Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to add a word, too. I did not have occasion to work as closely with Congressman Synar as my colleague from Oklahoma, or my colleague from North Dakota who has worked with him in the House. But I did have occasion in several instances to work with him. And although we were not always on precisely the same wavelength, he was certainly a man who believed heartily in the causes which he espoused and showed a remarkable degree of courage and commitment. And in that sense, I think we will all certainly miss him, whether or not we all knew him in entirely the same way.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would fund the Black Lung Disability Program administered by the Department of Labor through September 30, 1996, and the Black Lung Program administered by the Social Security Administration through the first quarter of fiscal year 1997. I was deeply disappointed that the limited continuing resolution approved by the House of Representatives earlier today did not include the Black Lung Programs. They should have been included, Mr. President, but they were not. When an effort was made to add funding authority for black lung beneficiaries during floor consideration of the House bill, that amendment was objected to by the other side of the aisle. Mr. President, I've been told by the Department of Labor that unless a continuing resolution which contains black lung funding is approved by January 12, 1996, the January 15 monthly payments to beneficiaries would not be issued. It is my understanding that the Social Security Administration needs a continuing resolution which contains black lung funding to issue its February monthly payments as well. Mr. President, as I introduce this bill, I know that efforts are underway to bring a third continuing resolution to the House floor--and I sincerely hope that the Black Lung Programs are included in that measure. If that is the case, this legislation will be unnecessary. These programs are vitally important to thousands of disabled miners and their families and survivors in my State of Virginia and many other coal producing States. I hope we receive a continuing resolution from the House later this evening which will allow us to uphold our historic commitment to victims of black lung and their families and survivors.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would fund the Black Lung Disability Program administered by the Department of Labor through September 30, 1996, and the Black Lung Program administered by the Social Security Administration through the first quarter of fiscal year 1997. I was deeply disappointed that the limited continuing resolution approved by the House of Representatives earlier today did not include the Black Lung Programs. They should have been included, Mr. President, but they were not. When an effort was made to add funding authority for black lung beneficiaries during floor consideration of the House bill, that amendment was objected to by the other side of the aisle. Mr. President, I've been told by the Department of Labor that unless a continuing resolution which contains black lung funding is approved by January 12, 1996, the January 15 monthly payments to beneficiaries would not be issued. It is my understanding that the Social Security Administration needs a continuing resolution which contains black lung funding to issue its February monthly payments as well. Mr. President, as I introduce this bill, I know that efforts are underway to bring a third continuing resolution to the House floor--and I sincerely hope that the Black Lung Programs are included in that measure. If that is the case, this legislation will be unnecessary. These programs are vitally important to thousands of disabled miners and their families and survivors in my State of Virginia and many other coal producing States. I hope we receive a continuing resolution from the House later this evening which will allow us to uphold our historic commitment to victims of black lung and their families and survivors.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would fund retirement and medical benefits through September 30, 1996 for the retired commissioned officers of the Public Health Service. I do not know whether many of my colleagues know this, Mr. President, but retired PHS commissioned officers have not received their retirement pay since our first continuing resolution expired on December 15, 1995. While retired members of the Federal Civil Service have thankfully been able to receive their retirement checks during this time period, the benefits of retired PHS commissioned officers come through a direct appropriation contained in the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, a bill which we all know has not yet been approved by this body. The roughly 3,600 beneficiaries of this program should not be victims of our budget battles, Mr. President. They served their country for many years and their country has made a commitment to them. This bill will allow us to meet the commitment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would fund retirement and medical benefits through September 30, 1996 for the retired commissioned officers of the Public Health Service. I do not know whether many of my colleagues know this, Mr. President, but retired PHS commissioned officers have not received their retirement pay since our first continuing resolution expired on December 15, 1995. While retired members of the Federal Civil Service have thankfully been able to receive their retirement checks during this time period, the benefits of retired PHS commissioned officers come through a direct appropriation contained in the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, a bill which we all know has not yet been approved by this body. The roughly 3,600 beneficiaries of this program should not be victims of our budget battles, Mr. President. They served their country for many years and their country has made a commitment to them. This bill will allow us to meet the commitment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished senior colleague to yield for a comment?

