Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. In addition to the confusion created by the patchwork of laws regulating these aboveground petroleum tanks, a far graver problem exists with respect to the frequency with which these tanks and their pipes are currently leaking, releasing petroleum into the environment. Two GAO studies, one in 1989 and the other in 1995, found a significant number of tanks were leaking between 43 and 54 million gallons of oil per year. More recently, there have been countless news reports on tank releases, leaks, failures and fires. Unfortunately, current Federal law only requires tank owners to report releases that contaminate surface water. There is no similar reporting requirement for underground leaks, and EPA does not have the authority to respond to leaks that contaminate ground water. Just last month, lightening struck an AST at a Shell gasoline facility in Woodbridge, NJ, igniting a fire that seriously injured 2 people and forced the evacuation of 200 nearby residents. Although this fire was started by an act of nature, it's instructive because it highlights the serious dangers associated with AST fires, which pose complex challenges to firefighters, jeopardize nearby communities, and threaten ground water contamination. From Anchorage, AK, to the Everglades in Florida, damage from leaking tanks has been incurred, and some areas permanently spoiled from millions of gallons of leaked oil. This problem poses a critical threat to our country's ground, surface, and drinking water. With approximately half a million above-ground storage tanks located throughout this Nation, this is simply a matter we cannot continue to ignore. The tank fire in New Jersey serves to further demonstrate the need for improvement of AST safety and operation. The future safety of our families and homes depends upon meaningful reform in this area. I think my colleague from South Dakota can also shed some light on this problem. Mr. President, would the Democratic leader please share his State's experience with an AST release that occurred 6 years ago in Sioux Falls.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as the Senate considers fiscal year 1997 appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, it is only fitting that we highlight the need for reform in the manner in which EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regulates aboveground petroleum storage tanks [AST's]. Under current Federal law, no less than five Federal offices are tasked with jurisdiction over these tanks. The myriad of Federal and State statutes coupled with the number of Federal offices administering the various regulations results in a situation which is at best confusing for aboveground storage tank owners, costly to taxpayers, and harmful to the environment. Twice, once in 1989 and again in 1995, GAO has issued reports which detail how EPA should strengthen its program to improve the safety of aboveground oil storage tanks. While it is true that EPA has taken steps to implement some of the recommendations, EPA has yet to take substantive action on many others.

Mr. ROBB. I want to thank our distinguished ranking member for the opportunity to highlight the need for this type of reform and also look forward to working with her in the future.

Mr. ROBB. I thank my friends from Missouri and Maryland for their kind assistance with this matter.

Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague and I say to my friends, we have in Norfolk, Virginia, a medical center--the Diabetes Institutes at the Eastern Virginia Medical School--which is distinguished for its work in diabetes research, education, and clinical care. The Diabetes Institutes is interested in establishing a research program with the Veterans' Administration to reduce the cost of care to veterans with diabetes. The House of Representatives included report language in support of the diabetes Institutes in this regard, and I wondered if the Chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee here in the Senate would be willing to work to retain the House language in conference.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today, at Arlington National Cemetery, the remains of Capt. John William Kennedy, U.S. Air Force, will be laid to rest with full military honors. Captain Kennedy's mother, brother, relatives and friends will join a grateful Nation in paying final tribute to a courageous American who gave his life for his country. This day and this ceremony are long overdue, Mr. President, because Captain Kennedy lost his life over the Quangtin Province of the Republic of Vietnam. Though his family was told he was missing in action on August l6, l97l, he was not confirmed killed in action until May l996. Mr. President, this brings back sad memories for me, because during my own time in Vietnam, families of many of the young men who served under my command received word that their loved ones would not be coming home. But as difficult as this notification was, it was even more difficult for the families who could not learn with certainty the fate of their loved ones. The most painful ordeal was ultimately the seemingly endless uncertainty of MIA families. With mixed emotions, I note that the terrible ordeal of the Kennedy family of Arlington, VA, is at last resolved. A sorrowful peace has finally been found. So I rise today, Mr. President, to honor the service rendered to our country by Capt. John William Kennedy. Captain Kennedy was serving as a forward air controller with the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron based in Chu Lai. On August 16, 1971, Captain Kennedy failed to check in during normal radio checks while flying a visual reconnaissance mission over the Quangtin Province. He was listed as missing in action until July 1978, when his status was changed to presumed killed in action. Finally, in May of this year, after using new DNA identification techniques, Captain Kennedy's family was notified that his remains have been recovered for burial. Captain Kennedy graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in l969 and then joined the U.S. Air Force. He graduated from pilot training in October 1970, where he was first in his class and was awarded the Undergraduate Pilot Training Office Training Award. He then reported to O-2A pilot training, and from there was assigned to the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron in South Vietnam. He was serving there when his plane disappeared. Captain Kennedy's awards include the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. Mr. President, Captain Kennedy's distinguished service to his country clearly represents the very best of America. I believe I can speak for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate when I pay tribute to his service today--and when I convey our gratitude to his family for sharing their exceptional son with us.