Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation which will protect communities from being inundated with unwanted garbage generated out-of-State. The essential thrust of the legislation is to empower localities to protect themselves from unwanted trash by allowing them to decide whether landfills or incinerators located within their communities should be permitted to accept out-of-State waste. It also seeks to strike the appropriate balance between State and local authority. Those of us who formerly served in State government are keenly aware of the divisions of labor among the various levels of government. Due to Supreme Court decisions regarding the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, disposing of trash implicates all three levels of government. Under the commerce clause, only Congress is permitted to regulate interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court has determined that garbage is commerce like any other commodity, States and localities have been powerless to halt the disposal of waste disposed in their jurisdictions which was generated outside the State. Thus the Federal Government must determine how best to regulate this article of commerce. The role of the States in regulating the disposal of garbage centers on its responsibility to protect the State's environment. Based on environmental criteria, the States determine whether to issue permits for the construction of landfills, and are charged with monitoring the operation of landfills and incinerators to guarantee compliance with environmental laws. My bill will not affect in any way the State's right to enforce the States environmental standards. The real responsibility for disposing of trash, however, has rested historically with local governments. It is their responsibility to pick up the trash and to find a place to put it down. Because this is the locality's ultimate responsibility, and because the local community is the one most directly affected by garbage imports, my bill delegates primary authority regarding interstate waste to the local governments. The legislation defines an affected local government as the political subdivision of the State charged with making land use decisions. In my view, if an elected body is competent to make decisions regarding the use of land in the community, then it is certainly competent to determine whether a landfill, already permitted under State law, should be allowed to accept out-of-State waste. Striking the right balance between State and local authority was only half the battle. The other major issue implicated by placing restrictions on out-of-State waste is how to treat existing facilities. In many cases, existing facilities which accept out-of-State waste do so in the face of local opposition. These communities understandably want us to stop the garbage from flowing. It would not be fair, however, to those who expended millions of dollars to build new landfills in compliance with strict federal regulations to cut off their commerce completely. Therefore, my measure balances these interests by allowing the Governor of each State to limit the amount of out-of-State waste which can be disposed of in an existing facility. To finance new waste disposal facilities that meet stringent State and Federal environmental regulations, some local governments are cooperating with private developers to build these state-of-the-art facilities. This cooperative relationship, however, can only florish if the locality has some leverage over the developer. Under present law, a local government is powerless to deny a zoning permit to a landfill developer simply because waste from out-of-State will be disposed in the landfill. If the local government is given the power to reject out- of-State waste, it also will have the power to accept the waste, with conditions. By allowing communities to have leverage at the bargaining table, they can enter into host community agreements which are beneficial to the locality and its neighbors. In many instances, this can be a winning proposition for the local community. The new landfill can be built at no cost to the community, and the community can charge a host community fee which can be used to reduce taxes or pay for other projects, such as building schools. While inviting a landfill developer into a community may not be the solution for every local government, it should remain an option for those who choose to pursue it. And under my legislation, the local government would not have to make such a decision alone. The legislation requires the local government to consult with the Governor and adjoining local governments before a decision is made. More importantly, however, my legislation absolutely bans out-of- State waste from new facilities unless a community affirmatively agrees to the imports. This is important to many communities in my State, mostly rural, that can fall prey under existing law to unscrupulous landfill developers who, in their search for land, can run roughshod over the wishes of the locality. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this legislation and protecting our communities from unwanted out-of-State trash.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation which will protect communities from being inundated with unwanted garbage generated out-of-State. The essential thrust of the legislation is to empower localities to protect themselves from unwanted trash by allowing them to decide whether landfills or incinerators located within their communities should be permitted to accept out-of-State waste. It also seeks to strike the appropriate balance between State and local authority. Those of us who formerly served in State government are keenly aware of the divisions of labor among the various levels of government. Due to Supreme Court decisions regarding the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, disposing of trash implicates all three levels of government. Under the commerce clause, only Congress is permitted to regulate interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court has determined that garbage is commerce like any other commodity, States and localities have been powerless to halt the disposal of waste disposed in their jurisdictions which was generated outside the State. Thus the Federal Government must determine how best to regulate this article of commerce. The role of the States in regulating the disposal of garbage centers on its responsibility to protect the State's environment. Based on environmental criteria, the States determine whether to issue permits for the construction of landfills, and are charged with monitoring the operation of landfills and incinerators to guarantee compliance with environmental laws. My bill will not affect in any way the State's right to enforce the States environmental standards. The real responsibility for disposing of trash, however, has rested historically with local governments. It is their responsibility to pick up the trash and to find a place to put it down. Because this is the locality's ultimate responsibility, and because the local community is the one most directly affected by garbage imports, my bill delegates primary authority regarding interstate waste to the local governments. The legislation defines an affected local government as the political subdivision of the State charged with making land use decisions. In my view, if an elected body is competent to make decisions regarding the use of land in the community, then it is certainly competent to determine whether a landfill, already permitted under State law, should be allowed to accept out-of-State waste. Striking the right balance between State and local authority was only half the battle. The other major issue implicated by placing restrictions on out-of-State waste is how to treat existing facilities. In many cases, existing facilities which accept out-of-State waste do so in the face of local opposition. These communities understandably want us to stop the garbage from flowing. It would not be fair, however, to those who expended millions of dollars to build new landfills in compliance with strict federal regulations to cut off their commerce completely. Therefore, my measure balances these interests by allowing the Governor of each State to limit the amount of out-of-State waste which can be disposed of in an existing facility. To finance new waste disposal facilities that meet stringent State and Federal environmental regulations, some local governments are cooperating with private developers to build these state-of-the-art facilities. This cooperative relationship, however, can only florish if the