Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in cosponsoring this particular amendment. The case for support has been eloquently stated by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and could be made by others. I will not repeat it. I will simply say that what was done in the name of the United States in the instance of these particular commandos is appalling and unconscionable. This is clearly the right thing to do to atone for the actions that were taken some time ago and without the knowledge of apparently very many people in the Government at that particular time. In any event, I applaud my colleagues for taking this particular action. Amendment No. 4052

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I respond to my friend that it is a sense of the Senate. We are simply expressing the sense of the Senate that that is what we hope the President will do in that particular instance. It is not statutory. It does not require that particular action. I might also say, Mr. President, when the distinguished Senator from Minnesota initially drafted the particular piece of legislation and sent it to my office, there was some language I felt could easily be interpreted as partisan in nature. I did not think it was appropriate. I asked him if he would be willing to make some concessions in that regard, which he was kind enough to do, so we would approach it on a bipartisan basis and attempt to deal with the problem in a way that involved the various agencies of Government that have some responsibility for this particular action. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with my distinguished friend from Nevada that the floor of the U.S. Senate is not the place to debate or make a decision. This is simply a request to go through the kinds of procedures that I think will lead to a proper decision. More importantly, this is the best solution to this particular problem. No one wants to place either the First Family of the United States or others in particular jeopardy. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota that any inclusion of some of the additional street closings would also be appropriate for study and consideration. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce be printed in the Record as part of that debate.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it is my understanding with respect to the amendment before the Senate, there is no objection from either side. The Senator from New Hampshire may wish to comment. If he does not, I ask that the Senate proceed to take action on that amendment by voice vote at this time.

Mr. ROBB. I know of no one else who has requested an opportunity to speak on this amendment. I, therefore, urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment was never designed to be partisan nor to attack, certainly, the President. I would never have been a part of it. It was designed to try to clarify something that has been very troubling to many of the people who are directly involved, both for symbolic reasons as well as for practical reasons, in terms of the traffic flow of the Nation's Capital. I have lived in and around this area for 40 of my 57 years, or most of the last 40 of my 57 years. I am quite familiar with the traffic patterns and the inconvenience to those who have to traffic the area every day. I am very conscious of the symbolism of our Nation's Capital, and particularly the President's house. I have discussed with the chief sponsor of the amendment the changing of one word that I think might make our intention even clearer. That would be to substitute the word ``request'' for the word ``direct'' which is contained on page 3, line 18. It would then read that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should request the Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service to work with the government of the District of Columbia to develop, et cetera. I think there have been connotations that this is attempting to micromanage, or to take action that would be inappropriate. I fully respect those who have spoken and those who have concerns. It ought to be considered appropriately by the committees of jurisdiction. But we need to have a resolution of this question. I applaud the Senator from Minnesota for bringing the question to our attention. I move, Mr. President, to strike the word ``direct'' and insert the word ``request'' on line 18, page 3.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Washington. I thank her for her leadership on this particular amendment. This is a matter that we have considered a number of times. We are all familiar with the arguments. I describe my position, not as pro- abortion, but as pro-choice. I believe that abortions ought to be safe, legal, and rare. But I do not think, under any circumstances, that we ought to deprive those people who happen to be stationed overseas from having the same legal and safe medical procedures that are available to those of us here in the United States. I respect the very significant differences of opinion for ethical, moral, and religious reasons that many hold. This is not asking that the Federal Government provide any funds. It simply is allowing those folks who are stationed overseas to use the facilities. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget resolution conference report advanced by our Republican colleagues. I do so, not because I object to implementing plans for a balanced Federal budget. My commitment to that objective remains unshakeable. I oppose this plan because it is tied to a political agenda, not a substantive one, and because it opens the door to huge tax cuts even before we make and lock in the tough principled choices necessary to actually balance the budget. The sad truth about this plan is that its proponents know it will be vetoed by the President, and budget gridlock will continue. This whole exercise is not about balancing the budget, which I have done everything I can to advance on a bipartisan basis. It's about political positioning for this fall's election. I know of no precedent under either party's control of Congress for the present course we are following. This budget proposal has split up the reconciliation process into three different bills. The first bill will encompass both Medicaid and welfare reform. While the President has indicated his willingness to enact a welfare reform bill this year, this budget resolution calls for the attachment of a Medicaid reform plan that our Republican colleagues know the President will veto. By combining these elements into the same package, the Republican majority precludes any chance for positive action on welfare reform this year. The second reconciliation bill is directed at reform of the Medicare Program. Given the recent report of the trustees, action is clearly needed to address the finances of the program. While the Republicans deserve credit for tackling this issue head on, the fact of the matter is that the actions they have proposed for shoring up Medicare's finances threaten the effective delivery of the very health care services to our seniors that they say they want to preserve. Mr. President, the bottom line is that the proposed reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare wouldn't have to be as large if they weren't needed to finance a large tax cut at a time we're trying to balance the budget, and their refusal to consider an adjustment to the consumer price index in order to spread the burden of deficit reduction more equitably across the entire Federal budget may be good politics but it's not good policy. Not only are the reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs unneccessarily large in this budget proposal, we are going to have to vote on discretionary spending levels in this resolution which are both unwise as a matter of policy, and unattainable politically. While the conference committee has attempted to provide a sufficient amount for fiscal year 1997, not a single appropriator, from either side of the aisle, can tell you how those out-year numbers can be achieved which means that the pressure of future Congresses to ignore the proposed restraints will be overpowering--and most of the savings a sham. Mr. President, the events of the past year have confirmed that the only way to solve our major fiscal problems, both short term and long term, is on a bipartisan basis. The difficulty is that enacting a credible, fair, and bipartisan budget proposal will require tough medicine for both sides. Republicans will have to come down on their demands for tax cuts, and Democrats will have to be more willing to confront entitlment reform, including Social Security. Mr. President, I have been fortunate this past year to work with a group of bipartisan Senators, dubbed the centrist coalition, to produce a credible balanced budget proposal--a proposal with a realistic discretionary spending pattern, one with significant entitlement reform which continues to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and one which makes a justified modifcation of the consumer price index. This plan, offered as a substitute during the consideration of the current budget resolution, was the only proposal to receive significant bipartisan support this year, garnering 24 Democratic votes and 22 Republican votes. While I cetainly understand the inability to move this proposal this year given election year politics, I am hopeful that it will provide the seeds for an effective compromise early in the next Congress since the budget resolution before us does not move us any closer toward long-term balanced budgets than we are today. Mr. President, I am very frustrated by the process that we are engaged in at the moment. We have an opportunity, if we can work on a bipartisan basis, to advance the cause of a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, and we are missing that opportunity. I, for one, am prepared to make substantial reductions in spending in the entitlement areas--in Medicaid, in Medicare and in Social Security. I am also prepared to address the very politically sensitive area of adjustments to the Consumer Price Index to more accurately reflect inflation. But at this point, we are not going to do that. The current resolution is designed to split the reconciliation process into three different pieces. The most objectionable part, from my point of view, is we put tax cuts right up at the front so that we undermine any public confidence that we are really serious about deficit reduction. We are making bigger reductions in the projected spending in some of the entitlements than we need to because we are planning to put that money into a tax cut before we have actually locked in the tough, principled choices that are going to be necessary if we are going to achieve the stated objective of a balanced budget. This resolution also substantially reduces the chance of ever getting any meaningful welfare reform in this Congress by linking Welfare reform with a Medicaid reform package that the President is committed to vetoing. It seems to me that we ought to be able to get together; indeed, 24 Democrats and 22 Republicans found common cause with respect to a budget resolution that was submitted earlier. If we are serious about solving this particular problem, the Resolution before us is not the way to do it. So, Mr. President, I regret very much that I am going to have to vote against the pending measure, notwithstanding my long-term commitment to deficit reduction and a balanced budget. For the opportunity to express my views, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee for suggesting this approach for getting my views on the record. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wasn't able to get to the floor during the time set aside during debate on the Defend America Act, but it's an important topic and I would like to address it now. Mr. President, we all want to defend America and I yield to no one in my commitment to a strong national defense, but I believe the Defend America Act in its current form could actually reduce U.S. security. I reach this conclusion based on a review of four key aspects of a national missile defense system: First, the nature of the threats that the United States faces today and will likely face 10 years from now. Second, the technological implications of building a system today versus in the future. Third, the question of affordability. And fourth, the impact on existing arms reduction treaties. On all counts, the available evidence weighs against deployment of a national missile defense system in the near term. Consider the threat. