Federal Government, these intellectual and cultural power centers will have the potential to spin off a host of other creative activities that will enrich the lives of all of our people. Our country will benefit--culturally, spiritually, and economically-- from appropriately delineated Federal support for the arts. Americans rightly demand an end to obscenity and outrage, but not withdrawal of all government support for the cream of our culture. There are those who argue that all cultures--and all levels of culture--are equal, and that there is no real American culture at all, but rather only an amalgam of diverse cultures. But this deliberate balkanization of American culture ignores our singular heritage which has drawn from many sources to create a body of American arts and letters what is uniquely our own. E pluribus unum-- out of many, one. It is a living tradition worth sustaining. Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have presented today contains a formula for arts funding--and the encouragement of our native culture--that can regain the confidence and support of the American people. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Abilene Reporter-News that talks about the importance of keeping [[Page S 10796]] arts funding for our smaller communities like Abilene, TX. It is very important that we be able to have an opera in Abilene, as we have had in the last 2 weeks, an artwalk that has been a great boon to the cultural prospects of a great city like Abilene. This happens all over America, Mr. President, and I do not want that cultural enlightenment that we have put into our smaller cities to die, and that is why Senator Bennett and I are trying to make a significant contribution to keeping what is good about the arts funding and our American culture while not allowing the obscenities that have turned our taxpayers off of these other good projects. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer a bill similar to one I introduced in the last Congress. My bill, the National Voter Opportunity To Inform Congress Effectively on Term Limits--or VOICE-- Act, would authorize a national advisory referendum on term limits for Members of Congress. It is a companion bill to legislation being introduced today in the House by Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan. In recent years, the American people have come to realize that the seniority system, coupled with the overwhelming electoral advantages of incumbency, has created a class of career politicians--a class not envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the Congress as a body of citizen- legislators. People who had trades, professions, or businesses would serve for a period of time, bringing with them experience and fresh ideas to shape the laws that would govern commerce and quality of life. There has been a vigorous grassroots effort mounting in this country to return us to this vision. Especially over the past few years, the movement to limit congressional terms has gained significant ground. Despite the Congress' reluctance to impose term limits on itself, the people have chosen to press forward without us by passing ballot initiatives to limit the terms of their own Federal representatives. In 23 States--nearly half the country--the people have spoken overwhelmingly and unequivocally that they want the terms of their Congressmen and Senators to be limited. Last May, the term limits movement suffered a major blow with the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. versus Thornton. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court said the State-imposed term limits violate the Constitution and that any effort to limit congressional terms must be done through a constitutional amendment. This ruling effectively overturned all 23 States term-limits laws that had been passed up to now. The House's failure to pass an amendment last March proves that there is virtually no chance for term limits in this Congress. Even in this Chamber, a recent rollcall survey found that we are still 24 votes shy of having enough support to approve a term-limits amendment. Congress is truly out of touch with America on this issue. That is why, Mr. President, I feel it is so important that we give every American, in all 50 States, an opportunity to speak directly to their Federal representatives on the term-limits matter. My bill would do just that by conducting a nonbinding, national referendum. It would place a simple and straightforward question on every ballot in the 1996 election, ``Should Congress approve a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that a Member of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate can serve in office? Yes or No.'' Let me hasten to add that this legislation would not create an unfunded Federal mandate. This bill provides that States would be reimbursed at a rate of 4 cents per voter for the cost of putting the question on the ballot. This Federal reimbursement would be offset by corresponding reduction in the franking budget for Members of the House and Senate. Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues to join me in giving the American people a voice in the next election on whether the terms of their representatives in the U.S. Congress should be limited. Rather than debating about what we think the American people want and need, let's give them the opportunity to tell us themselves, clearly and directly. It is time we invoke the communicative power of democracy and ask the people what they think.