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about House Joint Resolution 166, a bill we passed late last night, to grant the consent of Congress to the Mutual Aid Agreement between the city of Bristol, VA, and the city of Bristol, TN. Specifically, this bill would allow law enforcement officers in the cities of Bristol, VA, and Bristol, TN, when requested by the adjoining city, to cross State lines in the performance of their duties and operate with full authorization in the adjoining city once there. Last May, I met with members of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and discussed the need to alleviate Federal hurdles that keep the two cities from working together to address a host of municipal issues. The Virginia-Tennessee State line cuts across State Street in Bristol, which is the cities' main thoroughfare. Often, jurisdictional confusion and restrictions on law enforcement personnel caused by the location of the State line complicate anticrime activities on the bustling street. Under current law, the cities are prohibited from assisting each other in law enforcement efforts. To address the problem, the two cities adopted a mutual aid agreement to allow each city to provide law enforcement and emergency assistance to one another. Under the terms of the agreement, the responding city could provide a maximum of 50 percent of available personnel and resources to the requesting city. The mutual aid agreement has been fashioned according to the cities' respective State statutory requirements. Because the mutual aid agreement is an interstate compact, it requires congressional approval. Additionally, section 15.1-131 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, also requires congressional approval for multi-state agreements to which Virginia or one of its localities is a party. I am pleased that the Senate was able to move this bill quickly. This could not have happened without the full cooperation of the Senators from both States. Representatives Boucher and Quillen should also be recognized for introducing this legislation and sheparding it through the House. The two cities of Bristol share common interests and common problems, and now with passage of this bill, the two cities will be able to work more cooperatively for the betterment of all the citizens of Bristol.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the Senate's passage last night of S. 1995, legislation I cosponsored to authorize construction of a Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum extension at Washington Dulles International Airport. This Dulles center, which will be built without any Federal funds, will provide crucial additional exhibit space for displaying national aviation treasures to the public. The current Air and Space Museum on the Mall is filled to capacity. There is no room to store any more of our large, invaluable aviation artifacts. These artifacts are currently stored in warehouses, hidden from the public, and some even stored outside, where they are exposed to the elements. The passage of S. 1995 places us on track to provide a safe and secure facility to house and preserve, for the public, these historical aircraft and spacecraft such as the B-29 Enola Gay, the Space Shuttle Enterprise, and the SR-71 Blackbird. This bill seeks to save these irreplaceable artifacts for our children and our future generations. Mr. President, in 1946, President Truman, believing in the importance of preserving our historical aircraft, signed Public Law 722 establishing the National Air Museum. Twenty years later, in 1966, President Johnson understood the importance of this museum and signed the law authorizing construction of a National Air and Space Museum, which expanded the museum's collection efforts to include spacecraft and lunar artifacts. This museum was built on the National Mall here in Washington, opening its doors in 1976 and becoming the world's most visited museum, averaging over 8 million visitors per year. In keeping with this tradition of preservation and planning for the future, the Senate has passed S. 1995. When it becomes law, we will be able to house historical air and spacecraft, underscoring the major advances we have developed and the contributions to history we have made. Construction efforts for the Air and Space extension at Dulles, estimated to cost $200 million, represents exemplary coordination between public funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia and private sources. It is expected that the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum Dulles Center could be completed by 2003, in time for the 100 year anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight. This Dulles Center is an incredible, historical effort that will be a benefit to us now and for generations to come.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support the welfare reform legislation pending before this body. I do so with both reluctance and hope. My reluctance stems from some very real concerns I have with this bill. First, I am concerned that we fail to give States the resources they need to do the job right. I am willing to pay more in the short term to bring about economic independence in the long term. Second, like the President, I am extremely uncomfortable with both the level of cuts to the Food Stamp Program and the severity of the restrictions on legal immigrants. We cannot simply abandon our obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us. And, finally, I am troubled by specific provisions of this bill--like the one dealing with mothers with young children who do not work because they cannot find child care. The conference lowered the age from 11 to 6--and this is wrong, Mr. President. If we want mothers to move from welfare to work, we have to ensure they have child care for their young children. I will vote for this bill believing strongly that it is not our final word on welfare reform. And I'm prepared to work with the administration and with my colleagues here in the Congress to address the concerns that I have--and that I know others have--with this legislation. But, Mr. President, like the President of the United States, I also believe strongly that the opportunity before us is one we cannot let slip away. We simply cannot allow another generation of American children to fall victim to a welfare system that fosters dependency rather than opportunity, that has become for far too many children, not a second chance, but a way of life. I will vote for this bill, Mr. President, because I believe it contains the incentives needed to bring people out of poverty and into the economic mainstream. It contains tough work requirements, time limits on benefits and nearly $4 billion in new money for child care. It protects health care for current populations and allows States to use Federal money to provide non-cash vouchers for children whose parents meet the time limits. It emphasizes work and responsibility. It includes a strong community service component, which teaches both the value and the obligations of citizenship. But I know, Mr. President, that all the positive incentives in the world mean nothing if there are no jobs at the end of the line--and that the best social policy of all is economic growth. That is why I believe that the first edition of welfare reform was approved by