locality has some leverage over the developer. Under present law, a local government is powerless to deny a zoning permit to a landfill developer simply because waste from out-of-State will be disposed in the landfill. If the local government is given the power to reject out- of-State waste, it also will have the power to accept the waste, with conditions. By allowing communities to have leverage at the bargaining table, they can enter into host community agreements which are beneficial to the locality and its neighbors. In many instances, this can be a winning proposition for the local community. The new landfill can be built at no cost to the community, and the community can charge a host community fee which can be used to reduce taxes or pay for other projects, such as building schools. While inviting a landfill developer into a community may not be the solution for every local government, it should remain an option for those who choose to pursue it. And under my legislation, the local government would not have to make such a decision alone. The legislation requires the local government to consult with the Governor and adjoining local governments before a decision is made. More importantly, however, my legislation absolutely bans out-of- State waste from new facilities unless a community affirmatively agrees to the imports. This is important to many communities in my State, mostly rural, that can fall prey under existing law to unscrupulous landfill developers who, in their search for land, can run roughshod over the wishes of the locality. I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this legislation and protecting our communities from unwanted out-of-State trash.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I submit a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that all Federal annuitants should receive their cost-of-living adjustments at the same time. This resolution is very similar to one submitted by my colleague from Maryland, and cosponsored by the other distinguished Senator from Maryland and my own esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia. And while I agree with them in spirit, I could not support the wording of their resolution so I am here to offer my own. As we are all aware by now, the President's budget proposal would delay Federal retiree cost-of-living adjustments from their statutory date of January 1 to April 1 until the year 2002. This same budget proposal, however, would leave the effective date for COLA's for other Federal COLA recipients at January 1, thus singling out Federal civilian retirees as the only Federal beneficiaries with their COLA's delayed. This seems blatantly unfair and violates the principle of COLA equity that so many of us have espoused over the years. If the budget justification is there to delay one group, then why isn't it there for the others? Conversely, if there is a policy justification for not delaying certain retirees, then why are Federal retirees any different? I could not join my colleagues in cosponsoring their resolution because I can see a point where a policy decision to treat everyone equitably could result in delaying COLA's across all of these programs. That is not what I believe we need to do this year, and I'll continue to support efforts to equalize COLA's in January. I could not, however, in good conscience cosponsor a resolution which I might contradict at a later point in time. As an alternative, I am offering a concurrent resolution which expresses the sense of the Congress that COLA's for all of these Federal annuitants and beneficiaries should be paid at the same time. The resolution deliberately does not state a date certain, simply that the principle of equity between them should prevail.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to extend the legislative authority for the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall to establish a memorial to honor a distinguished Virginian, George Mason. In 1776, George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the first document in America calling for freedom of the press, freedom of religion, proscription of unreasonable searches, and the right to a speedy trial. The Virginia Declaration of Rights not only served as a model for our national Bill of Rights; but historians believe that Mason's refusal to sign the Constitution for its failure, initially, to include a declaration of rights was a major impetus for eventual adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. George Mason sacrificed friendships by insisting that a strong national government could not be purchased at the cost of individual rights, and Mason inevitably chose his family over politics. He retired from public office following the Constitutional Convention and died just a few years later in 1792. His contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, lived decades longer and were elected Presidents of the United States, and thus Mason's contributions were soon overshadowed. Efforts were combined during the 101st Congress to at last honor America's ``Forgotten Founder.'' Legislation authorizing a private, nonprofit organization to establish a memorial to George Mason on Federal land in the District of Columbia passed and was signed by then- President George Bush. In the 102d Congress, a resolution concurred that George Mason was an individual ``of preeminent historical significance to the nation,'' and authorized the placement of the memorial within select area I lands, in sight of the memorials of two of Mason's closest friends: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The legislation was signed into law on April 28, 1992, and approved by the National Capital Memorial Committee in December 1993. To pay homage to a man whose ideas played a prominent role in the founding of the American Republic, a fitting memorial has been designed for this supreme site, located between Ohio Drive and the 14th Street Bridge, overlooking the Tidal Basin. The memorial designs have been completed and submitted for review to all necessary advisory and review boards and by agreement, the United States Park Service is to maintain the memorial once completed. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, $1 million must be raised in non-Federal funds to construct this gift to Washington and all Americans and ground-breaking is ordered to occur no later than August 1997. The Board of Regents of Gunston Hall Plantation, a historical organization that oversees Mason's family home in Fairfax County, is dedicated to raising the necessary funds for the monument and seeing this important project through to its completion, however, the August 1997 deadline is rapidly approaching. At this time, it seems that the fundraising effort will not be completed and that's why today I introduce the necessary legislation granting an extension until August 2000. The Commemorative Works Act, passed into law to prevent overcrowding on the Mall, requires two separate acts of Congress before a memorial may be placed in area I lands, and both of these hurdles have been cleared. The final battle is a fundraising one and the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall has a plan of attack. Last year, they launched Liberty 2000, a campaign to share George Mason's legacy of liberty. The Board of Regents hope to build an endowment fund to ensure a secure future for Gunston Hall and attain the necessary non-Federal funds to break ground and complete their efforts to bring George Mason's legacy to the Mall. I ask that you join me in swiftly supporting this 3-year extension so we may properly commemorate this great statesman and Virginian, George Mason.