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on the floor tonight. It seems to me that we are all looking at the same fact situation. But we are coming at it from a very different vantage point, and with the same facts we are coming to very different conclusions. One side says this is a failed U.N. peacekeeping mission, and that we should shore up the United Nations and escalate the effort that the United Nations is making. The other side says this is a failed U.N. mission, and within the constraints of our commitment it is time for us to withdraw. Mr. President, I am in the second category. The time has come for us to get the United Nations out and let the Bosnian Moslems have a fair fight. We have stood by and watched while the well-armed Serbian forces have waged war against the Bosnian people that has made us cry at night watching what has happened. The fall of Srebrenica, and the ethnic cleansing which followed, provides convincing evidence of the failure of this current policy. The Serbs are not going to negotiate. They have demonstrated that they believe they have more to gain by fighting than negotiating. Absent a military threat, the aggressor Serbs have no reason to negotiate in good faith. We have debated this issue for over a year now, and we have watched the situation in Bosnia continue to deteriorate. History will not judge us kindly if we continue to withhold from the Bosnians the means to fight for their own freedom. Our action has not been one of neutrality because the effect has been to keep the Bosnian army from defending themselves with the same kinds of arms that the Serb aggressors have had. The time has come for us to end this debate, withdraw the U.N. forces, and lift the arms embargo once and for all. The old adage said, ``It is preferable to die fighting on your feet than to live begging on your knees.'' It is clear the Bosnians have made their choice. They have been bravely fighting on their feet for months, but they have been severely limited in arms. The Bosnians are not asking us to arm them. They are not asking for American troops to defend them. They are simply asking to be allowed to fight their own fight. It is unconscionable for us to continue to deny them that basic right to fight for their survival. What we have is a bloodstained policy which denies them the means of defending themselves, and it is one which we can no longer countenance. Two months ago, I stood on the border of Macedonia and Serbia. I was standing side by side with our Americans with U.N. blue caps. They were at an outpost watching the border to make sure that this fight did not spread. I returned to the United States to find that our administration was considering requests from our allies which will only draw the United States deeper and deeper into an implacable situation. We are being asked to help increase and reinforce the U.N. mission in Bosnia, more airstrikes, and a larger U.N. ground force. For us to participate in such a plan would be a grave mistake. We are considering increasing the U.N. involvement when the message could not be more clear. What we are doing is not working. The last thing we should do is increase that commitment. I have been opposed to sending ground troops into Bosnia, and in light of recent developments, my resolve is even stronger. Any decision to involve United States forces in additional air support roles would take us two steps closer to a United States ground presence in Bosnia. I heard the Senator from Massachusetts earlier today saying maybe it would be a balance, that we would provide air cover and airstrikes for our allies who would be on the ground. I do not think that would be a fair balance, Mr. President. The shootdown of Capt. Scott O'Grady served to remind us that providing air support is not without cost. It has the potential of getting us more deeply involved in this conflict. We are now drawing up operational plans for airstrikes should the Serbs move on Gorazde. We are on the brink. The U.N. is conducting a peacekeeping mission in a region where there is no peace. The U.N. is paralyzed, unable to respond and unwilling to retreat. Two weeks ago, the Bosnian Serbs attacked the U.N.-designated safe area of Srebrenica. They rounded up the men for ``questioning.'' They threw women and children out of their homes and onto the roads--no food, no water. The tales of the acts of barbarism committed by the Bosnian Serb forces are now being reported by the United Nations. One U.N. official said the Serb actions constituted very serious violations of human rights on an enormous scale that can only be described as barbarous. Using artillery and armored vehicles, the well-armed Serbs quickly overran Zepa and now they have turned their sights on Bihac, Gorazde, and Sarajevo. For some time, this administration has argued that their reluctance to lift the arms embargo stems from a fear that if the arms embargo should be lifted, the Bosnian Serbs would only be encouraged to go on the offensive and press their attack on the Moslems. This line of reasoning, Mr. President, is frustrating and beneath the standards of our great Nation. The Bosnian Serbs are on the attack. That should be obvious to any casual observer. The Serbs are oblivious to what the U.N. is doing because they have seen only empty threats and rhetoric. The refugees fleeing Srebrenica and Zepa provide ample evidence of the failure of this embargo where only one side of the conflict is armed. I remember my meeting with the Prime Minister of Bosnia when he was here just a few weeks ago. He was bemused. He said, ``I keep hearing the United Nations say there are two sides to this war.'' He said, ``There are two sides all right. One side is shooting and the other side is dying.'' That is two sides, but it is not a fair fight, and we must do everything in our power to let them have a fair fight without U.S. presence in that fight. The bill we are debating acknowledges what we