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have witnessed a remarkable reversal in the arms race and, as such, the nature of the nuclear threat to America. The Soviet nuclear arsenal, over 13,000 nuclear weapons strong at the height of the cold war, will be reduced to about 3,500 weapons under START II. By any measure, this adds up to a more secure America. Today, instead, the ballistic missile threat can be summed up in three scenarios: An accidental attack by land-based ICBM's from Russia or China, an unauthorized attack by a Russian submarine, or a very limited attack by a rogue nation such as North Korea or Iraq. Note, since we are addressing missile defenses, that I am referring to missile threats. This is not to suggest that other means of delivery are any less threatening, whether trucks, ships, aircraft, or even suitcases. I also consider the threat of biological or chemical attack as more likely if not more devastating than nuclear attack. The Russian and Chinese missile attack scenarios are nothing new--we have lived with such threats for decades. But the third threat is in my mind the most problematic in the long term. While worst-case United States intelligence estimates forecast that North Korea may be only a few years away from deploying ICBM's that can reach portions of Hawaii and Alaska, other potentially hostile nations are at least a decade away from such a capability. Although their direct purchase of long- range missile components or systems is always possible, the balance of evidence suggests that it would be premature to commit to a near-term defense capability when we're not even sure when, whether, and how the threat will develop. The Defend America Act calls for deployment by 2003, or 8 years out. It may seem as though we're splitting hairs, but this is an important distinction between those trying to mandate a date certain for deployment, and those willing to invest responsibly and deploy after the technology has proven itself and the threat is closer to the horizon. Consider the technological implications of building a system today versus at the turn of the century or later. I supported funding in the eighties for what was referred to as the strategic defense initiative. But then as now, in the absence of a new and compelling threat on the order of a reinvigorated Soviet Union, what is the driving force to lock into today's technology? My Republican colleagues seem to believe that we can set a completion date, spend huge sums of money on the problem, and magically achieve a fix. How easily we forget the optimistic projections for the performance of the Patriot missiles in the gulf war, and of the x-ray laser that was inaccurately touted in the eighties as the definitive solution for knocking down hundreds of missiles and warheads. The challenge for hitting a bullet with a bullet is not less daunting today than in the past. We cannot simply dictate a solution. But even if we could achieve the technology in the near term, what are the costs over the long run if we buy today, discover that the technological window has again been broken through, and then turn around and buy anew in another 5 or 6 years? If we ever expect to achieve a balanced Federal budget, it won't be through impetuous, impulsive buying of an extremely expensive system. Which leads me to the issue of affordability. A range of numbers are thrown around as estimates of the costs for a national missile defense. CBO recently came out with an estimate of $60 billion which has been widely reported in the press. But we all should acknowledge the great uncertainties in this type of estimation. A small change in the assumptions about the accuracy of our sensors, or the probability of kill of our interceptors, or whether the threat uses decoy or maneuvering warheads, can change the final cost estimates by an order of magnitude. I'm willing to put tens of billions into an effective, limited national missile defense. But I cannot condone pouring billions of the taxpayer dollars into an unproven capability whose costs could explode and needlessly drain other vital defense programs. But for those Senators who believe the threat is imminent, and that the technology is achievable in the near term, and that the costs will be reasonable, I urge them to carefully consider what the Defend America Act would mean for existing and future arms control agreements. Many Senators today have pointed out that the act anticipates a breach of the ABM Treaty, and that it could undermine the START process. But we need to understand in more detail the value of these treaties and why their erosion or loss could actually decrease America's security. Mr. President, I would like to address this matter in some depth. Let's first step back to the years before the 1972 ratification of the ABM Treaty, when the debate over missile defenses was in full force. Those opposed to any kind of limits on missile defense deployments were highly critical of those willing to deliberately constrain America's ability to defend its citizens against missile attack. But missile defense advocates needed to meet two tests: the first, generally referred to as arms race stability; the second, crisis stability. Arms race stability refers to a situation between armed nations where there are few incentives for a vicious cycle of tit-for-tat weapons deployments. In an unstable setting, the deployment of a system by one side is met by the same or more deployments by the other side, which in turn is countered by more deployments by the first side, and so on ad infinitum. Historically, the nation facing an expanded threat might respond with new offensive capabilities, better defenses, or both. But in the case of missile defenses, the technologies available in the sixties and seventies for intercepting incoming nuclear warheads with nonnuclear interceptors were proving very costly. And with the introduction of so- called MIRV'd ballistic missiles in the 1960's--where several nuclear warheads could be placed on a single missile and targeted independently--offensive nuclear forces became, by comparison, quite inexpensive. The cost to deploy one additional nuclear warhead on a MIRV'd ICBM was significantly less than the cost of the many interceptors and related sensors required to destroy that warhead. By this dynamic, it was convincingly argued by ABM Treaty proponents, any United States attempts to deploy costly strategic defenses would be met by even less costly Russian deployments of more nuclear warheads that could simply overwhelm the defenses. This situation would have been highly unstable from an arms race perspective. Assisting the offense in this equation was the possibility of deploying on ICBM's hundreds of decoys and radar-reflecting chaff along with the nuclear warheads to confuse the U.S. interceptors and their sensors. During the 1980's, technologies had advanced, improving the prospects for more cost-effective defenses. Particularly promising were space- based systems which could destroy ICBM's during their early flight before they deployed their warheads, and lasers which showed potential for engaging many targets in a short period. And yet despite over $35 billion in R&D expenditures since President Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, it would still appear that--at least in the case of Russia and perhaps China--the incremental cost for the offense is lower than for the defense. START II, still awaiting Russia's ratification, will not only reduce Russia's nuclear arsenal to about 3,500 warheads, but, of equal importance, the treaty requires the elimination of land-based MIRV'd systems. If the United States decides to deploy national missile defenses early in the next decade and the Russians want to maintain their ability to target the United States, they could simply deploy more MIRV'd ICBM's at a lower cost. Indeed, if the United States did decide to unilaterally deploy national defenses without first reaching an agreement with the Russians, it would be an entirely rational and appropriate response for Moscow to forgo START and retain or build more of its most cost-effective countermeasure--MIRV'd ICBM's. We could again face a Russian arsenal of over 11,000 warheads. We could easily push the Russians to reverse course and hold onto or even produce more of their most formidable MIRV'd ICBM, the SS-18--a missile that we spent enormous diplomatic capital to have dismantled. The cold war SS-18 force of over 300 ICBM's housed roughly 3,000 large, highly accurate nuclear warheads. Its capability to devastate the United States ICBM force created much anxiety during the cold war, primarily because it gave the Soviets an incentive to launch a disarming first strike in the midst of a crisis with the United States or NATO. The choice is a stark one: on the one hand, a United States national missile defense that could handle limited attacks from many potential threats, but would be incapable of defeating a major Russian attack because the Russians respond by maintaining a daunting arsenal of MIRV's; and on the other hand, a Russian devoid of its most devastating threat to our country--its large, MIRV'd, highly accurate ICBM's. On this point alone, I would oppose pushing legislation that would tell the Russians we plan to violate the ABM Treaty by the year 2003. This seems especially shortsighted since we're not even sure the technology will be available by then even if we double the national missile defense budget. We used to also consider the issue of arms race stability in the context of other potential threats today. Here national missile defenses show more promise. A single nuclear weapon can transform a minor nation into a serious regional power overnight. The most obvious example is Iraq. Initial margins of public and congressional support for the United States deployment to the gulf were slim. But if Saddam Hussein had possessed a working nuclear device when Iraq invaded Kuwait, some argue that the United States would have steered clear of the gulf. For those rogue nations considering entry into the nuclear club, the existence of even a limited but effective U.S. missile defense capability, whether for theater or national defense, creates a disincentive for embarking on the economically and diplomatically costly path of nuclear development. Granted, missile defenses will not stop the rogue leader from delivering a weapon via truck, ship, aircraft, cruise missile, or even a suitcase, but his inability to deliver a rapid missile strike against the United States or allied forces in the theater or U.S. civilians in North America helps dampen his enthusiasm for nuclear development, or for that matter biological or chemical weapons development. Next, examine the nation with a fledgling or modest nuclear arsenal, or biological or chemical weapons. Many of these nations, such as North Korea or China, not only have weapons of mass destruction, but have or will soon have the means for delivering them to United States territory. A U.S. national missile defense could help deter such nations from pursuing and producing more longer-range ballistic missiles. As the Russian and United States nuclear inventories shrink dramatically under START, China could see an opportunity to become a peer in the nuclear superpower league by deploying a hundred or so MIRVed ICBM's, each with 10 or so MIRV's. The technology and costs to do so would not be prohibitive. But with a capable national missile defense, the United States could, in part, deter Beijing from pursuing superpower nuclear status. Well what about crisis stability? Crisis stability refers to a situation where the antagonists in a crisis do not have powerful military motivations--quite independent of their political and diplomatic incentives--to launch a preemptive attack. Imagine two warships sailing side by side--guns trained on each other--tensely anticipating the initiation of a battle. If each captain knows he can fire a first shot and sink the other ship before his opponent can even get off a shot, then the situation is unstable. On first inspection, missile defenses would seem to have lent stability to the United States-Soviet nuclear standoff during the cold war. Like the two warships, one side would be less inclined to attack the other knowing that the first attack would be diluted by defensive systems and then met by a destructive counterattack. But proponents of the ABM Treaty saw things differently. What if during that first strike, the attacker could not only overwhelm the opponent's defenses and destroy most of them, but also destroy much of his offensive arsenal in the process? In this scenario, the attacker still has his defenses in place and many offensive weapons that allow him to hold the opponent's cities hostage, while his opponent can only respond with a handful of surviving weapons. ABM Treaty proponents concluded that, by creating an inviting incentive to strike first, national missile defenses could in fact increase the odds for nuclear conflagration. Today, the advent of