this Congress in l993 with the passage of the President's deficit reduction plan. We can approve legislation today that aims at moving people from welfare to work because we do so amidst a strong, vital economy. In less than 4 years, our economy has created over l0 million new jobs--most of them in the private sector--and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 6 years. As we bring down our deficit, we enhance our ability to invest in our people. And as we strengthen our economy, we provide new avenues of opportunity for poor Americans to enter the economic mainstream. We cannot just give incentives to move people from welfare to work, Mr. President. We have to also better invest in programs that give them the tools to succeed--programs like education and job training. Mr. President, I have outlined my reservations about this bill, and I am committed to working in the coming months to remedy these concerns. But my hope for this bill transcends the ability of individual mothers to exchange a welfare check every month for a pay check. For every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more child in America sees their role model go to work in the morning, earn a salary, pay their bills, believe a little more in their own ability and self-worth, and live in a world that is infinitely stronger because they contribute to it. And every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more child in America escapes from what could become a cycle of dependency and hopelessness that is inherently unAmerican--and which we have an opportunity and an obligation to break. Although only history will tell for sure, I will vote for this bill because I believe it is the first step in breaking the cycle of poverty which has sapped the optimism and the opportunity of too many generations of innocent American children. Mr. President, I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about an exciting new project called NetDay East, which is mobilizing volunteers in several States, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, to wire our public schools for the Internet. It is exciting, Mr. President, because of how the Internet has transformed the way people communicate and expanded access to information worldwide. Our challenge now is to bring this technology into all of our Nation's schools as quickly as possible so that all students, regardless of their economic status or where they live, have access to the same global library of knowledge and information to compete on a level playing field. The biggest barrier has been the lack of money and manpower needed to physically wire the schools to the Internet. Laying the necessary cable to link our K-12 classrooms is estimated to cost billions of dollars nationwide. But a project in California has showed us that we can overcome this obstacle if we mobilize our communities and work together. In 1 day, California wired 3,500 schools at little or no cost to the schools themselves through the outstanding volunteer efforts of parents, teachers, students, businesses, and elected officials. Because of the vision and commitment reflected in their NetDay, hundreds of thousands of young Californians will be able to experience a new global world of unlimited possibility with the stroke of a key. As one who cares deeply about education and surfs the Internet from my Senate office, I am delighted to be a part of NetDay East. Modeled after California's project, NetDay East is now organizing to cable schools every weekend in October in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland. Similar efforts are taking place in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Montana, Connecticut, and Louisiana as well. Mr. President, an estimated 40 million people from more than 150 countries use the information superhighway. They include Kathleen Butzler at Northampton Middle School who can lead her seventh grade class on a virtual tour of the White House or talk to a Member of Congress without leaving their home in Mochipongo on Virginia's Eastern Shore. We shouldn't forget that the Internet is a two-way communications tour. Through NetDay East, thousands of Virginia students will be able to create Web pages, like those at the Northampton Middle School, to teach the rest of the world about the treasures of our beautiful and diverse State. This technology is fascinating and could very well be the spark to ignite the imagination in children who would otherwise be disinterested in school work. Capturing the interest and imagination of our students through this technology can yield enormous future benefits, for students with access will have a distinct advantage over those who do not. We cannot afford to let our schools slip behind those of our international competitors when the technology, technology that we created, is literally right at our fingertips. There are many ways to participate in NetDay, Mr. President. Businesses can contribute in a variety of ways, including partnering with local schools, purchasing wiring kits, lending technical staff, and encouraging their employees to volunteer. Individuals can help pull wire in schools, since installing this type of cable requires a great deal of labor but very little technical expertise. Schools can register to be a part of this project and encourage their parents to volunteer and promote NetDay. This October on a Saturday, my staff and I plan to help cable A.P. Hill Elementary School in Petersburg, VA, as a part of NetDay East. We will also be doing a demonstration project in Northern Virginia right after school starts in September. There is no question, Mr. President, that when we wire schools for the Internet this October, we will complete just the first step in a much greater effort to help young Virginians and young Americans in other States travel the information superhighway. It is a first step, but it is certainly an essential one. There will be much to do to finish the job, including arranging for Internet connections, training students and teachers in the effective uses of the Internet and helping to acquire computer donations to the schools. I hope NetDay forms an important and productive alliance between our communities and our schools that can continue well beyond October. Finally, I fully endorse NetDay East, and I encourage others to join us during the month of October to participate in this modern-day barn raising. If anyone would like to sponsor, volunteer, endorse, sign up their school or just find out more information, please visit the NetDay East home page at ``www.cgcs.org/netday-east.'' For anyone who does not have access to the Internet, I invite them to contact my office, and we will certainly assist them with registration. With the help of many caring and committed individuals, Mr. President, we can keep our children off the wayside and ensure they move swiftly and surely forward on the information superhighway. With that, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the interstate waste amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to give localities the opportunity to restrict the flow of interstate waste into landfills in their communities. In my view, it is essential that local governments be given the authority they need to determine for themselves whether to accept out-of-State waste. I am pleased that S. 534, the legislation which passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year, contained provisions that will help protect communities from being inundated with unwanted garbage generated out-of-State and provide localities with some leverage to deal with landfill developers who seek to dispose of out- of-State trash. The pending amendment--identical to the one we passed last year-- deserves the support of all Members. In my view, it strikes the appropriate balance between importing States and exporting States, and solves a problem which has persisted for too many years. Because this issue deals with interstate commerce, only Congress has the authority to resolve the problem of unwanted out-of-State garbage, as the Senators from Indiana, Michigan, and Montana have discussed. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our support for this legislation, and make passage of this bill a priority during the remainder of this session. With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, one characteristic shared by most top-notch judges is patience. It is an attribute which James P. Jones, the President's nominee to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, has in abundance. This is fortunate, because he has waited a very long time for this day. Jim was first nominated to be a Federal district judge over 16 years ago, but his nomination became entangled in presidential politics and never came to the Senate floor for consideration. That was 1980. He was recommended for this position again last summer, renominated last December, favorably reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in March, and has been pending on the Executive Calendar ever since. I know he's relieved to have finally completed this torturous journey, and I'm pleased that he will finally be able to demonstrate what those of us acquainted with him have known for years--that he will make an exemplary judge. I have known Jim Jones for over 20 years. His experience will help him discharge the responsibilities which will be placed upon him. He's been a litigator in private practice for almost 28 years. He has served as a state senator, assistant attorney general for the Commonwealth, and law clerk in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to his keen intellect and superior legal skills, Jim has the character and even disposition crucial for a successful jurist. Not only is Jim well-suited for the position, he has dedicated much of his life outside his legal practice to public service. He has been involved in many community and bar-related activities, and he has recently served as president of the Virginia Board of Education. I was pleased to be given the opportunity to recommend Jim Jones to the President for this nomination, and I am confident that Jim will serve with distinction as a Federal district court judge in the western district of Virginia. I'm glad he will finally have a chance to serve. With that Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting this nomination and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Let me start over. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent agreement to propound to dispose of three amendments which have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. They include Senator Faircloth's amendment to clarify that a welfare recipient may provide child care services to satisfy the bill's work requirement; two, Senator Coats' amendment allowing welfare recipients to establish individual development accounts; and, third, Senator Abraham's amendment modifying the illegitimacy ratio. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer these three amendments that I send to the desk, en bloc, that they be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that the motions to table and the motions to reconsider be agreed to, en bloc, and that they appear in the Record as if considered individually.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, during our short Independence Day recess, there were a number of elections overseas that captured our attention. Certainly the most important involved the reelection of Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia--a positive development for democracy abroad, and a defeat for the Communist Party there that unfortunately maintains the support of a sizable portion of the electorate. Another election that might have gone otherwise unnoticed, except for the stunning results which it produced, occurred in Mongolia on June 30. I had the opportunity to join with former Secretary of State Jim Baker and several other distinguished observers in visiting polling stations across the plains of Mongolia to watch democracy in action. Mr. President, what occurred in Mongolia a week ago Sunday was truly historic. Parliamentary elections there produced dramatic results: Democratic reformers upended the ruling former Communist Party seized majority control of the legislature for the first time, and are now in position to set this vast country on a bold new course. The seismic political shift in Mongolia was unexpected, to say the least. The ruling Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party [MPRP] held 71 of 76 seats in the Great Hural, Mongolia's unicameral legislature. U.S. Embassy cable reporting just days before the vote suggested that the democratic opposition parties would be doing well to win 25 seats. But Embassy officials cautioned that their sources believed that was something of an optimistic projection. Mr. President, the democratic opposition won twice that number of seats and assumed majority responsibility for Mongolia's future in the process. The electoral math confirms that 50 of 76 parliamentary seats were won by the Democratic Union Coalition Party. The former Communist Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party dropped from 71 to 24 seats in the Great Hural. The MPRP, Mongolia's ruling party since 1923, was unceremoniously bounced right out of office. Moreover, leading MPRP officials--the Foreign Minister, two Deputy Prime Ministers, the Labor Minister, and the head of the MPRP--not only lost majority control, but lost their seats in the Great Hural as well. U.S. election observers covered more than 1,000 kilometers making nine stops over 2 days observing first hand the careful approach to preparations as well as the actual conduct of elections. I believe I can speak for the entire group in stating that Mongolian officials were meticulous in administering the elections. On election day, voter names were checked carefully on the registration rolls; actual ballots were handled with great care and efficiency; party representatives were provided unimpeded viewing access at polling stations; all ballot counting procedures were accessible to pollwatchers and international observers alike; and many vote totals were counted three, four, and five times over for accuracy. Mr. President, though