all know, that the United Nations can no longer function in Bosnia in anything but a limited humanitarian role. Since this bill links termination of the embargo to United [[Page S 10631]] Nations withdrawal, the Bosnians and those participating in the United Nations will make ultimate decisions as to when and under what conditions the United Nations would withdraw and the embargo would be lifted. By linking United Nations withdrawal to the lifting of the arms embargo, the Serbs will be on notice that should the U.N. leave, they will get the fight they have been seeking, but it will not be with unarmed women and children, unarmed men. It will be a fair fight with armed Moslem soldiers. The United Nations is an effective peacekeeper when two sides to a crisis want peace. That is not the situation in Bosnia today. As the frustrated Bosnian Foreign Minister said so eloquently following the fall of Srebrenica, ``The U.N. troops have become a hindrance, a clumsy reminder of the U.N.'s failure.'' It is time for the U.N. to abandon this failed mission, not because they did not try but because the tide was not right. I urge the President to turn away from this recent shift in American policy and instead of encouraging the United Nations to increase its activities, we should lift the arms embargo so the Bosnian Moslems can defend themselves and allow our allies to decide if they want to leave. One Bosnian official said last week, ``We have never seen the United Nations do much more than talk. We have given up on anyone from the outside coming to our rescue.'' Mr. President, we can no longer leave the Bosnians defenseless. It is time to recognize the failure of our current policy and to do what it takes to provide the Bosnian Government the right to defend its own people from aggression. The United States has acted unilaterally before, and we will again. We must lift the arms embargo. Vice President Ganic said, ``We are dying anyway. Let us die fighting, fighting for our country.'' I think the time has come for this Senate to remember our own heritage. Over 200 years ago, we fought for our freedom. ``Give me liberty or give me death'' was the rallying cry of our soldiers. We should remember the sacrifices that our forefathers willingly made because they cared so much for freedom. And we should heed the pleas that come from a country far across the ocean, a country that wishes to fight for their freedom, their liberty, their families, and their future generations. Mr. President, we must step out of the way and let them have a fair fight. I hope my colleagues will give overwhelming, bipartisan support to finally taking the stand that we have talked about and debated and danced around for months on end while other people have paid the ultimate price of enduring rape and ravage and murder, and let us let them have the ability to take what is left of their country and defend it with the honor they are seeking. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Robert Bennett and I are introducing today redefines the Federal role in providing assistance to the arts. We believe there is an excellent case to be made for continued Federal arts and humanities funding. But past experience has shown clearly that the role of the Federal Government in artistic endeavor must be focused on more citizen involvement--and more common sense. At the heart of this bill we have introduced is a belief that culture counts. Mr. President, the students on Tianamen Square in 1989 who created a statue of freedom in the likeness of our Statue of Liberty had no difficulty identifying the unifying themes of American culture. We Americans, on the other hand, are immersed in--and sometimes overexposed to--its more contentious aspects. As a result, we sometimes see it less clearly. We debate whether we have a common culture and if so, what it is and who it represents. Federal support for the arts is a case in point. Most federally supported arts projects promote mainstream excellence and the widest possible public enjoyment. But by allocating tax dollars to a few outrageous and patently offensive projects that claimed to have cornered the market on American culture, the National Endowment for the Arts has managed to alienate legions of Americans--voters and policymakers alike. Its excesses have led many to conclude that Federal support for the arts should be terminated. That, I believe, would be an unfortunate policy, one that would dim the light of American culture to an even greater degree. Committed as I am to a balanced Federal budget, I think that Federal funding for the arts and humanities should be continued as a national policy to preserve an American heritage--if we can return to our original purpose in creating these programs, and if we can ensure that no more Federal funds end up in the hands of those who are willfully offensive. Our bill redirects Federal support for the arts, humanities and museum activities away from the self-indulgently obscene and the safely mediocre and toward the creation and support of community-based programs. By this I mean locally and regionally based theater, dance, opera, and museums. To accomplish this we propose combining the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum Services into one agency. This new joint endowment would devolve as much of its decisionmaking authority as possible to the States--and to the people whose tax dollars support it. The new endowment would continue to make direct grants to support nationally significant endeavors in the arts and humanities. However, the bulk of public resources would go directly to the States to promote greater access to the arts in our schools and communities, to continue worthy public projects in the humanities, and