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to extend the legislative authority for the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall to establish a memorial to honor a distinguished Virginian, George Mason. In 1776, George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the first document in America calling for freedom of the press, freedom of religion, proscription of unreasonable searches, and the right to a speedy trial. The Virginia Declaration of Rights not only served as a model for our national Bill of Rights; but historians believe that Mason's refusal to sign the Constitution for its failure, initially, to include a declaration of rights was a major impetus for eventual adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. George Mason sacrificed friendships by insisting that a strong national government could not be purchased at the cost of individual rights, and Mason inevitably chose his family over politics. He retired from public office following the Constitutional Convention and died just a few years later in 1792. His contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, lived decades longer and were elected Presidents of the United States, and thus Mason's contributions were soon overshadowed. Efforts were combined during the 101st Congress to at last honor America's ``Forgotten Founder.'' Legislation authorizing a private, nonprofit organization to establish a memorial to George Mason on Federal land in the District of Columbia passed and was signed by then- President George Bush. In the 102d Congress, a resolution concurred that George Mason was an individual ``of preeminent historical significance to the nation,'' and authorized the placement of the memorial within select area I lands, in sight of the memorials of two of Mason's closest friends: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The legislation was signed into law on April 28, 1992, and approved by the National Capital Memorial Committee in December 1993. To pay homage to a man whose ideas played a prominent role in the founding of the American Republic, a fitting memorial has been designed for this supreme site, located between Ohio Drive and the 14th Street Bridge, overlooking the Tidal Basin. The memorial designs have been completed and submitted for review to all necessary advisory and review boards and by agreement, the United States Park Service is to maintain the memorial once completed. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act of 1986, $1 million must be raised in non-Federal funds to construct this gift to Washington and all Americans and ground-breaking is ordered to occur no later than August 1997. The Board of Regents of Gunston Hall Plantation, a historical organization that oversees Mason's family home in Fairfax County, is dedicated to raising the necessary funds for the monument and seeing this important project through to its completion, however, the August 1997 deadline is rapidly approaching. At this time, it seems that the fundraising effort will not be completed and that's why today I introduce the necessary legislation granting an extension until August 2000. The Commemorative Works Act, passed into law to prevent overcrowding on the Mall, requires two separate acts of Congress before a memorial may be placed in area I lands, and both of these hurdles have been cleared. The final battle is a fundraising one and the Board of Regents of Gunston Hall has a plan of attack. Last year, they launched Liberty 2000, a campaign to share George Mason's legacy of liberty. The Board of Regents hope to build an endowment fund to ensure a secure future for Gunston Hall and attain the necessary non-Federal funds to break ground and complete their efforts to bring George Mason's legacy to the Mall. I ask that you join me in swiftly supporting this 3-year extension so we may properly commemorate this great statesman and Virginian, George Mason.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I must confess that I am not particularly comfortable as a proponent of adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I never have been. Many of those with whom I am frequently aligned on issues that don't enjoy much popular political support yet represent sound public policy are very much opposed to this amendment--and cannot understand why I am supporting it. But I am not persuaded by the impassioned arguments against it, and, regrettably, that leaves me at odds with the President, the leadership of my party, most editorial writers, and virtually all of the progressive organizations with which I often find common cause. It was out of frustration that I first came to support the amendment well over a decade ago during the time the Federal Government began to run huge annual deficits year after year, with no evidence of the discipline necessary to rein them in and I have been a reluctant backer ever since. As most of our colleagues know, however, I've always been far more committed to a balanced budget than to a balanced budget amendment and I would not be supporting an amendment now, if I held out any hope that we would actually reach that goal without it. In truth, actually achieving a balanced budget will be extremely difficult and there is no guarantee that we'll reach it, with or without the amendment, because we will have to make some politically painful decisions to get there--either way. And that is really the point. Why fear the amendment if it will only put more pressure on us to make the same tough decisions we're going to have to make anyway if we're serious about balancing the budget. We owe it to the American people, and to future generations in particular to be a whole lot more candid about the choices we face, and the decisions we are going to have to make. We cannot keep promising that we will not touch Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or veteran's pensions or any other entitlement program, because we are going to have to make some adjustments to all of these programs, or we will put them all at risk. I am particularly concerned about arguments that suggest we threaten Social Security if we pass a balanced budget amendment. That is just not true. The greatest risk for Social Security is not taking the need to balance the budget seriously. The real threat to our security, to our Social Security, to our economic security, and to our national security is the national debt. Each year we pay more interest, on more debt, and that leaves fewer dollars to spend on everything else we look to Government to provide. And if we don't make some changes soon, in just 15 years every cent the Government takes in will be required just to pay for entitlement programs and interest on the national debt--every cent. Now that is really something to worry about. The other argument heard so often is that the balanced budget amendment, will not permit us to respond to national emergencies. That is nonsense. To be sure it is designed to increase the pressure on us to make the politically difficult choices we keep avoiding. But for any real emergency we can override it with 60 votes, as we have in the past. Just look at how many votes we get on our routine emergency supplemental appropriations bills. In times of true national emergencies, we will have virtually unanimous support to waive the limitation and in the interim, we will have an added incentive, to be more fiscally responsible. Mr. President, notwithstanding good intentions and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, I just do not believe either the executive branch of the Federal Government or the legislative branch of the Federal Government have the collective will to make the really tough but necessary decisions without the added pressure the balanced budget amendment will help guarantee. So, the die may well be cast. It may be it will fall one vote short. But I hope all of those who profess to support a balanced budget, whether with or without an amendment, will keep those commitments in mind as we approach the very difficult choices that we inevitably face if we are ever to get to that particular goal. Mr. President, I yield any time I have remaining, and I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce the Combat Veterans Medical Equity Act of 1997, legislation which will serve to codify America's obligation to provide for the medical needs of our combat- wounded veterans. Although we have long recognized the combat-wounded vet to be among our most deserving veterans, and although we have long distinguished the sacrifices of these veterans by awarding the Purple Heart Medal, remarkably, there is nothing in current law that stipulates an entitlement to health care based upon this physical sacrifice. In fact, I believe most Americans would be surprised to learn that a combat- wounded Purple Heart recipient could be denied services for which a noncombat veteran, with a non-service-connected disability, would be eligible. This legislation would seek to remedy that situation. Specifically, this bill establishes eligibility for VA hospital care and medical services based upon the award of the Purple Heart Medal. It also gives Purple Heart recipients an enrollment priority on par with former prisoners of war and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated between 10 and 20 percent. Mr. President, as a Vietnam veteran who has been privileged to lead marines in combat, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a keen appreciation for the sacrifices made by all of our men and women in uniform. At the same time, in the face of tighter budgets and greater competition for services, I