most Mongolians had to cover vast distances on foot or horseback, more than 87 percent of eligible voters turned out for what we observed to be free, fair, and transparent elections, without a hint of fraud. As election observers, our primary concern involved the process--not necessarily the result--but we could not ignore history being made before our very eyes. The Democratic Union Coalition offered a political and economic prescription that obviously resonated with a broad cross section of the population, particularly the younger voters from Mongolian herdsmen to city workers in Ulaanbattar. The new coalition party vows to make government more transparent. It hopes to strengthen local decision-making, make the judiciary more independent, and accelerate decentralization of the economy. The party endorses privatizing 60 percent of state-owned enterprises by the year 2000. It is a very progressive agenda. Mr. President, given the harsh economic and social challenges facing Mongolia, it will be extremely difficult for the new parliamentarians to meet expectations, so our support will be crucial. In our post-election meeting with President Ochirbat on Monday, I pledged to explore the idea of legislative exchanges that would help the approximately 80 percent of the newly elected Great Hural members who have no prior legislative experience. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, Kent Wiedemann, pledged similar cooperation from the executive branch of our Government. And former Secretary Baker agreed to encourage renewed international support from the nations he dealt with when he convened the original Mongolian Donors Group. Mr. President, today, I am submitting a Senate resolution that congratulates the people of Mongolia for: First, embracing democracy in these parliamentary elections; second, conducting free, fair, and credible elections; third, building on the progress of the past and moving further away from their previous dependence on a Communist system; and fourth, serving as an example to other East Asian countries that the people deserve a voice in choosing their government. That last point is worth keeping in mind. I believe the winds of democratic change are getting stronger in East Asia. The Philippines, Cambodia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan--and now Mongolia. The trend toward democratization and economic liberalization is undeniable. What happened in Mongolia represents a geopolitical step in the right direction for East Asia. Mr. Speaker, the day I left Mongolia, President Ochirbat said to me, ``Democracy in Mongolia has become irreversible and the people have a strong confidence in it.'' Well we now have a strong confidence in the people of Mongolia, and applaud them for joining the democratic community of nations. Mr. President, in closing I would like to offer a brief word of thanks to the Asia Foundation, which helped organize this election observation mission, the International Republican Institute for its sustained efforts at party-building within Mongolia, and fellow election observers who joined me on the trip. They were: former Secretary of State Jim Baker, current Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kent Wiedemann, former Senator Dick Clark, former Congressman Elliot Levitas, M. Graeme Bannerman, of Bannerman & Associates, Casimir Yost, of the Georgetown University Institute of Diplomacy, and David Carroll, of the Carter Center in Atlanta. Our Ambassador in Ulaanbaatar, Donald C. Johnson, deserves special commendation in particular for helping to organize the election monitoring trip. We had an opportunity to visit with voters at various sites around the country, and benefited from his and Deputy Chief of Mission Llewellyn Hedgbett's advice and counsel along the way.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment that I have filed at the desk is number 4363. It is designed to bring more discipline to the manner in which we authorize and appropriate military programs. Each year we receive from the administration a request for authorization of defense programs for the upcoming fiscal year. That request is the product of a lengthy and thorough process at the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House, and many other Federal agencies, to forge the best military force possible in the face of some rather severe fiscal constraints. The process of building DOD's budget is an enormously complicated process. It is unique in scope among Government departments. It involves at least 2 years of preparation explicitly for one fiscal year's budget submission. It involves hundreds of thousands of manhours by experts throughout the defense community. It involves careful analysis, computer modeling, war-gaming, tradeoffs, and compromise. It is not a process that we in the Congress should take lightly. We have extraordinary expertise here in the Senate among both Members and staff, but I believe we would be naive to ignore the complexity and delicate nature of maintaining a defense program that best serves the national interests. Mr. President, I am not suggesting that we defer carte blanche to the Department of Defense. I am suggesting that we exercise considerable caution in making significant changes to the request, especially in the areas of military equipment and construction, areas where Members are particularly inclined to make adds which may have nothing to do with national security. Mr. President, this year alone the committee has added more than $13 billion to the administration's fiscal year 1997 request. I support most of that increase because I believe we are not doing enough to modernize and replace our aging weapons inventory. I am very much concerned that too much of that increase, almost $2.2 billion by one estimate, involves programs not requested by the administration, not mentioned by any of the services in their so-called wish list for priority items that did not make the budget request and not even a part of DOD's long-range 5-year plan. To this effect, I am offering this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, along with the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, that urges the Senate, to the extent practicable, to authorize military equipment and to appropriate military equipment only if that equipment is, first, in the administration's request; or second, in the long- range plans of the Department of Defense; or third, in a supplemental request issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military departments, the National Guard Bureau, or the Reserve chiefs, after the initial request is made. If an item meets one or more of these criteria, we would be assured that at a minimum it is something that the military believes that it needs either now or in the future if more funds were available. If an item cannot meet these minimal criteria, then I think at the very least it deserves very careful and critical examination. Mr. President, this amendment, when formally offered, does not state that the Senate should never authorize requests that did not meet these criteria. I am not urging that we