to strengthen local museums. The consolidation we propose would streamline the existing endowment apparatus. This new endowment would be headed by three deputy directors--one each for the arts, for the humanities and for museum services. The current 52-member advisory board would be replaced by a national council comprised of 18 members selected for their knowledge and achievements. One of the primary objectives of this bill is to reduce the size of the existing endowment bureaucracy in Washington, and to return resources and decisionmaking responsibilities to cities, regional groups, and currently underserved areas. Our bill provides that no more than 9 percent of appropriated funds go to administrative functions, and it defines two basic grant categories: 40 percent earmarked for grants of national significance and 60 percent allocated for grants to the States. A portion of the States' grants would be dedicated to strengthening primary and secondary education in the arts, humanities, and museum activities. We put special emphasis on communities which, for geographic or economic reasons, cannot otherwise sustain arts education programs. [[Page S 10658]] Let me make this very clear: Our bill prohibits any money appropriated under this act from being used to fund projects which violate standards of common decency. Nor may any of these resources be used, directly or indirectly, for lobbying. In our bill, we focus on accountability, on ensuring that allocations are cost-effective--and that they are made in a way that emphasizes merit and excellence. The thrust of this bill is to conserve and showcase our State and National treasures, those great cultural institutions that are our legacy to our children--our world class museums, libraries, dance companies, orchestras, theater companies, and university presses. With the financial support of private donors, and of the States and the Federal Government, these intellectual and cultural power centers will have the potential to spin off a host of other creative activities that will enrich the lives of all of our people. Our country will benefit, culturally, spiritually and economically, from appropriately delineated Federal support for the arts. Americans rightly demand an end to obscenity and outrage, but not withdrawal of all Government support for the cream of our culture. There are those who argue that all cultures, and all levels of culture, are equal, and that there is no real American culture at all, but rather only an amalgam of diverse cultures. But this deliberate balkanization of American culture ignores our singular heritage which has drawn from many sources to create a body of American arts and letters what is uniquely our own. E pluribus unum-- out of many, one. It is a living tradition worth sustaining. Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have presented today contains a formula for arts funding, and the encouragement of our native culture, that can regain the confidence and support of the American people.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to talk about the bill that is on the floor. Mr. President, I think that we are coming to a very important time in this Congress, and that is the time that we are going to be dealing with reform of our lobby laws, and later the gift laws that apply to Members of Congress. Mr. President, it is important that we have Government in the sunshine. The bill that is before us, lobby reform and lobby control, is an important one, and we have passed a similar bill in previous Congresses. Last year, I voted for a bill that would have required more disclosure of lobbying efforts without in any way though infringing on the right of individuals to seek an audience or a time with their Members of Congress. We do not want to do anything that would keep a teacher who happens to be a member of a teachers organization from directly contacting a Member of Congress. But there are many lobbying activities that may now not be disclosable that should be disclosable. I know the Members of our parties on both sides of the aisle are working on a compromise right now, and I hope we can come up with something that will provide public information of everything that is going on, every contact that is being made by a registered lobbyist or someone representing a lobby group. I think it is very important that the people of this country know who it is seeing Members of Congress when we are talking about important legislation. We are also going to be taking up gift reform, and that is another important issue. I think it is important we have contribution limits, and we do have contribution limits. And I have voted to make those contribution limits even lower. We also have limits on how much you can take in a gift, which may be a T-shirt or it may be a basket of fruit or it may be something very small but that someone gives you just as they would give you if you worked in any office. I wish to just say that those are appropriate limits. We do now have limitations which I think are very appropriate. I think we must be very careful as we go into the debate on gift ban not to go to such a level that you would then be able to be prosecuted for something which would really be inadvertent. For instance, if you go to a zero gift, then presumably if you have coffee and doughnuts or a lunch with someone who happens to be a friend who may also work for a corporation or may be a teacher, then are you going to violate a ban on gifts? I do not think anyone who is thinking rationally believes that just because you talk to someone or have lunch with someone or dinner with someone or a group gives you a T-shirt that is going to affect the way you vote on important public policy issues. These are