more capable defensive technologies suitable for deployment in space could only exacerbate the advantage for the first striker, simply because many of the large and vulnerable defensive assets in space would be easier to detect and destroy than the warheads they're meant to intercept. As long as defensive systems are vulnerable themselves to attack, we will incur a crisis stability problem if we and an opponent deploy extensive national missile defenses. We are now less concerned, of course, about a tense United States- Soviet standoff, which hopefully will remain in the ashheap of history--assuming Yeltsin fends off a Communist revival. Other nuclear powers are a different story. Clearly U.S. missile defenses would play a useful role in controlling escalation in a crisis or conflict with a lesser nuclear power, who could not confidently hold a U.S. city hostage in the face of U.S. missile defenses. Another component of crisis stability involves dynamics that are beyond the control of rational leaders, such as an accidental or unauthorized launch, or an attack whose origins are unclear, or a minor attack that is misinterpreted as a major one. Here, too, missile defenses can add to crisis stability by providing the option to defeat these limited attacks before a commitment is made to launching a major counterstrike. On balance, the Defend America Act gets a mixed review from an arms race and crisis stability standpoint. My overriding concern, however, is that the advantages of a national system--even in the context of a rogue nation, accidental, or unauthorized attack--do not outweigh the consequences of undermining START and engendering extensive Russian MIRVed ICBM redeployments. The Russians have made it very clear that unilateral United States abrogation of the ABM Treaty, as anticipated by the Defend America Act, will force Moscow to forgo START II ratification. This is not mere rhetoric. Russia's heavy MIRVed ICBMs give Moscow its best ``bang for the buck.'' The Russian military is strapped for cash and can barely afford modernization of its strategic nuclear forces. If Russia's strategic position vis-a-vis the United States is undermined, it would be perfectly rational as I stated earlier for Moscow to renege on START. In light of these concerns, I cannot support the Defend America Act in its current form. We should not pass legislation which mandates deployment of a national missile defense by 2003, and requires the President to renegotiate the ABM Treaty to ease its restrictions on the development of such a system. As my Democratic colleague from Ohio has noted, we can no more dictate the development of an unproven technology than to mandate a cure for cancer. And we cannot unilaterally renegotiate a major treaty. I believe a more measured approach is needed. First, we need to continue basic research on national missile defenses at the requested level and in compliance with the ABM Treaty. This means no space-based systems or space-based tracking in an ABM mode. Second, we should continue to vigorously pursue programs, such as Nunn-Lugar, that will reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies. The return on the dollar of these programs is self-evident and I will not advocate them further here. Let me just add that we should not lose sight of an equally troubling delivery system, such as a truck, ship, aircraft or suitcase, that could be used to transport a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon to or near our territory or military forces. If we are not balanced in our responses to all means of delivering weapons of mass destruction, we invite a hostile regime to take the path of least resistance and simply bypass our multibillion dollar missile defenses. I applaud Senator Nunn's initiative to broaden the scope of the national missile defense legislation to consider all strategic weapons and means of delivery. Third, we need to continue to achieve a theater missile defense capability quickly, but avoid spreading ourselves too thinly. We're spending a great deal of money on several theater systems when in reality nothing will be fielded for years, and we're uncertain if one or more approaches will ever fully work or be highly cost-effective. I was skeptical of the optimistic estimates of Patriot performance prior to the gulf war, and not surprised when we learned that early news reports had grossly overstated its performance during the war. My fourth recommendation, therefore, is to expend considerable resources on the most mature theater system, PAC-3, to demonstrate that we can achieve a basic capability against a moderate threat. By moderate threat I mean a limited attack by missiles that were not specifically designed to defeat our defenses with decoys, maneuvering reentry vehicles, and the like. If we successfully conclude this mini- Manhattan Project, we can accelerate the other technologies to achieve the kind of layered defenses that would greatly improve overall missile defense performance. Fifth, we should create an architecture that could be expanded into space at a later date if merited by the threat, but stick to ground and airborne systems for now. This means that as we make decisions on the optimal technologies for national defense interceptors, sensors, and communications systems, we ensure that they are compatible with future, more robust technologies and systems. Sixth, we need to work with the Russians to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for mutual tiered expansion of missile defense systems. In other words, after we've proven a basic system that fits within the treaty's constraints, and after we've achieved key research milestones on a more expansive system, we should then be able to approach the Russians for joint approval of testing or deployment of the next tier of defenses. The Russians might decide to go along with the next phase even if they have not reached the same capability, or ask for a delay in the joint approval to give them time to reach some sort of parity in defensive capability. We might even want to permit asymmetries in a modified ABM Treaty or START III, where the Russians would be allowed relatively more offensive capabilities as the United States deploys national defenses. At each step, we could consider any requests by the Russians for assistance to improve their own defenses. Although I am not convinced such assistance would be in our best interests, this might be a small price to pay if we want to deploy national defenses and keep the ABM and START Treaties alive. A good initial step, as proposed by Senator Nunn in the context of his substitute amendment, is for both sides to agree to rescind the 1974 Protocol to the ABM Treaty, which reduced the number of national missile defense sites allowed by the original treaty from two to one. If we try to deploy a ground-based national defense system constrained to one site, we are looking at an inordinate inefficient and therefore expensive system. Allowing for space-based tracking in an ABM mode also makes sense if each side is interested in a more capable and cost-effective limited national defense. Another area that could prove win-win for both sides is construction of jointly manned, ground-based missile launch detection centers near each other's ICBM fields. Finally, we have to engage the Chinese sooner rather than later on their growing nuclear arsenal. According to press accounts, China has deployed CSS-3 and CSS-4 ICBMs, the latter of which are capable of reaching most of the continental United States. China has also reportedly tested the CSS-4 missile armed with MIRVs. Most recently, the Washington Times reports that the Chinese are acquiring technology from the Russian SS-18. It would not require an inordinate amount of resources for China to deploy dozens of additional ICBMs with MIRVs, meaning possibly hundreds of new warheads that could rain down on United States cities. Now is the time to discourage the Chinese from embarking on an ambitious, and highly destabilizing, nuclear arms build-up. That is why, Mr. President, it is crucial that the United States pursue trilateral negotiations with Russia and the People's Republic of China on MIRVed ICBMs. I have drafted a Sense of the Senate resolution related to this matter, and may offer it during consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act. With that, Mr. President, I reiterate my opposition to the Defend America Act, urge a more measured approach and yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the pending amendment, which simply expresses the sense of the Senate that adjustments be made to the eligibility criteria for certain Federal benefit programs. It would also permit individuals to designate a percentage of their payroll taxes to a private investment plan, and it would make an equitable adjustment to the Consumer Price Index. I commend my colleagues for their work on this particular amendment. I commend them for their candor. This could be the most important matter that we pass this Congress, if we pass it. This amendment would extend the civil service retirement age for future Government workers but affect no current Federal employee. It would extend the military retirement age for future enlistees but affect no current sailor, soldier, airman, or marine. It would limit civilian and military COLA's to the first $50,000 of retirement income but eliminate COLA's for no one. It would gradually track Medicare eligibility with Social Security eligibility. It would extend the retirement age for Social Security but affect not a single American who retires in the next 16 years. The pending amendment would also allow individuals to designate a percentage of their payroll taxes to a personal investment plan, if there is no impact on the solvency of the Social Security system. This ought to engender in our children and our grandchildren a greater sense of confidence that they are going to get a return from their investments when they retire. We face an explosion in entitlement spending not just because we have promised too much to too many--we do, of course--but principally due to simple demographics. Our people are living longer and the great baby boomer generation is getting closer to retirement. In 1940, the average woman in America who retired at age 65 received Social Security benefits for 13.4 years. By 1995, women and men were living much longer, and the average woman retiring in 1995 will receive 19.1 years of Social Security or nearly 6 more years of benefits because the retirement age remains unchanged at 65. In 1950, seven workers supported each Social Security beneficiary. By 1990, there were just five workers per beneficiary. By the year 2030, there will be fewer than three workers per beneficiary. We all know the statistics. By the year 2012, if no changes are made, entitlements and interest on the debt by themselves will consume every single dollar the Federal Government takes in. This stifles our ability to invest in our Nation and protect our most vulnerable citizens, and it does not have to be. Small steps today can save billions tomorrow, billions of dollars of debt we will not leave to our children--the ``baby bust generation,'' as Pete Peterson calls those who will inherit our debt. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Otherwise, the day will surely come when we will have to explain to our children why, when we could have made a difference, we failed to enact entitlement reform, as modest, as fair, and as justified as the proposals contained in this amendment. These kinds of choices are never easy politically, but they just get tougher as the problem becomes more acute. Now is the time to act if we are going to act responsibly. Courage, colleagues, it will attract attacks from just about everyone, but it is the right thing to do, and I commend my colleagues who have worked hard for giving us the opportunity to do the right thing. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my fellow Senators. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the centrist coalition substitute budget resolution. I join in commending Senators Chafee and Breaux for their leadership in this effort. This resolution reflects the hard work and compromise of over 20 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who came together months ago in search of a realistic solution to a serious problem. We came together out of a sense of frustration, but we worked together with a sense of purpose, believing that our fiscal problems really can be solved. We vowed at the outset that we would produce a balanced budget plan that was credible, and we did. We vowed we would confront the tough choices, and we did. The budget we produced deserves the serious consideration of every Member of this body because it is real, it is tough, it is principled, and it reaches balance in 7 years. Mr. President, as we craft a blueprint for the way we spend our Federal dollars in the next few years, we have a responsibility to find ways to continue to strengthen our Nation economically. How can we do that? We strengthen our Nation when we reduce the level of Government borrowing from the private sector. We strengthen our Nation when we make investments that enhance productivity and increase wages. We strengthen our Nation when we provide real economic opportunity to all of our citizens. And while these are bedrock principles of our centrist plan, the existing budget plans backload cuts in discretionary spending which make it virtually impossible to get there from here. Either discretionary programs will be decimated in the outyears or the budget will go right back in the red. The other plans being considered require deeper cuts with respect to discretionary spending than our plan because they include either too large a tax cut or they refuse to tackle absolutely essential entitlement reform. In both cases, critical investments in people, like education and training, and important investments in technology, like research and development, are jeopardized. The cuts in discretionary spending included in existing budget plans should be of enormous concern to Members of my own party who understand, as I do, the ability of Government to improve people's lives, indeed, who believe in its responsibility of Government to invest in our people and to serve as a catalyst for hope and opportunity where none exists. Mr. President, if we do not end up with a responsible budget agreement, how many children will get Head Start in the year 2002? How many Pell grants will go to poor children in the South? How many mothers will get WIC? How many Federal research dollars will go to colleges? How many Federal highways will be built in our States? If we fail to make these kinds of investments, we will weaken our Nation. So how do we craft an honest budget that allows us to continue to invest in our Nation? The answer is tough medicine for everyone. It is forsaking the large tax cut and making significant, but principled, reductions in entitlements, and our centrist budget does both. We include a more modest tax cut, even though most of us are very much opposed to any tax cut until we actually balance the budget, and we make a solid start on entitlement reform. By adjusting the Consumer Price Index and asking that those seniors who can afford to pay more for their health coverage do so, we spread the sacrifice and protect our Nation's ability to provide a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. But we all know, Mr. President, that the 7-year budget we offer today is just a downpayment on our sacrifice. We are going to need to ask a whole lot more of our people, even though this is an essential downpayment. For if we move outside our 7-year budget window to the year 2012, we see an even bleaker future with entitlements and interest on the debt consuming every single tax dollar the Federal Government will take in. And after that, it gets even worse. So I urge my colleagues to give this centrist budget resolution their careful and thoughtful consideration. It reflects bipartisanship, moderation, compromise, and a willingness to tackle entitlement reform. It reflects good public policy as well. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I request that I be allowed to proceed in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to address the majority leader's announced intention to introduce legislation that would repeal the 4.3- cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline that this body passed as part of the 1993 budget bill. I have a very high personal and professional regard for our majority leader and I am certainly not unmindful of the political season that is upon us. Repealing a tax--any tax--and particularly a tax consumers are reminded of every time they fill up their cars at the pump, is unarguably attractive as a matter of raw politics, but it is terrible as a matter of public policy. Just when we are beginning to make sustained progress on bringing down the deficit, just when we are within reach of actually balancing the budget in 7 years and making a serious and principled commitment to real fiscal responsibility, we blink. We cannot take the political heat. On something this important to our Nation and our children's future, if we take the heat we ought to take President Truman's advice and get out of the kitchen. We talk about a market economy, but we won't let the market work. The Federal Government has an important role to play in our lives, but it cannot and should not attempt to solve every problem we confront-- particularly when to save the average motorist $27 per year we move in precisely the wrong direction on the more important challenges of energy independence, national security, and fiscal responsibility--and send the wrong signals to our allies and others around the world about whether we are serious. I hope a majority of our colleagues will have the political courage to resist what will undoubtedly be an extremely popular bill. If we do not, that the President will be willing to demonstrate the intestinal fortitude we lack--as he did in proposing the tax in the first place. In my view, a $30 billion tax repeal shouldn't even be considered in the absence of meaningful action on our long-term budget problems. The 1993 deficit reduction package, which contained this modest gas tax, and had no support on the other side of the aisle, has made a substantial dent in our annual deficits, making balance in 7 years possible. In the absence of that deficit reduction effort, we probably would not be discussing seriously the idea of actually reaching balance in such a relatively short period. Even with that 1993 effort, however, trying to reach balance has been a monumental task. A number of us in the bipartisan group of Senators referred to as the Centrist Coalition have been working for months to find a balanced budget compromise, and a repeal of the 4.3-cents-a- gallon tax will only complicate our efforts to balance the Federal budget by sometime early in the next century. Not only would the repeal move us in the wrong direction as far as balancing the budget is concerned, it would not solve the problem of higher gasoline prices. If the energy companies are culpable, I have no desire to take them off the hook, but prices have been rising because the demand for fuel has been rising while production has fallen short of this need. Quite simply, the evidence suggests that demand is rising as Americans are driving further, at higher speeds, in less fuel efficient vehicles. Supplies have been curtailed because of a longer winter that kept refiners producing heating oil longer than expected and delayed their shift to gasoline, and fuel inventories were also allowed to remain low because of an anticipated release of oil from Iraq that has not come to pass. Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that the recent price increases are not due to a 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax increase that was put into law 3 years ago. That 4.3-cents-a-gallon is no more responsible for the recent increase in gas prices than it was responsible for the low gasoline prices we have enjoyed for the previous 2 years when the measure was also in effect. If we take the oil companies at their word that recent gas prices are the result of demand outstripping supply, then the last thing that we should be considering is a repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax, further pushing up demand. For those of us who believe that a higher gasoline tax is a necessary element of sound public policy because it encourages conservation and reduces our dependence on foreign oil, a repeal of this tax would be totally inappropriate. Mr. President, I was one of several colleagues recently recognized by the Concord Coalition as being willing to make the tough choices, and I intend to continue making them, despite the political downside. I fully understand that rejecting politically popular tax cuts in an election year represents a tough choice for legislators, even if this tax repeal would involve less than $30 a year for the average motorist. But if there is a good public policy reason for the tax in the first place and a repeal will not be likely to dramatically affect the perceived problem, it should not be that tough a choice. For these reasons, I would encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing the proposed repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly an amendment I had offered to S. 1664, the Immigration and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996 but have subsequently withdrawn in the interest of completing action on the underlying bill without unnecessary delay at this time. This amendment was designed to ensure the consideration of innovative authentication technology as we develop a new verification system for alien employment and public assistance eligibility. There is a large and important debate before us. Should we implement a national verification system in the United States? Well, we already have one, but it's failing America. It allows illegal immigrants to skirt the system--to take jobs away from Americans and immigrants who have played by the rules. Moreover, the current system also allows for abuse of our pubic assistance programs that were established to provide a safety net for those who have contributed to our society and deserve help in a time of need. We need to update the current verification system--and 53 Senate colleagues agree as evidenced by their votes to reject the Abraham amendment to strike the verification system from the bill. The system in place now requires employers to check two forms of identification from a list of 29 acceptable documents. We know that these documents are far from being tamper-resistant and we know that employers are unfairly held accountable for hiring illegal aliens. The bill before us sets out the goals and objectives for a new verification system and also provides for pilot projects to determine the costs, technology, and effectiveness of a new program. Contrary to what many believe, the bill's provisions address the concerns that have been expressed regarding privacy, the potential for discrimination, and cost. All of these provisions supplement the protections of the U.S. Constitution and anti-discrimination laws. And regarding cost, the unfunded federal mandates law and the recently-passed improvements to the Regulatory Flexibility Act will help insulate businesses and State and local governments against the imposition of exorbitant costs from a new verification system. Looking at the inventive programs that businesses, universities, hospitals and other institutions are using to monitor human resources, it seems only appropriate that we consider the feasibility of upgrading our current system. My amendment is simple. It would allow for the consideration of innovative authentication technology such as finger print readers or smart cards to verify eligibility for employment or other applicable Federal benefits in a pilot program. Already, the INS has begun to investigate the feasibility of creating a new generation of smarter employment authorization cards, border- crossing cards, and green cards. And the Federal Government is also examining the uses of electronic benefits transfer. My amendment would supplement these activities. Smart cards are credit card-sized devices containing one or more integrated circuits. They are information carriers like ATM cards, that can hold bank account data, school ID numbers, benefit enrollment status, Social Security numbers and biometric data, such as photographs. Unlike ATM's, which give you access to accounts or information, smart cards actually hold the value of money and information. I know that some of our colleagues are concerned about the use of biometric data such as DNA samples, blood types, or retina scans. My amendment does not anticipate the use of these types of biometric data. But the use of biometric data has already found its way into our daily lives. We use credit cards with photographs and driver's licences that detail our height, weight and gender. If we are to reduce document fraud, we must incorporate the limited use of biometric data. That is the only way to securely connect a document to an individual. Setting aside the merits of my amendment, I understand the hesitance of many Members to embrace innovative authentication technologies. While the future is uncertain and change is difficult, we have to look ahead. We had a full debate on the issue of the so-called national ID card yesterday. And while I am not now promoting a national ID, nor did my amendment require the use of biometrics or smart cards, the concerns raised yesterday are similar. My amendment sought only to ensure the consideration of these tools in the development of the pilot programs. While my amendment has been withdrawn, I will continue to work toward broadening the debate on smart cards and other forms of authentication technology with our Senate colleagues. In utilizing the most up-to-date technology in these demonstration projects, we can ensure that the President will have the most efficient and the most cost-effective alternatives to scrutinize. If we take deliberate care to develop a new identification system, then we can all benefit: American workers can be further protected; Employers can be relieved of the burden of sanctions; the jobs magnet will be shut off; and most importantly, we will be able to clearly view the benefits of immigration and diversity in our society. ins practices concerning student visa holders