advocate our legislative responsibilities by deferring without question to the Department. Indeed, the reason I voted against the amendment offered yesterday that would have deleted all spending not specifically requested by the Department is that I thought it could be interpreted as a complete abdication of legislative responsibility, and I did not want to go that far. Rather, the amendment that I have filed at the desk calls for the Senate Armed Services Committee to include a separate section in the committee report, and it will be amended to include similar language to affect the appropriating committee, that would provide a detailed national security justification for any equipment that does not meet the criteria. The amendment also calls for a separate section in the Armed Services Committee report, justifying any military construction projects that do not meet the military construction project criteria that was set forth by my good friend from Arizona in the fiscal year 1995 defense authorization bill. Similar language will be inserted to effect the appropriations process.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia that the current language does not, but I have included in my remarks an intent to modify the amendment when formally taken up so that both the authorizing and the appropriating committees would be affected by the language. It is very much in concert with the intent long expressed in the leadership provided by the distinguished Senator from Georgia and many others who have worked long and hard with the military committees, both the authorizing and the appropriating committees. Mr. President, the criteria that I am referring to, the inspiration for this particular amendment, call for the Senate to authorize only those military construction projects that are in the request in the DOD's future years defense plan and that meet other important criteria or similarly are affected by the appropriations process. Those criteria have already served the national interest well by substantially curtailing the authorization of construction projects not requested by the department. In an era when defense dollars are becoming tougher to find, while our sources are stretched thin overseas, it seems to me critical that we exercise extraordinary prudence and foresight in avoiding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for purposes other than those recommended by the Department of Defense. By highlighting these items in the committee report, we increase the visibility of these add-ons and ensure that they are fully justified in and evaluated by the Congress and the public at large. Let me be clear, Mr. President, all of us have at one time or another requested projects that do not meet the criteria established in this amendment, myself included. But if these are projects that we feel strongly about in terms of their national security value, we ought to be prepared to have those items highlighted as adds in the committee report and defend them on their merit. Let me make a comment about the National Guard and Reserves. We are all aware of the DOD's perpetual unwillingness to adequately fund Guard and Reserve equipment and military construction accounts. Too often, without congressional leadership, the Guard and Reserves would be using outmoded equipment and operating out of tents. The criteria set forth in this amendment include any requests from the National Guard Bureau and the Reserve components. In addition, much of the Guard and Reserve equipment and military construction we authorize each year is, in fact, in the future year's defense plan of the Department of Defense, but we just do not see it. To remedy this, I introduced an amendment, along with my distinguished senior colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, that was agreed to yesterday to require in permanent law the submission to Congress of the DOD's future plan, or FYDP, for the Guard and Reserves. The DOD is currently required to submit its FYDP only for the active forces. That amendment will, at a minimum, allow the Congress to make more informed judgments about what should be added for Guard and Reserve forces. All of the men and women of our Armed Forces--active, Reserve, and Guard--deserve to have equipment and facilities that meet their needs. In short, Mr. President, we owe it to them to avoid authorizing those items that the Department of Defense has shown no interest in now or in the future, or appropriating those items which the Department of Defense has shown no interest in now or for the future, and to have the courage explicitly to highlight debate and justify any such items that we decide to go ahead with and authorize. With that, Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will modify the amendment at the desk, and I will urge its adoption. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if no other Senator is desiring to take the floor at this particular moment, I would like to speak on an amendment that I have filed at the desk but do not plan to offer until the current matter is resolved.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to specify in the future years defense plan--submitted to the Congress as required in title 10--the estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the procurement of equipment and for military construction for the National Guard and Reserve components. The fact that this situation has reached this stage is a matter of some concern, Mr. President. Because the Congress cannot require the Executive to submit a budget recommendation at a set level for the Guard and Reserves, the Congress included a useful provision in last year's authorization that required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on what actions DOD was taking to enhance the Guard and Reserves, how the Department would spend its fiscal year 1997 Guard and Reserves equipment and construction requests, and to provide its future years defense plan for the same. This would have allowed the Armed Services Committee this year to make a more informed judgement on how to increase, if necessary, the Guard and Reserve authorization. To date, DOD has provided no report--in direct contradiction of congressional direction. Our intent last year was to fix a perennial problem, to wit, that the administration's budget request consistently fails to include any funding for National Guard and Reserve weapons or equipment, and that the MILCON request is consistently underfunded by several hundred million dollars a year. This, of course, necessitates congressional adds that must be drawn out of other defense programs or an increase in the total defense authorization level, neither of which is an acceptable way to effect public policy. The Congress is compelled to make crucial decisions on weapons and construction procurement with no guidance from the administration. The end result is directed spending that does much for Member interests but little for achieving a balanced total force. One solution--so-called generic authorization of funds--is a small improvement but far from perfect. With generic funding we abdicate our