things that happen in offices all over our country. It is the way people show normal appreciation for a friendship or for working together on some kind of issue. So I think we have to be very careful to make sure we do the things that would keep you from being able to abuse the ability to receive a gift without going to such a length we then allow for selective prosecution by people who do not have good will or for inadvertent things to happen that do not mean anything but nevertheless would put you in the position of a technical violation. Mr. President, I just think as we go forward we need to keep in mind that everyone wants openness in Government, reporting of things that are received, without in any way, though, keeping a normal person from being able to contact or have the minimal ability to send a flower or a T-shirt to someone who they have worked with on an issue and had a good result or want to show some appreciation. I go to functions across my State, and I may go to the chamber of commerce and make a speech to a chamber of commerce banquet. They will send me flowers or they will send something from the city, a cup or something. I appreciate that. I think it is a nice gesture. It makes me think of that city. I have things all over my office, cups and candy jars and things from the city of Lamar, from the city of Gainesville, or the city of Houston, or the city of Dallas. We cannot stop normal behavior, normal appreciativeness, contact with chambers of commerce or teachers or unions. That just does not make sense. So I hope we will keep the commonsense test as we go forward. I do not think anyone believes that being able to have the normal course of business is in any way prohibiting a fair look at legislation. So I just hope common sense will be the test, Mr. President. I think it is very important that we make improvements. I think we are doing that. I think as we go along and we see what works and what does not work or what is falling through the cracks we will take the steps to close those loopholes. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope we will have a good result. I hope we will have a big lobby reform vote today, just like we did last year. It was something like 96 to 5 that the lobby reform bill passed last year, but then it got hung up in conference, and it got changed and did not pass. So I hope we can pass a good bill this year; that it will go through conference and that it will be an overwhelming, bipartisan effort to close the loopholes we have in the law today. But let us make sure we have enough common sense that an inadvertent error which really does not make a difference does not cause someone who does not have good will or good intentions to be able to prosecute or in any way build something up so that it makes a criminal out of a public servant. It is not easy to be in public service at this point in time, and I certainly do not want to harass people who are just trying to do what is right by having some kind of law that would allow a technical violation. So let us go forward in a positive and bipartisan way and see if we cannot work to close the loopholes that are there and have sunshine in Government. That is what we all want, and that is what I think we can come to agreement on if we will just look at the big picture and put common sense in the equation. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 would just like to talk, again, about regulatory reform. We have been discussing, on this floor, who killed regulatory reform. But the rank and file small business person out in America knows one thing for sure. Regulatory reform just died in the U.S. Senate and the small business person who has been looking for relief so he or she would be able to grow and prosper and create the new jobs that keep our economy vital are not going to have that opportunity because we have not done the job we said we would do to try to get the harassment of Federal regulations off the backs of our small business people. We have been working on this bill for 10 days. There are hundreds of amendments still left on the bill that we failed to get cloture on once again. We have had three cloture votes. What is it going to take? We have been in rooms meeting, talking about the issues that were raised. But the bottom line is, in 10 days of intense negotiations, floor debate, working on this bill, we have failed and the small business people of our country especially are going to understand that we did not get regulatory reform. And when 54 out of 54 Republicans voted for it to go forward, I think they are going to figure out who wanted regulatory reform. We just passed bills that open trade in the world: NAFTA, GATT, so we would have the opportunities to compete. But our business people cannot compete when they are so saddled with regulations that they have to add costs to their product because of the regulations and, therefore, the product will not sell in the international marketplace because it is priced too high. That is the bottom line. That is why it hurts the ability to create jobs in this country, when we have so many regulations that our businesses are spending money in lawsuits and regulatory compliance and they cannot put the money where it needs to be, and that is trying to make their product better, giving jobs to people to create the products and being able to sell those products anywhere in the world because we can be competitive. So, Mr. President, something died here today and I do not think the small business people of our country are going to be asking who did it. But they are going to know that their regulatory burdens are not going to be lifted. Mr. President, that is a pretty sad message to have to send to the small business