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I am delighted to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in presenting this particular balanced budget today. I think it is a clear, good-faith attempt to make responsible but difficult choices that are going to have a very significant impact on the future of this country. If we are not willing to make those choices, those difficult choices honestly, the protracted debate and the gridlock that we have experienced is simply going to continue. I commend Senator Chafee, Senator Breaux, and all of those who have worked with them in attempting to deal with this extremely difficult and challenging matter. I am pleased to be a part of that effort. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in discussing the merits of this bipartisan plan to balance the Federal budget. I believe this plan is an example of what can be accomplished when we put aside partisan politics and focus instead on serious questions of public policy. Late last year, in the midst of a prolonged Government shutdown and a breakdown in budget negotiations between the Republican leadership and the Democratic administration, Senators Chafee and Breaux convened a bipartisan meeting of Senators who were committed to finding enough common ground to balance the Federal budget. Finding common ground required Democrats in the group to accept larger entitlement reductions and Republicans in the group to agree to a smaller tax cut. We had hoped that our coming together on a budget outline we could all support would jump-start the stalled negotiations. When it became clear that the Republican leadership and the Democratic administration could not bridge their policy differences, we dedicated ourselves to translating the budget outline we had developed into a full blown legislative plan, and that is what we have presented to our colleagues today. We are not here to suggest that this is the only way to balance the budget. We're here to illustrate that a balanced budget plan can be drafted from the middle of the political spectrum and driven by policy. Regardless of the outcome of the balanced budget debate, I think it is important that we demonstrate to the administration, the congressional leadership, and the American people what a bipartisan budget compromise would encompass. One of the biggest differences between this bipartisan plan and either the Republican or Democrat plans is that both of their last offers reached balance on paper by relying on deep cuts in discretionary spending--cuts that would require future Congresses to make far tougher choices than any recent Congress has been willing to make. You only have to look at this year's appropriations process to realize that future cuts of the magnitude proposed by the current plans are both unwise as a matter of policy and unattainable politically. There's no question that if we make these cuts on the defense side of the ledger, we can't possibly maintain our ability, as the world's sole remaining superpower, to protect our own shores, much less help defend freedom, and maintain peace throughout the world. Yet, if these reductions can't be made in defense--far and away the biggest item in discretionary spending--where can we make responsible reductions of this magnitude in discretionary spending? In transportation infrastructure? In research and development? In education? In job training? In medical research funding? Do we cut mine safety inspectors, or air traffic controllers or those who ensure the safety of our food and maintain the quality of our air and water? Fortunately, the members of our group have not only chosen a more realistic and achievable discretionary path over the next 7 years, but we have done so to protect these types of important investments, investments which are critical to raising future productivity, growth, and incomes. We are dedicated to the belief that we should not sacrifice these investments at the expense of taking on politically popular entitlement programs. And protect discretionary spending we must, since entitlements and interest on the national debt are rapidly edging out discretionary programs in the battle for scarce federal dollars. Entitlements and interest on the national debt are projected to account for 70 percent of our budget by the year 2002, up from 30 percent in 1963. Most disturbing of all, it is projected that entitlements and interest on the debt will consume the entire Federal revenue base by the year 2012. With such staggering expansions of entitlements on the horizon, significant entitlement reform has to be at the heart of any serious balanced budget effort. This budget makes meaningful--but fair-- reductions in entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and welfare while also seeking to protect our most vulnerable citizens. And it requires Medicare beneficiaries who can afford to pay more to make a larger--and more reasonable--contribution to the Medicare Program. For many of us, the most important part of this plan is its downward modification of the consumer price index, which controls cost-of-living adjustments for entitlement programs and tax bracket indexing. A report of the Senate Finance Committee indicates that the present value of the CPI overstates the actual rate of inflation by somewhere between 0.7 and 2.0 percent. By making a CPI adjustment, we are better able to control the future costs of entitlement programs, including Social Security, which has up until now been left off the table by both Republicans and Democrats alike. From a policy perspective, a CPI modification is absolutely the right thing to do since it restrains future entitlement costs, thus helping to protect the discretionary side of the budget from unwise reductions in the future. But it is understandable, given the approaching political season, that the modification has become a political hot potato for both sides, subject to an attack from Republicans as a backdoor tax increase and from Democrats as a Social Security cut. As I look back on the events of the last 6 months and ahead to the Presidential campaign, I sense that political considerations are again costing us an important and historic opportunity to begin to address our long-term budget problems. And if we are ever to make serious headway on these matters, I am more convinced than ever that the American people don't need to see important issues of public policy demogogued anymore. They don't need to see interest groups fired-up to wage war against responsible change. The American people need to hear and understand the truth about the sources and seriousness of our long-term budget problems. Patrick Henry once said, ``for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth--to know the worst and provide for it.'' Only by separating the truth from the rhetoric can we balance our Federal budget the right way. And the anguish will be a lot less if the sacrificed is shared--and if we summon the courage to act now. For if we fail to act--and if we continue down the path of cowards--we will guarantee for our children, not the bright future we inherited, but the dark responsibilities we refused to accept. I thank my colleagues for the time to speak and the chance to be a part of the Centrist Coalition. I hope that this will be the start, not the end, of our efforts to bring bipartisan and common-sense solutions to the legislative issues of our day. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I submit a Senate resolution to designate the week of May 5, 1996 as ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week.'' Mr. President, this resolution is a small gesture to recognize the vital role that correctional personnel play in our communities. Correctional officers and employees put their lives on the line every day to protect the public from dangerous criminals. These brave men and women also protect incarcerated individuals from the violence of their circumstance, and they help prisoners work toward returning to lawful society. I urge my colleagues to join with me to recognize the indispensable contributions of our Nation's correctional officers and employees.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues from Arkansas and from Missouri. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 as reported from the Small Business Committee. As our colleagues know, several of us--actually quite a number of us--have been working for many months to try to develop a responsible comprehensive regulatory reform package which can achieve bipartisan support. The bill that we are debating this morning and will vote on on Tuesday contains elements that were included in that broader package, and I am very pleased to see those provisions move forward now with very significant support on both sides of the aisle. Specifically, this bill on which I have had a chance to work with Senator Bond, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and others, allows judicial review of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 1980 to guarantee that the special concerns of small businesses were addressed by agencies when issuing rules, but the provisions of that act were not reviewable in court. Unfortunately, the fact that the act was therefore, in effect, unenforceable led many agencies to simply disregard its provisions. Needless to say, this has created enormous frustrations for small businesses. Not only were agencies failing to consider the impact of regulations on small businesses, but some agencies were actually flouting the law by that failure. Because of agency failure to take small business concerns into account as the law required, small businesses in many instances were forced to comply with rules that were more onerous than necessary simply because the agencies were refusing to follow the law because no courts were looking over their shoulders to make sure that they complied. In order to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act work as intended, it has become necessary to make it judicially enforceable. Agencies will now be required to explain how a rule likely to have significant impact on small businesses has been crafted to minimize that impact on those businesses or else risk court action. While I am pleased that the regulatory flexibility provision is moving swiftly toward becoming law, I hope--and I ask my colleagues to join in this effort--that it will not divert our effort to continue to work on a more comprehensive bill. I still believe that we can develop legislation requiring agencies to regulate in a more cost-effective fashion without undermining the ability to protect our environment, our workers or our public health. As I have stated in the past, if we can maintain the level of protections and increase the efficiency in how we attain it, consumers will ultimately reap the benefits. Of course, every dollar that business spends beyond what is necessary to protect us in our environment is one less dollar that can be used to hire an employee or fund a pay raise or pay for plant expansion. Not only will consumers benefit but so will the economy. Regulating in a cost-effective fashion simply makes sense. If we can achieve the same environmental benefit for less money, or, even better, achieve more environmental benefit for the same money, then we simply ought to do it. I will continue to work with our colleagues to try to make that happen. Senator Johnston of Louisiana and I are circulating today a discussion draft which I believe meets the dual and not mutually exclusive goals of eliminating unnecessary costs while safeguarding our environment and ourselves. Again, Mr. President, I commend our colleagues, particularly the chairman and ranking members of the Small Business Committee, Senators Bond and Bumpers, for taking the first steps in moving responsible regulatory reform. I look forward to continuing to work with all of our colleagues as we try to craft a responsible comprehensive regulatory reform bill. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, under the leadership of Adm. Leighton Smith, the NATO Implementation Force has made marked progress in war- torn Bosnia and Herzegovina during the first 2 months of Operation Joint Endeavor. As an aside, I should mention that, as a member of all three national security committees, including Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence, I am privy to significant amounts of classified information related to Bosnia. For the purpose of this open discussion, however, I will refer solely to information widely available in the public record. The news media report that much has been accomplished so far in coming to terms with the Dayton Peace Agreement: First, with only a few exceptions, the Bosnian Serbs and the Muslim- Croat Federation have observed the cease-fire. Second, the warring parties have stepped back and are today in substantial compliance with the 4-kilometer zone of separation. Third, the adversaries have removed their heavy weapons to points that pose no apparent of immediate threat to our forces. Fourth, the locations of roughly a quarter of the estimated 3 million land mines that plague Bosnia have been identified. Still, this threat to security remains one of the most troublesome--as witnessed by the fact that more than a dozen IFOR troops have been killed or wounded by mines so far. Fifth, freedom of movement along Bosnia's roads is returning to normal, which is a requisite step to allowing hundreds of thousands of refugees to return to their homes. In short, the Implementation Force has taken the necessary first steps for Bosnia and Herzegovina to get back on its feet as a peaceful community in this historically war-ravaged region of Europe. But, even with all of these NATO successes, we must also recognize that all has not gone according to plan. In fact, there remains a clear danger to the peacekeepers. Today, according to published news reports, there remains a band of about 200 Iranian revolutionary guards in northern Bosnia, many apparently in the United States sector. This band of well-trained soldiers in well-named in that they are Iran's primary instrument for exporting its Islamic revolution. For more than 3 years, according to the Reuters News Service, these revolutionary guards have served primarily as military advisers and commanders. They reportedly draw their logistical and other support from Iran's Embassy in Croatia. They have not only been training a brigade of Bosnian Moslems in military doctrine and tactics, they have also been teaching them the tenets of radical, extremist Islamic fundamentalism, according to the Washington Post. Moreover, their continued presence is an indication of the Bosnian Moslem government's inability to comply with the provision in the Dayton Peace Agreement that mandates the expulsion of all foreign volunteer fighters in Bosnia. This presence, combined with Iran's criticism of the Dayton Accord as unjust to the Bosnian Moslems, is cause for concern. Their presence sounds the same alarm bells that we failed to heed a decade ago in Lebanon, with tragic consequences. Those bells have tolled even louder in the last few days. According to the New York Times, an American who uses the names Kevin Holt and Isa Abdullah Ali has been sighted in Bosnia. U.S. troops have been ordered to arrest him as a possible suspect in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. The Times also reports that the revolutionary guards have increased their surveillance of U.S. troop activities and are suspected of planning attacks against U.S. targets there. As a result, NATO forces were put on a state of alert on January 23. According to Secretary of Defense William Perry, ``We will continue to maintain an alert.'' U.S. commanders consider many of the remaining revolutionary guards as intelligence agents and terrorists. There is speculation that they hope to retaliate against the United States for its Middle East and antiterrorism policies and that they further hope to be able to sway the fragile balance of American public opinion on Operation Joint Endeavor. When they believe the time is right, they may try to disrupt our operations and in turn, undermine the commitment of the North Atlantic Alliance to a peaceful settlement of the Balkans conflict. That is why they must not be allowed to remain. At this point, the presence of Iran's revolutionary guards is the single most significant, near-term threat to Operation Joint Endeavor and to lasting peace on the Continent. Landmines will no doubt continue to take their toll on the peacekeeping force, but the revolutionary guards appear to have offensive, revolutionary intent and that poses a real danger to our troops. That is why, today, I have submitted a Senate resolution that calls for the administration to take three distinct actions: First, it urges the administration to continue to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Bosnia and Herzegovina to comply with the provision of the Dayton Accord that states ``all foreign Forces, including individual advisors, freedom fighters, trainers, volunteers, and personnel from neighboring and other States, shall be withdrawn from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.'' We must make it clear that, as Secretary of State Warren Christopher has said, neither military equipment and training nor economic reconstruction assistance is forthcoming until the Bosnian Moslem government is ``in compliance with the agreement.'' Second, it urges the President to take to the United Nations the issue of Iran's revolutionary guards remaining in Bosnia in defiance of the Dayton Accord. The members of that international body must weigh the evidence and then take the appropriate action: placing an international embargo on all importation of Iranian oil until that nation recalls all of its military personnel stationed in Bosnia. Third, it urges the administration to establish an operational task force from units of the Implementation Force. Should diplomacy and sanctions fail, it could be called upon to locate and ensure the withdrawal of the Iranian revolutionary guards from Bosnia. As stated in the Dayton Accord, IFOR troops are authorized to use necessary force to ensure compliance. The mere presence of a force specifically honed to deal with the revolutionary guards should give Iran both pause about terrorist actions in Bosnia and further motivation to withdraw them. To preclude the possibility of mission creep, any such task force would be deactivated immediately upon completion of the operation. What is at risk if we do not expel the Iranian revolutionary guards from Bosnia and Herzegovina? First and foremost, the lives of American troops and other NATO soldiers working to secure a lasting peace in Bosnia. At risk is the security of such neighboring nations as Macedonia, Albania, and our NATO allies should the conflict spread further. And at risk is an emerging security architecture for a post-cold-war Europe. Mr. President, I hope all of our colleague can support this resolution. Together, we must increase pressure on the Bosnian Government to expel all foreign volunteer soldiers and in particular, those from Iran. Together, we must persuade the Government of Iran that its continuing presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the United States leads the effort to bring that nation to peace, must come to an end-- and now.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address an important gap in Federal environmental law: The regulation of underground releases from aboveground storage tanks. With this bill, we have an opportunity to work together with both industry and environmental groups to reform the Federal AST-- aboveground storage tank--program, reduce the regulatory burden on industry, and improve the environment. Following efforts in the 103d Congress to improve the safety of AST's, I am introducing the Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act. For the past 6 years, those of us who live in northern Virginia have received an education on just how flawed the current Federal law is. In September 1990, a petroleum sheen was discovered in a neighborhood creek in the Mantua-Stockbridge community in Fairfax County, VA. It was the beginning of a continuing nightmare for a number of local residents, who have had to live with the knowledge that more than 200,000 gallons of petroleum product-diesel oil, jet fuel and gasoline has leaked from the nearby Pickett Road tank farm. The exact size of the leak, and its precise causes, are still unknown. What we have seen however, is the fallout: negative health effects, environmental damage, and needless losses of millions of dollars. Some residents were temporarily relocated, others have simply moved, and still others continue to live with a cloud over their heads. All of these residents are still wondering when the Federal Government will move to address the issue of leaking aboveground storage tanks. To date, Star Enterprise, a Texaco affiliate, has expended in excess of $100 million in remediation costs, real estate transactions, settlement of claims, and compliance with new State AST requirements. Fairfax County has had to spend $500,000 to provide enforcement, oversight and community relations regarding the Pickett Road tank farm incident. Unfortunately, problems with leaking AST's are not restricted to northern Virginia. Across the Nation, there are hundreds of similar leaks from aboveground petroleum storage tanks. Major petroleum releases have occurred in Anchorage, AK; Torrance, CA; Port Everglades, FL; Hartford IL; Granger, IN; Cattlettsburg, KY; Charlotte, NC; Sparks, NV; Paulsboro, NJ; Syracuse, NY; Greensboro, NC; Ponca City, OK; Philadelphia, PA; Spartanburg, SC; Austin, TX; and Tacoma, WA. At least five involve releases larger than the Exxon Valdez oil tanker catastrophe. Whereas the Exxon Valdez spilled some 11 million gallons of oil, aboveground tanks in El Segundo, CA have released between 84 and 252 million gallons. In Martinez, CA, 28 million gallons have been released. A Tulsa, OK facility has released between 25 and 28 million gallons, and a Whiting, IN facility released 17 million gallons. In Brooklyn, NY, residents are sitting on top of a 13 to million gallon release. According to the Environmental Defense Fund [EDF], between 20 and 25 percent of AST's nationwide and their associated piping are likely to be leaking. A July 1994 American Petroleum Institute industry survey showed that over 85 percent of monitored refining and marketing facilities have confirmed ground water contamination; of the facilities with ground water contamination, a high percentage have off-site contamination--44 percent of refineries, at least 35 percent of marketing facilities, and 27 percent of transportation facilities. A 1995 General Accounting Office [GAO] study on aboveground oil storage tanks that I requested, reported that EPA has found leaks typically originate from the bases of tanks where contact with soil causes corrosion; from underground piping; and from overflows associated with the transfer of stored product. On the basis of age, the likelihood of developing corrosion leaks, and leak detection thresholds, EPA's preliminary estimates show that AST's with a storage capacity in excess of 42,000 gallons could be leaking between 43 million and 54 million gallons of oil annually. Because petroleum contracts and expands as temperatures vary, it is often difficult to detect leaks. And because petroleum is relatively cheap, it is often less expensive to allow a known leak to continue than to interrupt operations and make a repair. Because AST leaks are often slow and underground, they frequently do not receive the attention of the big oil tanker catastrophes, but are nonetheless dangerous. Petroleum releases can present serious health, safety, and environmental risks. Petroleum, including gasoline, contains extremely toxic compounds, like benzene. A plume of petroleum product can seep into basements and sewers, reaching toxic levels and causing explosions and the threat of fire. In addition, leaking AST's can permanently contaminate groundwater, a source of drinking water for more than half the Nation. And in many cases, groundwater contamination will inevitably lead to surface water contamination. While the extent of injuries is unknown, the 1995 GAO study reported that most injuries to human beings from exposure to oil have occurred as a result of inhaling its vapors. Effects on humans from exposure to petroleum include everything from lethargy, dizziness, and convulsions to coma, blood cancers (such as leukemia) and generalized suppression of the immune system from chronic exposure by inhalation. And we know