legislative responsibilities. We don't give the DOD blanket dollar amounts for aircraft and then let the department decide how many B-2's, F-22's and other aircraft it needs to buy. The generic approach is also troubling because we authorize dollar amounts while pretending we don't know how we derived those amounts or what precisely they will be spent on, when in fact we do make assumptions about what precisely needs to be authorized in order to derive the generic funding totals. Mr. President, my amendment echoes the requirements outlined in last year's provision on National Guard and Reserve authorizations, but it goes one step further in establishing a permanent marker for the Secretary of Defense. Currently, title 10 requires the Department to submit its future years defense program. This amendment will require in title 10 the submission of the same plan for the Guard and Reserve. The Congress must have a foundation to work from in determining a rational topline for the Guard and Reserves. Congress may decide on a lower or higher amount, but at least it can make such a decision based on guidance from DOD on the Department's priorities. Mr. President, I am hopeful that this amendment will persuade the Department of Defense on an annual basis to fully address Guard and Reserve funding in conjunction with deliberations on active-force budgets. To do less is to undermine the Department's concept of total force management--and to invite the Congress to distort and manipulate Reserve accounts based on individual Member interests in lieu of the national interest. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been accepted on both sides and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to add a word on behalf of Bill Emerson. My perspective comes principally from the personal side. All of the Members of Congress, of course, represent their districts and return to their districts often. But, frequently, they spend time in the communities here in or around the Washington area. Bill Emerson and his family were members of our church, and were active participants. We sat with them. We saw them. We experienced part of this particular struggle, and we developed enormous respect for him and for his family. I join with and commend the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the others who have cosponsored this particular resolution and have spoken out on behalf of Bill Emerson. He was a very fine human being. I think all of us who had the privilege of knowing him certainly respect what he did for his country, for his State, and we will miss him in his service in the Congress of the United States. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I first of all commend the ranking member of the committee for his work in attempting to reduce the number of amendments so that we can handle this bill. I expect to follow his lead tomorrow with respect to at least the first vote on cloture. Shortly we will resume consideration, and it would be appropriate to offer amendments, and at that time I believe the next amendment to be offered will be offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, shared by the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, and a number of us. I would like to speak for just a few minutes on that particular amendment in anticipation of its being offered sometime after the majority leader opens the bill up for amendments at that time. Mr. President, the amendment that we are going to be considering very shortly will require a major review of the force structures of the Armed Forces and, in my judgment, it could be the most important matter we will address in the consideration of this year's Defense authorization bill, or in similar authorization bills through the end of the century, because it goes right to the heart of why we have a military and what we can expect in terms of national security for many years to come. Admittedly, the Department of Defense had some reservations about our approach initially, but we have worked out those concerns, and I really believe this amendment is critical if we are serious about our role in the international community and our simultaneous quest for credible deterrence and fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, we have to start by reexamining the basic structure of the U.S. Armed Forces. That structure, though smaller, has changed very little in its composition since the end of the cold war even though the nature of the threat and the means for countering it are dramatically different. I believe we need to take a long, hard look at the weapons systems that are on the drawing board and determine which are truly critical for the 21st century. I believe we have to look for ways to leverage our Nation's technological advantages. By expanding the range and accuracy of our weapons and the effectiveness of our support equipment, we may be able to reduce the number of troops and logistics operations. We certainly need to take greater advantage of our exceptional intelligence communications capabilities which have the potential to dramatically affect how we develop and deploy strategic doctrine and battlefield tactics. Mr. President, each of these areas of endeavor ought to be explored in a major review of our force structure. We also need to assess the Bottom-Up Review's assumptions about our capabilities in a more realistic fiscal context. In particular, we need to take a much more critical look at the kinds of threats to U.S. national security interests that we will likely face 15, 20, or even 30 years from now. While the original Bottom-Up Review served a useful purpose, its analysis of the personnel, weapons, and military doctrine required by a 21st century American force is simply no longer adequate. The review that we are proposing should take a tabula rasa look at the nature and effects of unconventional threats such as regional and ethnic conflicts, nationalism, political extremism, and failed nation- states, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, technology transfer, and information warfare and terrorism, both international and domestic. The review should, of course, look at the continuing threats of major regional conflicts such as that of the Persian Gulf, but it should specifically look as well at the possibility of a major peer emerging or reemerging as a competitor on the world stage. The obvious candidates over the 15-year horizon are Russia, and especially China with its booming economy fueling its military revitalization and modernization program. Mr. President, in our long-term planning, we should also consider anew the potential for armed conflict in broad geographic regions. Take, for example, the tinderbox of the so-called Rising East where the United States has fought five times in the last 100 years. In addition to the United States presence and the armies of Russia and China there, this vast area is home to the world's five other largest armed forces: North and South Korea, Vietnam, and the potentially nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. The latter may be particularly problematic. What on its face