people of this country. We cannot let regulatory reform die like this, by two votes. It would be unconscionable. So I hope the Democrats will get together, and I hope they will say the rhetoric is real and say what we can really do to take away the 300 amendments that are now pending on the bill. And if they are serious, they can do something about it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership in this area and for being the cosponsor with our majority leader on this very important resolution in a bipartisan effort. The Senator from Connecticut has been consistent. He has been there from the beginning, when we started talking about this issue over a year ago. I thank him once again, after what has happened in the last week, for coming forward and saying ``enough is enough.'' Mr. President, it is time for the United States to end this failed policy of leaving the Bosnian Moslems defenseless. Time after time, Mr. President, we have returned to this debate, and we have watched more people ravaged in Bosnia as we ponder the issue. We cannot continue to wring our hands and withhold from the Bosnian people the means to fight for their own freedom. The time has come for us to end this debate and lift the arms embargo. If we have to do it unilaterally, we must, or in concert with our allies, if we can. An old adage says it is preferable to die fighting on your feet than to live begging on your knees. I doubt there is a Senator in this body who disagrees with that statement. But it is clear that the Bosnians have made their choice, and it is to fight on their feet. The Bosnians are not asking us to arm them. They are not asking for American troops to defend them. They are simply asking to be allowed to fight their own fight. It is unconscionable for us to continue to deny them that basic right for survival and liberty. What we have now is a bloodstained policy which denies them the means of defending themselves. And it is one that we should no longer countenance. Two months ago, Mr. President, I returned from visiting our forces in Macedonia and Croatia more concerned than ever that we are perilously close to direct involvement in this Eastern European conflict. Today, the administration is considering a request from our allies which will only draw the United States deeper and deeper into an implacable situation. The French Defense Minister recently called for the United Nations to expand its mission in Bosnia and to assume a more aggressive stance against the Bosnian Serbs, including more airstrikes and a larger U.N. ground force. I believe for us to participate in such a plan would be a grave mistake. I have been totally opposed to sending United States ground troops into Bosnia, and in the light of recent developments, my resolve is even stronger. Any decision to involve U.S. forces in additional air support roles would move us two steps closer to a United States ground presence in Bosnia. The shootdown of Capt. Scott O'Grady served to remind us that providing air support is not without cost. It has the real potential of mission creep--involving us deeper and deeper in this conflict. And make no mistake, we are on the brink. I have heard the discussions evolve about what is help for extraction of our troops. Is it reconfiguration of our troops anywhere within Bosnia? Is it an emergency? Now we are talking about using American helicopters. American helicopters are the beginning of ground involvement, and we cannot let this happen. It is clear that the United Nations is conducting a peacekeeping mission in a region where there is no peace. There is no peace in sight. The United Nations is paralyzed and unable to respond and unwilling to retreat. Last week the Bosnian Serbs attacked a U.N.-designated safe area of Srebrenica. They routed Dutch U.N. forces. They took U.N. forces hostage and drove the inhabitants of the so-called safe area out of their homes--the same inhabitants we have denied the ability to fight for their homes. Even as we debate this matter right this minute, the Serbs are overrunning U.N. outposts and assaulting another supposed safe area, Zepa, with artillery and armored vehicles. According to the administration, its reluctance to lift the arms embargo stems from the fear that if the embargo should be lifted, the Bosnian Serbs would only be encouraged to go on the offensive and press their attack on the Bosnian Moslems. Encouraged? What is happening now this very minute? I do not think you could say by any stretch of the imagination that anything we would do would change the encouragement that they are now receiving to do the atrocities that they are doing. This seems to me to be an empty excuse when they are already clearly on the attack. The refugees fleeing Srebrenica and Zepa provide ample evidence of the failure of this embargo where only one side of the conflict is disarmed. Secretary Christopher said yesterday that lifting the arms embargo unilaterally would force the withdrawal of U.N. troops. I am sorry to say, Mr. President, that would be a positive development. It is the status quo that represents failure. This resolution that we are debating is an acknowledgment that the U.N. can no longer function in Bosnia until both sides are ready to sit down at a table and negotiate peace. The United Nations is an effective peacekeeper when both sides are seeking peace. This is not the case in [[Page S 10273]] Bosnia today. As Bosnian Foreign Minister Muhamed Sacribey said so eloquently just this week, ``The U.N. troops have become a hindrance * * * a clumsy reminder of the U.N.'s failure.'' The Bosnians need more than bread flown in on a U.N. airlift. The Bosnians need to be able to defend themselves, to get their country back in order. The