now that these threats present unique challenges for sensitive subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with AIDS and other debilitating diseases. What is astounding is that where underground storage tanks are highly regulated by a comprehensive Federal program, aboveground storage tanks, used to store some 100 billion gallons of oil nationwide, are only loosely regulated by a patchwork of confusing Federal regulations. In many cases, State fire codes regulate AST's. State authorities are beginning to take notice of the leaking AST problem, but only 20 States have regulations on the books, and only 5 of these currently require genuine secondary containment, such as a double bottom or liner under a tank or piping. Unfortunately, State programs vary widely and present problems for tank owners with multistate operations. This is an enormous problem today; and it will likely continue to grow as storage tank owners seek to exploit the gaps in current Federal law by acquiring AST's over the more highly regulated underground storage tanks. According to a January 1993 survey conducted by the Steel Tank Institute, new tank purchases of aboveground tanks are running ahead of underground tanks by a 5:2 ratio. And according to many State regulators and industry experts, this trend is continuing into the future. This is troublesome from an environmental standpoint, and also from a fire safety perspective since aboveground tanks pose a much greater risk of fire hazard than underground tanks. In 1989, the GAO conducted a study of inland oil spills and found existing laws deficient. In its report GAO proposed seven recommendations to EPA that if implemented, would improve the safety of aboveground oil storage tanks. In 1995, Senator Daschle, Representative Moran, and I asked GAO to investigate the progress of EPA's implementation of the recommendations. This report found that overall EPA has failed to implement or take any action on the majority of the recommendations. At the most elementary level, current law does not even require comprehensive data collection or reporting to know exactly how many aboveground storage tanks are leaking. In the 103d Congress, I sponsored legislation that would have established a comprehensive regulatory program for AST's and I cosponsored legislation offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, to regulate the estimated 800,000 to 900,000 petroleum aboveground tanks, nationwide. Residents in Senator Daschle's home State were victims in 1987 of a disastrous 20,000-gallon leak in which an elementary school had to be evacuated and abandoned after vapors began filtering up into the building. AST's are largely unregulated by Federal law; no single statute fully addresses prevention and cleanup of petroleum releases. The legislation I am introducing today in the Senate, and will be introduced by Representatives Jim Moran and Tom Davis in the House, takes a new approach to dealing with leaking AST's, but maintains the goal of improving the safety of aboveground storage tanks. The problem of leaking AST's has been gaining national attention. In the last 5 years, EPA has conducted studies and consulted with industry experts to better define the causes of AST leaks of petroleum; more States have begun to contemplate AST programs; and the petroleum industry has recently issued standards for aboveground storage tanks. In developing Federal legislation for the 104th Congress we moved away from the idea of a comprehensive regulatory program for aboveground storage tanks. Instead, the bill seeks to enhance, not duplicate efforts undertaken by States and the petroleum industry to improve AST safety. There is a patchwork of AST regulations and no less than five Federal offices with AST responsibilities. This is confusing to tank owners, costly to taxpayers and harmful to the environment. Tank owners and operators need to have clear, concise guidance on how to comply with Federal regulations. This new legislative proposal replaces the need for comprehensive reform; instead, it improves the organization of the current program and allows EPA to do more with less, while permitting tank owners the opportunity to embrace the newly developed industry standards. Reform in the Federal program will improve the effectiveness of current regulations, lead to greater prevention and containment of releases from AST's and improve the environment. Prevention is the key to avoiding costly and damaging petroleum releases. Specifically, the bill will: Consolidate all of the Federal offices responsible for AST regulation into one office at EPA. This will increase efficiency and improve organization at EPA; Require EPA to consolidate and streamline the current AST program. These steps will eliminate duplicative and conflicting regulations, create a user-friendly aboveground storage tank program and promote prevention measures such as secondary containment and corrosion protection; After consolidation, the bill allows EPA to correct gaps in the regulation of large--42,000 gallons and above--aboveground petroleum tanks and encourage prevention with narrow regulations based on industry standards and cost-benefit analysis; and Require reporting of releases and give limited emergency powers to the EPA Administrator to better assist tank owners and operators with speedier cleanups. Should a petroleum release occur, the bill gives EPA the authority to close the troublesome part of the storage tank facility, prohibiting further operation until the Administrator determines that the closure is not necessary to protect human health, public safety, or the environment. That is to say, after a release, the burden shifts to the tank owner to cease operations until it can prove there is no ongoing threat. The citizens in Fairfax were outraged when told that EPA lacked such authority; this bill provides it. These provisions are essential to provide predictability and peace of mind to residents living near large aboveground storage tanks that store petroleum. With reform of the Federal program it is estimated that $17.4 billion in savings will result from reduced leak cleanup costs, saved petroleum product, and decreased costs associated with compensating affected residents. This bill has been developed with the guidance and support of a diverse coalition of industry and environmental groups because it is a common sense proposal to regulatory reform. Although the bill could easily be incorporated into Clean Water Act reauthorization or Superfund reform legislation, I think the problem is of sufficient magnitude that the bill can and should move on its own. With the bill's broad support, I don't see a need to have it hung up in the complexity of reauthorization of the larger environmental statutes. It is my hope that the introduction of this legislation today will help move this issue forward. I would like to thank Senators Daschle and Simpson for their leadership on this issue. As original cosponsors, they have contributed greatly to my effort to reach consensus on this issue. We have tried to offer a more targeted version of earlier legislation, which will impose less cost on business, and pose less political obstacles, but still get to the heart of the problem: The large marketing and refining facilities which hold the potential for environmental catastrophe. In closing, Mr. President, I think the time has come to write the Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act into law. The County of Fairfax, VA, has recently voted to endorse this bill because it is convinced that this legislation is necessary to prevent or reduce the impact of similar releases of petroleum in the future. I have a letter of support for the bill from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and I request unanimous consent that it be included in the Record. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and with the chairman of the relevant congressional committees to make this legislation a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address an important gap in Federal environmental law: The regulation of underground releases from aboveground storage tanks. With this bill, we have an opportunity to work together with both industry and environmental groups to reform the Federal AST-- aboveground storage tank--program, reduce the regulatory burden on industry, and improve the environment. Following efforts in the 103d Congress to improve the safety of AST's, I am introducing the Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act. For the past 6 years, those of us who live in northern Virginia have received an education on just how flawed the current Federal law is. In September 1990, a petroleum sheen was discovered in a neighborhood creek in the Mantua-Stockbridge community in Fairfax County, VA. It was the beginning of a continuing nightmare for a number of local residents, who have had to live with the knowledge that more than 200,000 gallons of petroleum product-diesel oil, jet fuel and gasoline has leaked from the nearby Pickett Road tank farm. The exact size of the leak, and its precise causes, are still unknown. What we have seen however, is the fallout: negative health effects, environmental damage, and needless losses of millions of dollars. Some residents were temporarily relocated, others have simply moved, and still others continue to live with a cloud over their heads. All of these residents are still wondering when the Federal Government will move to address the issue of leaking aboveground storage tanks. To date, Star Enterprise, a Texaco affiliate, has expended in excess of $100 million in remediation costs, real estate transactions, settlement of claims, and compliance with new State AST requirements. Fairfax County has had to spend $500,000 to provide enforcement, oversight and community relations regarding the Pickett Road tank farm incident. Unfortunately, problems with leaking AST's are not restricted to northern Virginia. Across the Nation, there are hundreds of similar leaks from aboveground petroleum storage tanks. Major petroleum releases have occurred in Anchorage, AK; Torrance, CA; Port Everglades, FL; Hartford IL; Granger, IN; Cattlettsburg, KY; Charlotte, NC; Sparks, NV; Paulsboro, NJ; Syracuse, NY; Greensboro, NC; Ponca City, OK; Philadelphia, PA; Spartanburg, SC; Austin, TX; and Tacoma, WA. At least five involve releases larger than the Exxon Valdez oil tanker catastrophe. Whereas the Exxon Valdez spilled some 11 million gallons of oil, aboveground tanks in El Segundo, CA have released between 84 and 252 million gallons. In Martinez, CA, 28 million gallons have been released. A Tulsa, OK facility has released between 25 and 28 million gallons, and a Whiting, IN facility released 17 million gallons. In Brooklyn, NY, residents are sitting on top of a 13 to million gallon release. According to the Environmental Defense Fund [EDF], between 20 and 25 percent of AST's nationwide and their associated piping are likely to be leaking. A July 1994 American Petroleum Institute industry survey showed that over 85 percent of monitored refining and marketing facilities have confirmed ground water contamination; of the facilities with ground water contamination, a high percentage have off-site contamination--44 percent of refineries, at least 35 percent of marketing facilities, and 27 percent of transportation facilities. A 1995 General Accounting Office [GAO] study on aboveground oil storage tanks that I requested, reported that EPA has found leaks typically originate from the bases of tanks where contact with soil causes corrosion; from underground piping; and from overflows associated with the transfer of stored product. On the basis of age, the likelihood of developing corrosion leaks, and leak detection thresholds, EPA's preliminary estimates show that AST's with a storage capacity in excess of 42,000 gallons could be leaking between 43 million and 54 million gallons of oil annually. Because petroleum contracts and expands as temperatures vary, it is often difficult to detect leaks. And because petroleum is relatively cheap, it is often less expensive to allow a known leak to continue than to interrupt operations and make a repair. Because AST leaks are often slow and underground, they frequently do not receive the attention of the big oil tanker catastrophes, but are nonetheless dangerous. Petroleum releases can present serious health, safety, and environmental risks. Petroleum, including gasoline, contains extremely toxic compounds, like benzene. A plume of petroleum product can seep into basements and sewers, reaching toxic levels and causing explosions and the threat of fire. In addition, leaking AST's can permanently contaminate groundwater, a source of drinking water for more than half the Nation. And in many cases, groundwater contamination will inevitably