looks like a regional conflict might require redefinition somewhere between global and regional, if nuclear weapons are exchanged, and affect a great many neighboring countries. It would be incumbent on those conducting the review to detail the specific forces--by active, reserve, and support force type--needed to execute alternative strategies that run the gamut from global war to two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts--or MRC's, as we call them--to a number of contingencies smaller than an MRC. Assumptions about Reserve readiness, allied mission sharing, warning times, and the effect of developing technologies on the force structure must also be addressed. Other questions should include, at a minimum: What are the risks under alternative force structures, if funding through 2010 and beyond remains constant? Should forces be sized against specific enemy threats, against national security commitments, or against available national resources? Are the Reserves optimally trained, equipped, and deployed? Do peacekeeping operations necessitate changes in the way we have organized, trained, and deployed forces? How should we bring our teeth to tail ratio back in line. What outsourcing opportunities offer the greatest potential for stretching the defense dollar? Are there better measures of readiness available? Does the current structure of the unified combatant commands make sense for the next century? Mr. President, many defense analysts--in the Department, academia, and industry--are asking similar questions. I have been giving each of these matters a great deal of thought in recent months, and my staff has done a great deal of research. When I learned that Senator Lieberman and others, including the current occupant of the chair, were looking at different elements of the same challenge, we joined forces on this amendment to ask the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to consider all of the matters that I have just highlighted in the quadrennial defense review. This review, recommended by the Roles and Missions Commission, is an examination of U.S. defense strategy and force structure through 2005. But we believe the Secretary ought to have a second opinion as well. As such, this amendment will call for the creation of a parallel but independent panel of private experts from the Nation's major think tanks, academia, and the defense industry. The panel that we are going to describe would have full access to DOD resources and analyses and will provide its assessment of the quadrennial defense review by Secretary of Defense by March 14, 1997. With this input, the Secretary of Defense would finalize his quadrennial defense review and provide his summary, an assessment by the panel, and comments by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the congressional defense committees by not later than May 15. It is a safe bet, it seems to me, Mr. President, that the ensuing hearings would be provocative and enlightening. Once the quadrennial defense review is completed, the panel will take the next step of pushing the envelope in long-range thinking. Looking out to 2010 and beyond, the panel will explore a range of threat scenarios, build force structures to meet those scenarios, and explore the risks and costs associated with each. In the process of conducting this forward-thinking assessment, the panel will again have the authority to task any DOD component for data and analysis. The panel's final product will be delivered to the Secretary of Defense not later than December 1, and the Secretary, in turn, will submit the panel's report to the Congress no later than December 15, along with his comments on the report. In the final analysis, we need to acknowledge that defense spending has fallen to a level that simply will not meet the national military strategy for fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Overall defense spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen to its lowest level since just after World War II. It absorbed about 10 percent of the gross domestic product during the early 1960's. Today, that number has dropped to below 4 percent, and it is projected to continue to fall in the outyears. I submit that we ignore the implications at our peril. It is up to us to ensure that future generations of Americans are afforded the strong measure of security that we have come to expect as a Nation for the last 50 years, and the best way we can assure this is through the judicious application of foresight and steadfastness. Defense spending in the 5 budget years immediately after the cold war was $350 billion less than the amount projected in the cold war budget. Make no mistake; that was a huge peace dividend, and our country has since cashed it on discretionary domestic spending, entitlements and interest on the national debt. When all is said and done, the only thing that remains of the peace dividend is the opportunity for continued peace. And we can only achieve that through the kind of preparedness to which this review will lead us. It is my understanding that this amendment is now broadly acceptable on both sides of the aisle, and when it is formally offered by my distinguished colleague from Connecticut in a few minutes and discussed by a number of colleagues who have been working on it, I urge that all of my colleagues join in adopting this particular amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as the Senator from Georgia just indicated, those of us who are cosponsoring the amendment are entirely prepared to accept the language proposed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Indeed, the language is entirely consistent with the intent of the sponsors of this particular amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of this amendment, I am going to propose a motion to change one word in the amendment, and then I hope we will be able to take up the matter on final passage. But the language that the Senator from Nevada has suggested is not only consistent but entirely appropriate. I fully support it. I believe the distinguished Senator from Minnesota shares that same opinion.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while I have the floor for just one moment, the last amendment that was debated, and on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, and which was temporarily set aside for a vote at 2:15, I would like to just say--as I was prepared to say at that time, but could not--that I am a cosponsor of that particular amendment. I reiterate for my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle who may not have heard the arguments, this is simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which is attempting to deal with a very difficult problem here in the Nation's Capital. It does not direct the President or the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secret Service to do anything. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that asks them, in effect, to work together to try to solve the problem. I hope my colleagues will join in this case in opposing the motion to table when we vote on it at 2:15.