United Nations has shown that it cannot and will not perform that vital role. So it is time for the U.N. to step aside. Fleeing Bosnian Moslems reportedly have seized weapons from the Ukrainian U.N. forces. Ironically, those seized weapons may represent the most concrete peacekeeping effort yet provided by the U.N. forces to the Bosnians. I urge the President to turn away from this most recent in a long series of shifts in our American policy. Instead, he should be encouraging the United Nations and our allies to withdraw as swiftly as possible and then lift the arms embargo so the Bosnian Moslems can defend themselves. Last year when I met with Bosnian Vice President Ganic in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where the distinguished Presiding Officer also was present, he made a poignant appeal. And then he said apologetically, ``I realize I am emotional about this issue.'' I thought to myself, this man is apologizing for being emotional when his people are unarmed and under assault, his families are being brutalized and murdered, and we in the West are the ones who should be apologizing for denying those people a basic right that we all acknowledge, the right to defend their country. We have a moral obligation to uphold a U.S. doctrine articulated by Presidents from John F. Kennedy to George Bush: We will lend our support to oppressed people who are willing to fight for their freedom. It is not always our responsibility to fight for those people, but we certainly ought to be willing to support them in the other ways that we can, and we certainly should not deny them the right to fight for themselves. This is an American principle that we must uphold. During his compelling testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Vice President Ganic talked of our sacrifices on D-day, but he warned us that 50 years after the defeat of fascism in Europe, it is once again there on the rise in the form of genocide and oppression against the non-Serbian populations of Bosnia. When a few of us visited with the Prime Minister of Bosnia just 3 weeks ago, he said, ``I am puzzled by the U.N. which keeps saying there are two sides to this issue.'' He said, ``There are two sides. One side is shooting and the other side is dying.'' Not exactly, Mr. President, a level playing field. Bosnia's Foreign Minister told reporters yesterday, ``We are not waiting for anyone anymore. We are not asking for troops to be sent to Bosnia. We are only prepared to count on ourselves and no one else.'' Mr. President, we can no longer continue to leave Bosnia defenseless against a well-armed Serbian aggression. The United States has acted unilaterally before, and we will again. We are the leader of the free world. We must lift the arms embargo. Vice President Ganic said, ``We are dying anyway. Let us die fighting, fighting for our country.'' Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to heed their pleas and set a date certain for lifting this arms embargo. I thank the leaders of this effort, Senator Dole, Senator Lieberman, and the other cosponsors of this very important resolution. We have talked about this enough. The time has come for us to act decisively as the leader of the free world. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I sent an amendment to the amendment to the desk because I think Senator Ashcroft is doing a very important thing for the urban areas of our country. It is clear that we need to do everything we can to create jobs in our urban areas, and particularly in the distressed parts of our urban areas. I did make a minor amendment in the change of the effective date, but I support Senator Ashcroft's amendment wholeheartedly and appreciate his yielding the floor to me for this short time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that several of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee are talking today about the situation in Bosnia. It is clear that we cannot sit by and do nothing. We have talked about this issue for months. Six weeks ago, I stood right on the border of Macedonia looking into Serbia. I was visiting our U.S. troops who were there on an outpost under the auspices of the United Nations. I saw the terrain; I talked to our troops, both in Croatia and Macedonia; I talked to the people who are running the operation there; I talked to the head of the U.N. delegation there, Mr. Akashi. I think I have a feel for the situation that is there. Mr. President, I think we must learn from our experiences. The United Nations has a very valid role to play when there is a peace to keep. But, Mr. President, we have the best of intentions in the United Nations, but we have the worst of results. In fact, the United Nations is becoming an obstacle to solving this situation--not that they mean to be. They are trying. We give them the fact that they are trying. But, Mr. President, they cannot function. And because they are there, we have the effect of one side being unarmed, basically, and the other side being aggressive with arms. We had the Prime Minister of Bosnia here, and he said, I keep hearing people say there are two sides here. Yes, one side is shooting, the other side is dying. Mr. President, he is right. We cannot sit by and let it happen by saying that we have U.N. peacekeepers sitting there on the ground and, therefore, one side should remain unarmed. They are being ravaged, Mr. President, and we must do something about it. We cannot continue to talk on the floor of the U.S. Senate while they are being ravaged across the ocean. So, Mr. President, I hope that our leader, Senator Dole, will bring up his resolution at the earliest possible moment to tell the President how strongly we feel that we should not get involved with