believe strongly that Congress should ensure equity in the disbursing of medical services for our most deserving of veterans--the combat wounded. These veterans, who have shed their blood to keep our country safe and free, deserve no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce the Combat Veterans Medical Equity Act of 1997, legislation which will serve to codify America's obligation to provide for the medical needs of our combat- wounded veterans. Although we have long recognized the combat-wounded vet to be among our most deserving veterans, and although we have long distinguished the sacrifices of these veterans by awarding the Purple Heart Medal, remarkably, there is nothing in current law that stipulates an entitlement to health care based upon this physical sacrifice. In fact, I believe most Americans would be surprised to learn that a combat- wounded Purple Heart recipient could be denied services for which a noncombat veteran, with a non-service-connected disability, would be eligible. This legislation would seek to remedy that situation. Specifically, this bill establishes eligibility for VA hospital care and medical services based upon the award of the Purple Heart Medal. It also gives Purple Heart recipients an enrollment priority on par with former prisoners of war and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated between 10 and 20 percent. Mr. President, as a Vietnam veteran who has been privileged to lead marines in combat, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a keen appreciation for the sacrifices made by all of our men and women in uniform. At the same time, in the face of tighter budgets and greater competition for services, I believe strongly that Congress should ensure equity in the disbursing of medical services for our most deserving of veterans--the combat wounded. These veterans, who have shed their blood to keep our country safe and free, deserve no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to right an obvious wrong. As I was reading the Washington Post on January 6, 1997, I ran across a brief mention that employees of the CIA who are assigned to protect the Director of Central Intelligence must pay their own way when they are forced to buy meals because of their assigned protection duties. Evidently these Federal employees are required to keep a line of sight on the Director 24 hours a day, which sometimes entails following him to restaurants. These restaurants in turn refuse to let the protection detail occupy a table without purchasing a meal. While this may sound trivial, I do not believe it is fair to require a Federal employee to buy an expensive meal as part of their job. I am sure you'll agree that if a person is going to spend that kind of money on a meal, they should be enjoying it with a good friend or loved one, not watching their boss across the room. For that reason, I am introducing this bill, which would authorize any Federal agency to pay the meal expenses for cases like this one for an employee who is serving on a 24-hour-a-day security detail which requires the employee to remain in the line of sight of the person being protected. I understand that certain agencies already have this authority, but it clearly should be extended to all Federal agencies. I hope that this noncontroversial measure can be examined by the appropriate committee and quickly passed. The existing situation is blatantly unfair and needs to be changed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to right an obvious wrong. As I was reading the Washington Post on January 6, 1997, I ran across a brief mention that employees of the CIA who are assigned to protect the Director of Central Intelligence must pay their own way when they are forced to buy meals because of their assigned protection duties. Evidently these Federal employees are required to keep a line of sight on the Director 24 hours a day, which sometimes entails following him to restaurants. These restaurants in turn refuse to let the protection detail occupy a table without purchasing a meal. While this may sound trivial, I do not believe it is fair to require a Federal employee to buy an expensive meal as part of their job. I am sure you'll agree that if a person is going to spend that kind of money on a meal, they should be enjoying it with a good friend or loved one, not watching their boss across the room. For that reason, I am introducing this bill, which would authorize any Federal agency to pay the meal expenses for cases like this one for an employee who is serving on a 24-hour-a-day security detail which requires the employee to remain in the line of sight of the person being protected. I understand that certain agencies already have this authority, but it clearly should be extended to all Federal agencies. I hope that this noncontroversial measure can be examined by the appropriate committee and quickly passed. The existing situation is blatantly unfair and needs to be changed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the distinguished choice of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. Ambassador Albright has served the country with distinction over a 20-year period. She brings the requisite skills, knowledge, and experience to one of the most demanding jobs in Government, and I am confident that she will help President Clinton continue our leadership of the community of nations. During her confirmation hearing, Ambassador Albright conveyed to me a strong sense of how the United States must act and lead in addressing problems around the world where our interests and values are at stake. She demonstrated a keen understanding of how diplomacy and force work together to advance our foreign policy goals. Ambassador Albright stated to the committee that ``force, and the credible possibility of its use, are essential to defend our vital interests and to keep America safe. But force alone can be a blunt instrument, and there are many problems it cannot solve. To be effective, force and diplomacy must complement and reinforce each other.'' I believe we need to tangibly demonstrate our commitment to peace and stability, in both manpower and structure, as we forge a new security order in Europe and serve as a balancing wheel in Asia. American leadership abroad will depend on the President and his national security team having the spine to lead our allies against inimical forces, including rogue nations, terrorist elements, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In that regard, President Clinton has chosen well in Madeleine Albright. She has a direct, no nonsense style that suits these times well, and will invigorate our foreign policy agenda. I look forward to joining hands with her as the administration continues its efforts to promote freedom, peace, and security abroad.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in my 8 years of service in the Senate, and in particular during my time on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I have had the privilege and honor of working with Bill Cohen. His expertise and thoughtfulness, as well as his ability to put the national interests above partisan politics, have made him an invaluable asset to this body. Whether regarding arms controls, missile defense, or acquisition reform, Bill Cohen's independence and reasoned approach have resulted in passage of major pieces of legislation on highly complex and politicized matters. Those same qualities will enable our next Secretary of Defense to guide the Nation through an uncertain future, and to make the many difficult choices we face in reconciling protection of our vital interests overseas with ever increasing demands on our federal budget here at home. Bill Perry has proven himself as one of the most capable Defense Secretaries ever, and Bill Cohen will have a remarkable legacy to follow. But I am confident he shares the same kind of dispassionate, in-depth analytic qualities and measured, even-keeled leadership qualities that will keep America safe will into the 21st century. I wish him much success in his new position. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I will submit for the Record a statement relating to the nomination and confirmation of both now Secretary Madeleine Albright and now Secretary Bill Cohen. I was unable to get to the floor during those particular periods when their virtues were being extolled at some length. I have enormous respect for them individually, as all of our colleagues do. I salute the leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving these nominations through expeditiously. I believe they are both committed to a strong national defense and assertive foreign policy. I think they will work well together as a team and with the President. I think their respective quick confirmations are good for the country. I commend all of those who helped to make that possible, including my distinguished senior Senator from Virginia and the distinguished majority leader, as well as the minority leader, for what they have done.