lead to surface water contamination. While the extent of injuries is unknown, the 1995 GAO study reported that most injuries to human beings from exposure to oil have occurred as a result of inhaling its vapors. Effects on humans from exposure to petroleum include everything from lethargy, dizziness, and convulsions to coma, blood cancers (such as leukemia) and generalized suppression of the immune system from chronic exposure by inhalation. And we know now that these threats present unique challenges for sensitive subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with AIDS and other debilitating diseases. What is astounding is that where underground storage tanks are highly regulated by a comprehensive Federal program, aboveground storage tanks, used to store some 100 billion gallons of oil nationwide, are only loosely regulated by a patchwork of confusing Federal regulations. In many cases, State fire codes regulate AST's. State authorities are beginning to take notice of the leaking AST problem, but only 20 States have regulations on the books, and only 5 of these currently require genuine secondary containment, such as a double bottom or liner under a tank or piping. Unfortunately, State programs vary widely and present problems for tank owners with multistate operations. This is an enormous problem today; and it will likely continue to grow as storage tank owners seek to exploit the gaps in current Federal law by acquiring AST's over the more highly regulated underground storage tanks. According to a January 1993 survey conducted by the Steel Tank Institute, new tank purchases of aboveground tanks are running ahead of underground tanks by a 5:2 ratio. And according to many State regulators and industry experts, this trend is continuing into the future. This is troublesome from an environmental standpoint, and also from a fire safety perspective since aboveground tanks pose a much greater risk of fire hazard than underground tanks. In 1989, the GAO conducted a study of inland oil spills and found existing laws deficient. In its report GAO proposed seven recommendations to EPA that if implemented, would improve the safety of aboveground oil storage tanks. In 1995, Senator Daschle, Representative Moran, and I asked GAO to investigate the progress of EPA's implementation of the recommendations. This report found that overall EPA has failed to implement or take any action on the majority of the recommendations. At the most elementary level, current law does not even require comprehensive data collection or reporting to know exactly how many aboveground storage tanks are leaking. In the 103d Congress, I sponsored legislation that would have established a comprehensive regulatory program for AST's and I cosponsored legislation offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, to regulate the estimated 800,000 to 900,000 petroleum aboveground tanks, nationwide. Residents in Senator Daschle's home State were victims in 1987 of a disastrous 20,000-gallon leak in which an elementary school had to be evacuated and abandoned after vapors began filtering up into the building. AST's are largely unregulated by Federal law; no single statute fully addresses prevention and cleanup of petroleum releases. The legislation I am introducing today in the Senate, and will be introduced by Representatives Jim Moran and Tom Davis in the House, takes a new approach to dealing with leaking AST's, but maintains the goal of improving the safety of aboveground storage tanks. The problem of leaking AST's has been gaining national attention. In the last 5 years, EPA has conducted studies and consulted with industry experts to better define the causes of AST leaks of petroleum; more States have begun to contemplate AST programs; and the petroleum industry has recently issued standards for aboveground storage tanks. In developing Federal legislation for the 104th Congress we moved away from the idea of a comprehensive regulatory program for aboveground storage tanks. Instead, the bill seeks to enhance, not duplicate efforts undertaken by States and the petroleum industry to improve AST safety. There is a patchwork of AST regulations and no less than five Federal offices with AST responsibilities. This is confusing to tank owners, costly to taxpayers and harmful to the environment. Tank owners and operators need to have clear, concise guidance on how to comply with Federal regulations. This new legislative proposal replaces the need for comprehensive reform; instead, it improves the organization of the current program and allows EPA to do more with less, while permitting tank owners the opportunity to embrace the newly developed industry standards. Reform in the Federal program will improve the effectiveness of current regulations, lead to greater prevention and containment of releases from AST's and improve the environment. Prevention is the key to avoiding costly and damaging petroleum releases. Specifically, the bill will: Consolidate all of the Federal offices responsible for AST regulation into one office at EPA. This will increase efficiency and improve organization at EPA; Require EPA to consolidate and streamline the current AST program. These steps will eliminate duplicative and conflicting regulations, create a user-friendly aboveground storage tank program and promote prevention measures such as secondary containment and corrosion protection; After consolidation, the bill allows EPA to correct gaps in the regulation of large--42,000 gallons and above--aboveground petroleum tanks and encourage prevention with narrow regulations based on industry standards and cost-benefit analysis; and Require reporting of releases and give limited emergency powers to the EPA Administrator to better assist tank owners and operators with speedier cleanups. Should a petroleum release occur, the bill gives EPA the authority to close the troublesome part of the storage tank facility, prohibiting further operation until the Administrator determines that the closure is not necessary to protect human health, public safety, or the environment. That is to say, after a release, the burden shifts to the tank owner to cease operations until it can prove there is no ongoing threat. The citizens in Fairfax were outraged when told that EPA lacked such authority; this bill provides it. These provisions are essential to provide predictability and peace of mind to residents living near large aboveground storage tanks that store petroleum. With reform of the Federal program it is estimated that $17.4 billion in savings will result from reduced leak cleanup costs, saved petroleum product, and decreased costs associated with compensating affected residents. This bill has been developed with the guidance and support of a diverse coalition of industry and environmental groups because it is a common sense proposal to regulatory reform. Although the bill could easily be incorporated into Clean Water Act reauthorization or Superfund reform legislation, I think the problem is of sufficient magnitude that the bill can and should move on its own. With the bill's broad support, I don't see a need to have it hung up in the complexity of reauthorization of the larger environmental statutes. It is my hope that the introduction of this legislation today will help move this issue forward. I would like to thank Senators Daschle and Simpson for their leadership on this issue. As original cosponsors, they have contributed greatly to my effort to reach consensus on this issue. We have tried to offer a more targeted version of earlier legislation, which will impose less cost on business, and pose less political obstacles, but still get to the heart of the problem: The large marketing and refining facilities which hold the potential for environmental catastrophe. In closing, Mr. President, I think the time has come to write the Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act into law. The County of Fairfax, VA, has recently voted to endorse this bill because it is convinced that this legislation is necessary to prevent or reduce the impact of similar releases of petroleum in the future. I have a letter of support for the bill from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and I request unanimous consent that it be included in the Record. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and with the chairman of the relevant congressional committees to make this legislation a reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, let me just say a word, if I may, to what my colleagues have already alluded to, some good things that have happened in the last few days. I would like to say a word on behalf of the many who work for the Federal Government--the Federal employees not only in the Washington area but around the country and the many others who work for the Federal Government. We have been through a very difficult period where for some 3 weeks, in effect. We told many hard-working, dedicated Federal employees to stay home. And they were able to work through this period. Many of them came in, many without getting paid, and others who recognized essential services that they were providing. But, just at the conclusion of that long and very difficult period for many people who work hard on a day- to-day basis without a great deal of recognition, we had a snowstorm, the blizzard of 1996 here on the east coast that pretty well shut down everything. I know that there has been a great deal of concern in the last day or two about when and under what circumstances Federal employees would be asked to come back to work. I would simply like to say to all of those who have been through a very rough period, and for those other people who work with the Federal Government, whether they contract with the Federal Government, or whether they are dependent upon the effective operation of the Federal Government, thank you for your understanding. It is certainly my hope that we have all learned a lesson and that we will not under any circumstances close down the Federal Government under similar circumstances again. It simply was counterproductive and costly for everyone. I applaud the majority leader for the initiative he took earlier in the week to bring that particular chapter to a close. I do understand that there are fundamental differences that are still at stake. I applaud both the President and the chief negotiators from the Congress for the statements that they made yesterday so as not to exacerbate the problem, to leave open the prospect that they will be able to find common ground, refer to the temporary suspension rather than the collapse of those particular talks because there are very significant and important issues that I think benefit from the kind of discussion and kind of intense focus that they have had during the last few weeks. I hope that process will continue. I think it makes sense for those who have been locked in what might appear to be mortal combat for a period of time to take the period away from the table, away from the talks, to have an opportunity to refresh themselves and their minds, and get a little different perspective. I hope that they will come back ready to work on those essential issues that continue to divide us. I hope that all of the Federal employees who have been in all cases inconvenienced--in many cases put through some very severe hardship-- will now assist in getting all of the functions of Government back up to speed as rapidly as we can. Whatever decision is made tonight, I suspect that the Office of Personnel Management will announce that the Federal Government will be formally open tomorrow. But there are still, clearly, many Federal employees, and many other citizens in the area, who are unable to get out of their homes, out of their driveways, and find any reasonable prospect of getting to work in the way that they would normally get to work. I hope that Federal managers and Federal supervisors will be understanding, but that Federal employees themselves would make that little extra effort to catch up on a lot of work that has gone undone during the last few weeks. Many people are critically dependent on them catching up with the work that needs to be done. For all those who are going to be doing it and for those who have been both inconvenienced, and in some cases placed at a real hardship, I want to say on behalf of I think all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we understand what they have been through and we understand the inconvenience, we understand what has happened both with respect to the budget negotiations as well as the weather. We thank you for sticking with us. We hope you will continue to work as hard as you can to get us back up to speed and functioning as rapidly as you can. With that I thank the Chair and yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.