this mission beyond what the President has said he will do to help extricate the U.N. peacekeepers under the auspices of NATO. Mr. President, we have to define that mission very carefully. That mission must be extraction. I do not like all the talk of, well, extraction also means containment of troops, it also means emergencies anywhere that they might occur in Bosnia. And now we are talking about sending helicopters there--American helicopters. Will they have American troops running the helicopters, flying those helicopters? Mr. President, there are a lot of questions, and I do not think we can afford to just say all of those things are acceptable for our American troops. I do not want American troops flying helicopters into Bosnia. I do not want American troops to be put forth for any emergency in Bosnia. That is ground combat. We are talking about potential ground combat. Mr. President, I am representing American troops and I am going to do everything I can to make sure that they are as safe as they can be, and that they are not involved in a mission which does not have the United States' security interest. [[Page S 10182]] Mr. President, that is the question here. We have gotten ourselves involved in Somalia through mission creep. We just let it evolve, and we lost Rangers--our own U.S. Army Rangers. Mr. President, we are looking at a potential for mission creep here if we are not very careful. So I am going to appeal to the President of the United States to watch for mission creep. Helicopters with American troops is mission creep. Contraction of our forces, our U.S. peacekeepers, is mission creep. Emergencies anywhere in Bosnia is mission creep. Mr. President, I hope that Senator Dole brings his resolution to the floor so that the President of the United States can hear: The time has come to lift the arms embargo and let these people have a fair fight.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add 2 minutes onto the 3 minutes I have been yielded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I believe we need a couple of minutes of debate, with perhaps 3 minutes to Senator Biden and the same for me, if that is acceptable to everyone.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield back the remaining time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Last, I want to thank the Senator from Utah. I want to say I have never seen a more patient manager of a bill than the Senator from Utah. This has been a very tough amendment. We have spent most of the day on it. He has been very accommodating to all of the differing views on both side, and has listened patiently. For that reason, I think we have improved this bill. In the future, there is going to be--I hope--a good working relationship, rather than an adversarial relationship, between the regulators and the regulated. That is the purpose of this bill. I think we have achieved it. I ask for the support of all of our colleagues for this improved amendment. I look forward to a strong vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the cooperation I have had with the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Alabama, all of whom on the other side worked very hard, I think, to improve this amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to make sure there is fair play in the system, that our administrative regulatory agencies give notice to those who are going to rely on it so that they can comply with the regulations. That is the purpose. I think, frankly, it is a better amendment now. I think there will be fair play on both sides. I think it is very important that we keep the principle of fairness in this regulatory reform bill. I think we have achieved that with this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be added as an original cosponsor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment No. 1539. I send the modification to the desk.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate that because I would like to respond to the Senator from Michigan that we would be happy to add some language, to have ``definition'' and ``rule.'' ``Rule'' is in section C. If you would prefer to put ``rule'' and ``definition'' in A, I think we could work something out because, as the Senator from Michigan said, what we are trying to do here is have a due process and a fair play in the Administrative Procedure Act. We want to have that goal. Then perhaps with some word changes and better definitions, we could work something out.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think good faith is well settled in principle in civil law.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator from Delaware knows it is well settled in our law that there is a good-faith test. If it is not a willful violation, I would hope we would protect people who in good faith, in a fact determination, would be able to say I did not mean to do this. If you think the IRS would, in fact, penalize someone with a fine for that, then I think we should protect them from the IRS. That is what my amendment does.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I could interrupt my good friend from Oklahoma, I absolutely agree with him. I think we need to sit down and work together if we can. But, with all due respect, the point that he is making is not even necessary, under this. We are talking about not being able to have a penalty, a fine, or put you in jail. I think that is covered now. If you sit down with the IRS and say, ``I, in good faith, thought I should have this exemption,'' I would expect the IRS and hope the IRS would say, ``No, Senator Biden, you actually owe $220 more.'' And I would not suggest a Senator as smart as the Senator from Delaware would think that is a fine?