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, in my 8 years of service in the Senate, and in particular during my time on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I have had the privilege and honor of working with Bill Cohen. His expertise and thoughtfulness, as well as his ability to put the national interests above partisan politics, have made him an invaluable asset to this body. Whether regarding arms controls, missile defense, or acquisition reform, Bill Cohen's independence and reasoned approach have resulted in passage of major pieces of legislation on highly complex and politicized matters. Those same qualities will enable our next Secretary of Defense to guide the Nation through an uncertain future, and to make the many difficult choices we face in reconciling protection of our vital interests overseas with ever-increasing demands on our Federal budget here at home. Bill Perry has proven himself as one of the most capable Defense Secretaries ever, and Bill Cohen will have a remarkable legacy to follow. But I am confident he shares the same kind of dispassionate, in-depth analytic qualities and measured, even-keeled leadership qualities that will keep America safe well into the 21st century. I wish him much success in his new position, and with that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about provisions in the omnibus parks bill that affect my State, Virginia. Our Commonwealth is rich in historic and natural resources and I am pleased to support a parks bill that establishes a national historic district in the Shenandoah Valley and authorizes improvements to the Colonial National Historical Park. Mr. President, establishing a national historic district in the Shenandoah Valley will help preserve the legacy of the Civil War in the valley. We worked with people at the grassroots level to balance the interests of property owners, local and State government officials, and historic preservationists while providing a Federal presence to protect the battlefields from development. This new designation means the historic district will have the national recognition and resources of a national park unit, but it will enjoy complete local control. This legislation also establishes a commission made up of landowners, preservationists, and local and State government officials to work cooperatively with the Park Service to preserve the battlefields. The Commission will have the power to administer and manage the park, while the Park Service will help with technical assistance and land acquisition. Mr. President, we have also been working for years to make improvements at the Colonial National Historical Park, and this bill finally permits two actions that will improve the park's management. The parks bill authorizes a boundary adjustment to permit the Park Service to acquire property adjacent to the Colonial Parkway, the scenic 23-mile road connecting Jamestown Island, Williamsburg, and Yorktown. The Colonial provision also allows the Park Service to transfer a sewage system to the appropriate service authority, York County. Managing the sewer system does not fall under the responsibilities of the Park Service and the transfer should have been completed years ago. Mr. President, work remains on resolving boundary concerns for Shenandoah National Park and the Richmond Battlefields Park, and I am hopeful that the Virginia congressional delegation will work to achieve a solution in the 105th Congress. The progress we've made will provide a framework for the next Congress so we may finally address the concerns of private landowners, local governments, and preservationists. In addition, Congress should move forward next year and pass legislation that highlights the special historical significance of the New Market Heights battlefield. Preservation of this area is important, for it marks the area where 14 black Federal soldiers won the Army Medal of Honor for Valor. The sacrifices of these soldiers were so notable that they helped ensure passage of the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am proud to represent a State interested in the protection of our natural, cultural, and historic resources. And that is why I stand in support of the Virginia provisions in this bill. The passage of this bill demonstrates our concern and commitment to preserving our national parks.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of passage of the conference report to H.R. 3539, Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. This conference report contains provisions crucial for the safe and efficient operation of our Nation's airports. This authorization will enable vital funds to be allocated to our airports under the Airport Improvement Program for the construction of necessary runways and taxiways, installation of navigational aids, and acquisition of land for noise abatement measures. The bill also permits funds to be used for essential enhancements of airport facilities and equipment, and supports substantial Federal Administration [FAA] operations. Mr. President, in addition to these authorizations to improve our airports infrastructure and language to improve aviation security, this conference report contains provisions which seek to resolve an important question as to the status of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority [MWAA]. The Airport Authority, created by Congress in 1987, has been successfully fulfilling its obligations of maximizing the development of Washington Dulles International Airport, while fully utilizing the resources at Washington National Airport. However, Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Airport Authority's congressional review board is unconstitutional. Without Congress eliminating this unconstitutional review board, the Airport Authority would not be able to continue to exercise its vital functions such as adopting an annual budget, awarding contracts, and issuing bonds. This conference report eliminates that unconstitutional board, and therefore enables the Airport Authority to move forward. I am pleased that this provision was included, while not interfering with the perimeter rule, which allows nonstop flights into and out of Washington National only if the flight is 1,250 miles or less. This rule is critical in helping maintain the delicate balance between Washington National and Dulles International Airports. Retaining this perimeter rule will maximize the almost $2 billion of capital improvements underway at these two airports. And I appreciate the assistance of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hollings and their staff in ensuring that this perimeter rule was preserved. Mr. President, this FAA conference report is filled with provisions that not only benefit the metropolitan Washington area, but airports, large and small, throughout the nation. I am pleased with the overwhelming support the conference report has received and I'm looking forward to the benefits of this bill in Virginia.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from California for 1 minute.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the argument I'm about to make is not directed toward those who consistently vote what they believe to be the pro-life position on issues affecting reproductive rights. This is an easy vote for them--even though it might not be if they focused on the implications of the actual bill language rather than the emotions it has stirred. Instead, my argument is directed to those who had the courage to oppose this legislation originally, but have since been subjected to enormous pressure to change their vote and override the President's veto. I know how tough this vote is for pro-choice Senators and I can't promise anyone there won't be a political price to pay. This issue was designed from the start to fracture the pro-choice coalition and undermine support for a woman's right to reproductive freedom. To that end, this veto override attempt was deliberately delayed until today for maximum voter impact before the election. But I urge you not to succumb. Our Forefathers envisioned a Senate with enough backbone to withstand the passions of the moment--and of the other body--and on this vote we're being put to the test. Mr. President, let's be clear as to what this attempt to override the President's veto of the so-called partial birth abortion ban is all about--and what it's not about. It's not about whether to have an abortion. It's not about when to have an abortion. It's only about how to have an abortion--and whether the Government ought to intervene and restrict a physician's professional judgment. As noted in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, one critic of the bill, Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall that the proposed law ``does nothing to discourage abortion per se. It does nothing to protect the rights of fetuses, nothing to protect potential life, and nothing to protect actual life.'' As long as there are other legal methods to obtain an abortion, Dr. Seidman says that the bill's only effect is to force women ``to choose a more risky abortion procedure over a less risky one.'' Even proponents ought to be troubled by the fact that nothing in this bill would prevent a woman from having an abortion. It wouldn't even prevent a woman from having a third trimester abortion. All it would do is prevent a doctor from using a procedure that might be necessary to protect the woman's health or future reproductive capacity. And I don't believe the Government ought to intervene in that decision, Mr. President. To me, decisions on how best to protect a woman's health are better left to physicians. And while I strongly oppose third trimester abortions except to protect the life or health of the mother, this bill would make no exceptions for the health of the mother. In fact, the bill's proponents defeated an amendment to grant an exception to protect the health of the mother, claiming it would gut the bill. They did it knowing it would have made the bill acceptable to many more Members of this body-- and to the President--therefore eliminating the bill's potency as a political issue. Pulitzer Prize winning author David Garrow made this point in yesterday's' Philadelphia Enquirer when he wrote: ``How could adding a `serious health risks' exception `gut' a measure intended to curtail supposedly `elective' or unnecessary procedures?'' Mr. President, I have always been pro-choice, but I have never been pro-abortion. As far as I'm concerned, abortions ought to be safe, legal, and rare. While this bill wouldn't make late term abortions more rare--in fact, there's no evidence they constitute more than an infinitesimal percentage of abortions actually performed in the United States--it could make them significantly less safe. Mr. President, I respect the convictions of those who believe we ought to choose life over abortion, and I applaud those who remind us, lawfully and peacefully, of the consequences of our choice. And like the vast majority of our fellow citizens I find the graphics used to depict the procedure in question repulsive. But I doubt that many of us would find an explicit portrayal of any procedure to terminate a pregnancy any less disturbing. I was not comfortable voting against this bill originally, because I don't want to encourage abortions at any stage of a pregnancy and I'd like to eliminate them altogether in the third trimester--except when the life or health of the mother is threatened. But this bill wouldn't prohibit a single abortion from taking place, even in the third trimester. It would only increase the risks for women who already have difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances to deal with--and I believe that when faced with those circumstances, the woman and not the Government should decide. On this bill, the President made a gutsy call, but he made the right call and I hope at least 34 of us have the courage to stick with him and uphold his veto. With that, Madam President, I yield whatever time I have remaining back to the Senator from California.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of ratification of the International Natural Rubber Agreement [INRA III]. For the last 16 years, INRA has provided the consuming nations of the world with a reliable supply of natural rubber at stable prices. The United States, as the world's largest consumer of natural rubber, has much to gain from the stabilization provided by the agreement. Many believe that the tires and other rubber products U.S. consumers use daily do not need natural rubber. But that is simply not the case. Natural rubber is, in fact, a critical material in the manufacture of most rubber products. Aircraft tires used by the U.S. military have a particularly high percentage of natural rubber and it just so happens the world's largest aircraft tire plant is located in Danville, VA. At least a third of the plant's production provides aircraft tires to the U.S. military, and this production depends on the availability of natural rubber. U.S. consumers and workers also have much to gain from renewal of INRA. Every one-cent rise in the price of natural rubber costs the U.S. tire and rubber industry $22 million on an annualized basis. Such cost increases will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers and possible shortages and potential job losses. On behalf of the nearly 4,000 workers in Virginia that are employed in the tire and rubber industry and for the broader economic and defense preparedness interests of the United States, I urge the favorable consideration of the International Natural Rubber Agreement. In closing, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to National Security Adviser Anthony Lake be printed in the Record, as well as his return reply.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to support the committee amendment which would strike House provisions prohibiting the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program from providing coverage for abortion services. The vast majority of private health plans provide coverage for abortion services. The House bill is telling Federal employees that, because of who their employer is, they shouldn't have the ability to choose a health plan which covers this legal medical procedure. An employee who opposes abortions can choose a health care plan which does not cover the service, which I understand was almost half of all FEHBP plans prior to last year's prohibition. I don't believe, however, that it is appropriate for us to preclude employees who want this coverage from choosing it. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the committee amendment and vote against tabling this proposal.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as one who represents a traditionally conservative State, it's not easy to take on this issue. In fact, many of my friends and supporters have urged me to sit this one out because of the potential political fallout, but I can't do that. I feel very strongly that this legislation is fundamentally wrong--and feeling as I do I would not be true to my conscience or my oath of office if I failed to speak out against it. I believe we have an obligation to confront the very real implications of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Despite it's name, the Defense of Marriage Act does not defend marriage against some imminent, crippling threat. Maintaining the freedom of States to define a civil union or a legal right to benefits cannot--and will not--harm the strength and power of marriage. Neither can it diminish the love between a husband and a wife, nor the devotion they feel toward their children. Whether the Government should give official sanction to same-sex relationships does raise some extremely difficult issues, Mr. President--issues of morality, of religion, of child-bearing, of marriage and of the intimacies of life. But this legislation is not really about these difficult questions of domestic relations. As a constitutional matter, it is about placing the Federal Government in the midst of an issue firmly and historically within the jurisdiction of our States. And as a political matter, it is about denying a class of people benefits that no single State has yet conferred. This bill also raises fundamental questions about the nature of our Federal system of Government, including the powers of the States under our Constitution and the scope of the full faith and credit clause. I believe the full faith and credit clause does not enable one State to legislate for another, and so the States don't need the protection of a Federal statute in this case. I also believe that it's inappropriate for the Federal Government to get involved in defining marriage-- something States have done for themselves throughout our history. These are important issues, Mr. President, and they deserve a full discussion, but they are not the issues that make this debate so difficult--or so important. For beneath the high-minded discussions of constitutional principles and States rights lurks the true issue which confounds and divides us: the issue of how we feel about intimate conduct we neither understand nor feel comfortable discussing. Mr. President, scientists have not yet discovered what causes homosexuals to be attracted to members of their own sex. For the vast majority of us who don't hear that particular drummer it's difficult to fully comprehend such an attraction. But homosexuality has existed throughout human history. And even though medical research hasn't succeeded in telling us why a small but significant number of our fellow human beings have a different sexual orientation, the clear weight of serious scholarship has concluded that people do not choose to be homosexual, any more than they choose their gender or their race. Or any more than we choose to be heterosexual. And given the prejudice too often directed toward gay people and the pressure they feel to hide the truth--their very identities--from family, friends and employers, it's hard to imagine why anyone would actually choose to bear such a heavy burden unnecessarily. The fact of the matter is that we can't change who we are, or how God made us and that realization is increasingly accepted by succeeding generations. It has been my experience that more and more high school and college students today accept individual classmates as straight or gay without emotion or stigma. They accept what they cannot change as a fact of life. Which brings to mind one of my favorite prayers: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. I suspect that for older generations fear has often kept this issue from being discussed openly before now--fear that anyone who expressed an understanding view of the plight of homosexuals was likely to be labeled one. Because of this fear, the battle against discrimination has largely been left to those who were directly affected by it. Mr. President, I believe it is time for those of us who are not homosexual to join the fight. A basic respect for human dignity--which gives us the strength to reject racial, gender and religious intolerance-- dictates that in America we also eliminate discrimination against homosexuals. I believe that ending this discrimination is the last frontier in the ultimate fight for civil and human rights. Most Americans accept the basic tenet that discrimination for any reason is wrong. We grow uncomfortable, however, with some of its implications. The question we face now is whether that discomfort warrants continued discrimination. Although we have made huge strides in the struggle against discrimination based on gender, race and religion, it is more difficult to see beyond our differences regarding sexual orientation. It's human nature to be uncomfortable with feelings we don't understand or share and to step away from those who are different. But it's also human resolve that allows us to overcome those impulses, to step forward and celebrate those many qualities we share. The fact that our hearts don't all speak in the same way is not cause or justification to discriminate. There are not many in this Chamber who truly seek to discriminate. Some here support the Defense of Marriage Act because many of the good people they represent believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and therefore same-sex unions should not be permitted by the Government. A number of our colleagues have told me privately that they are not comfortable supporting this legislation, but the political consequences are too great to oppose it. Others admit that they intend to discriminate, but they believe that discrimination here is justified. They justify their prejudice against homosexuals by arguing that homosexuality is morally wrong--thereby assuming it is not a trait but a choice, and a choice to be condemned. But history has shown that current moral and social views may ultimately prove to be a weak foundation on which to rest institutionalized discrimination. Until 1967, 16 States, including my own State of Virginia, had laws banning couples from different races to marry. When the law was challenged, Virginia argued that interracial marriages were simply immoral. The trial court upheld Virginia's law and asserted that ``Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.'' Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Supreme Court struck down these archaic laws, holding that ``the freedom of choice to marry'' had ``long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'' Today we know that the moral discomfort--even revulsion--that citizens then felt about legalizing interracial marriages did not give them the right to discriminate 30 years ago. Just as discomfort over sexual orientation does not give us the right to discriminate against a class of Americans today. Ultimately, Mr. President, immorality flows from immoral choices. But if homosexuality is an inalienable characteristic, which cannot be altered by counseling or willpower, then moral objections to gay marriages do not appear to differ significantly from moral objections to interracial marriages. Mr. President, at its core marriage is a legal institution officially sanctioned by society through its Government. This poses the dilemma of whether a society should recognize a union which the majority either can't relate to or believes is contrary to established moral tenets or religious principles. We find ourselves again at the intersection of morality and Government, a place where some of our most divisive and complicated social issues have torn at us throughout our history as a Nation. Prayer in school, abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide--these most troubling issues of our day force us to confront the difficulty of legislating where social mores and individual liberties collide. I believe social mores can and should guide our Government. But sometimes we need to choose between conflicting moral judgments. For example, some believe very deeply that no matter how heinous a crime a person commits, the death penalty is immoral because no human should take the life of another. But while we respect those views, we have legally restored the death penalty. Many believe homosexuality is immoral, but many also believe that discriminating against people for attributes they cannot control is immoral. When moral objections are used to justify blatant discrimination, however, we need to tread carefully. In this case, we should tread more carefully still, because marriage is also a religious institution. Religious ceremonies evoke powerful images: a couple committing themselves to each other before God and family, a union blessed and supported by religious teachings, a ceremony based on scripture and biblical studies. But we have to remember today that government has a role only in the civil institution, separate and distinct from marriage as a religious ceremony. The truth is, this bill will not affect, one way or another, how individual religions deal with same-sex marriages. Government sanction of gay marriages does not alter the religious institution, and as author Andrew Sullivan has argued, ``Particular religious arguments against same-sex marriages are rightly debated within the churches and faiths themselves.'' Religions that prohibit gay marriages will continue to do so, just as some refuse to permit marriages between individuals of different faiths. Such couples simply have to forgo the religious blessing of the marriage, and be content with only civil recognition of their union. Marriage, as a civil institution, recognizes the union of two individuals who are so committed to each other that they seek to have their civic rights and responsibilities formally merged into one. And, Mr. President, when that civil institution is separated from a religious ceremony, and that civil institution is recognized by a sovereign State, then denying Federal recognition of that union amounts to nothing short of indefensible discrimination. Unfortunately, Mr. President, discrimination is not new in this country. Countless courageous Americans have risked their careers and even their lives to defy discrimination. We forget today how difficult these acts were in their own time. We forget how different our world would be if these pioneers had taken the easy path. One thing we do know, Mr. President, is that time has been the enemy of discrimination in America. It has allowed our views on race and gender and religion to evolve dramatically, inevitably, in the American tradition of progress and inclusion. We're not there yet, Mr. President. In matters of race, gender, and religion, we've passed the laws, implemented the court decisions, signed the executive orders. And every day we work to battle the underlying prejudice that no law or judicial remedy or executive act can completely erase. But we've made the greatest strides forward when individuals, faced with their moment in history, were not afraid to act. And time has allowed us to see more clearly the humanity that binds us, rather than the religious, gender, racial, and other differences that distinguish us. But I fear, Mr. President, that if we don't stand here against this bill, we will stand on the wrong side of history, not unlike the majority of the Supreme Court who upheld the ``separate but equal'' doctrine in Plessy versus Ferguson. And with the benefit of time, the verdict of history is not likely to be as forgiving as we might believe it to be today. Mr. President, I believe we ought to continue to let the States decide if and how they want to confront the issue of a civil union between members of the same sex. They decide it in all other instances. In fact, they have managed it without congressional interference for 200 years. As the supreme court of Hawaii has recently noted, in the very case which has led to the introduction of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``the power to regulate marriage is a sovereign function reserved exclusively to the respective States.'' Most of us are uncomfortable discussing in public the intimacies of life. And most of us are equally uncomfortable with those who flaunt their eccentricities and their nonconformity, whether gay or straight. But in the end, we cannot allow our discomfort to be used to justify discrimination. We are not entitled to that indulgence. We cannot afford it. But doing the right thing is not always easy and I know this is not an easy vote even for those who may agree with my argument. It is, in a very real sense, a test of character and I hope as many colleagues as possible will take time to reflect before casting their vote. If enough of us have the courage to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, I believe we can convince the President to do what I know in his heart of hearts he knows he should do to this discriminatory legislation. A nation as great as ours should not be enacting the Defense of Marriage Act. Ultimately, Mr. President, I would say to our fellow Senators: you don't have to be an advocate of same-sex marriages to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. You only have to be an opponent of discrimination. Mr. President, I'll conclude today with the words of a courageous American whom I seldom quote but to whom I'm eternally indebted. President Lyndon Johnson often said, ``It's not hard to do what's right, it's hard to know what's right.'' We know it is right to abolish discrimination. And if we reflect on what this bill is--an attempt to discriminate--rather than on what it is packaged to be--a defense of marriage--we will come down on the right side of history. With that, Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I understand the difficulty many Members may have with the prospect of same-sex marriages, and so I understand why the vote completed just a few minutes ago was so tough for many Senators. But this one shouldn't be. Those of us who support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act have a simple plea--let's end discrimination in the work-place. We can't forget, Mr. President, that we are a nation made prosperous and strong by the labor of millions of American workers. And each American worker--whether they build houses, pave roads, serve meals in country diners, or manage corporations--deserves to be judged by their dedication to their job and the quality of their work. It is indefensible, that in a great country like ours men and women can lose their jobs, be passed over for promotions, or suffer harassment because they have--or are perceived to have--a different sexual orientation than the rest of us. And for their part, American businesses deserve a work force which embodies maximum talent and minimal prejudice and dissention. Surely ending discrimination will improve productivity and enhance employee satisfaction. Former Senator Barry Goldwater, just quoted by the Senator from Rhode Island, wrote in support of this legislation: ``job discrimination excludes qualified individuals, lowers work-force productivity and eventually hurts us all. It's not just bad--it's bad for business.'' So this bill, Mr. President, which extends Federal employment discrimination protections modeled after those currently in place for race, gender, age, and disability to sexual orientation, is good for American businesses and good for American workers. It is moderate, reasonable, and eminently fair. This vote on this bill ought to be an easy one. It specifically rejects special rights and preferences. It exempts businesses with 15 or less employees, as well as all religious institutions and educational nonprofits owned or managed by religious organizations. It does not affect the U.S. military. It does not provide benefits for same-sex partners. I first became a cosponsor of the 1994 act in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign. But I knew that equality on the job ought to be the right of every single American, that prejudice divides us, that discrimination is wrong, and that I could justify my support for this bill to anyone. Mr. President, this bill is not about special rights for anyone. It is about equal rights for everyone. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Would the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee be willing to enter into a colloquy with this Senator concerning some language included in the conference report to the House passed VA/HUD appropriations bill?

Mr. ROBB. First, a commonsense approach is necessary. We can improve the Federal program so that it complements industry's efforts to improve voluntary AST standards. Some say that industry and environmental groups cannot work together to improve the environment. I simply do not believe this has to be the case. In January, Senator Daschle, Senator Simpson, and I introduced a bill on AST's that is the product of a coalition of several industry and environmental groups. Our bill seeks not only to improve the environment with respect to above-ground tanks, but also seeks to reduce the regulatory requirements on industry. We need Federal legislation to improve and reform the Federal program regulating AST's. This will provide more clear, concise guidelines to tank owners and operators, and enable EPA to deal swiftly and effectively with threats to human health and the environment. Specifically, the bill would require EPA to consolidate its aboveground storage tank offices into one office on storage tanks. In conjunction with this restructuring, the bill requires EPA to work with the Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to streamline and simplify the current regulatory structure affecting aboveground petroleum storage tanks and their owners. To improve the safety of large AST's that store oil, the bill also requires EPA to review current regulations to determine if gaps may exist, specifically with reference to secondary containment, overfill prevention, testing, inspection, compatibility, installation, corrosion protection, and structural integrity of these large petroleum tanks. Where current industry standards do not address those deficiencies identified, the EPA would be responsible for promulgating rules in the most cost-effective manner to alleviate those gaps. Lastly, the bill would impose new reporting requirements for petroleum leaks so that EPA will know when they occur underground. EPA should not have to wait until leaks are too large to ignore or until they have contaminated an important ground water source. I believe EPA has worked hard to implement a strong AST program. But I also know that more could be done. It is my hope that our bill will not only compliment EPA's efforts, but also allow EPA to place a higher priority on this issue.

Mr. ROBB. I want to add that the underground storage tank program at EPA has enjoyed a wide measure of success. It is both comprehensive and understandable. Certainly, the regulation of above-ground petroleum tanks warrants similar consideration. Also, EPA has established an effective response program to surface water oil-spills. EPA should now place a focus on improving the safety of AST operations and on leaks to ground water. This could only bolster EPA's spill prevention and response program.