Mr. ROBB. Let me join with my colleague and say I fully understand the point he was making. Indeed, perhaps less eloquently, I tried to make the same point. But it is not just in the Nation's Capital. It is not just in our Commonwealth of Virginia. I think people would expect it of us, representing a disproportionate number of those who are directly affected, but it is all over this country and indeed all over the world in terms of Federal employees and people who depend on the Federal Government. Many of those small businesses, people who depend on the national parks and other facilities for their living, when those parks are shut down, when those visitor attractions are shut down all over this country, small business men and women who make their living being accessible to those who come to those institutions are going through the same kind of a shutdown. They do not have any guarantee. Indeed, they are not going to be paid back whatever they lose after the shutdown is over. That is why this makes so little sense. If everybody who has been laid off or furloughed in this process is going to be ultimately made whole, it is an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. But those individuals after the inconvenience and the trauma, in many cases, of not being able to pay their bills on time, are going to be made whole. Many others, who are directly related to those, are not going to be made whole. The impact is a little bit like a cancer. It is corrosive and it continues. And I thank my senior colleague for yielding on that particular point. It is clearly important to those of us who represent the States contiguous to our Nation's Capital, but it affects everyone throughout this country and many, many small businesses and others who are simply not on anybody's radar screen are wondering right now whether or not they are going to make it. With that I thank the Chair and I yield.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended by an additional 5 minutes and I be recognized to speak therein.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have been listening to our colleagues this morning and I was not initially planning to say anything but with my distinguished senior colleague in the chair at this particular moment I know that I reflect his views in what I say, and what I say is that the continuing shutdown of the Federal Government and the impact it is having on not only Federal employees--and in most cases it is the most vulnerable and the least able to withstand this kind of treatment--but the impact it is having on many, many others who are directly or indirectly affected by the Federal Government or by the activities of the Federal Government. Mr. President, the continuation, indeed, the extent, indeed, the fact that we are having a shutdown at all, is unconscionable. I think that it makes no sense, no sense for either side, no sense for anyone who is involved in this particular debate, to see this protracted shutdown, the protracted demeaning, demoralizing impact on so many of our citizens continue. I recognize that the feelings on both sides are very deeply felt. I recognize that there are important philosophical differences that are being debated, and indeed I have been very much supportive of the basic thrust of those who want to achieve more fiscal discipline. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, during the time I served as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of the things I was most often identified with was fiscal responsibility and making certain that we acted within our means. I have voted for, on several occasions, a 7- year balanced budget using CBO numbers. I think there is general agreement on both sides that we are going to come up with such a budget, hopefully in the near term, although some of the philosophical differences are very, very deep and may not be resolved but we should not ask those who are most vulnerable to continue to bear the brunt of this shutdown. Again, I am not speaking just of the 200,000-some Federal employees, many of whom reside in the State that the distinguished Presiding Officer and I represent, but all over the country, but so many others dependent on the effective operation of our Government. A huge number of citizens are uncertain whether they will be able to make their payments. For some, it will be a very basic decision as to whether or not they will be able to purchase food, medicine, what have you, the next time around, because they live from paycheck to paycheck. Others have mortgages, they have rent payments, they have car payments, they have all kinds of tuition payments, everything that you can imagine. Many things that we cannot imagine. I have been in the last few days here at the Capitol, listening to stories of individuals who have been enormously inconvenienced by this continued shutdown. I appeal to the leadership on both sides. I believe in the Senate that there is virtual unanimous agreement that this shutdown should not continue. Indeed, the Senate has attempted on several occasions to pass some legislation that would keep the Government functioning. But I appeal to those who are in a position to make decisions at this time to move forward, to not let this continue. Do not let this debilitating shutdown, which is so unconscionable, continue, and to put the people we are asking to provide Government services back to work, to stop the complete inefficiency and the waste of taxpayer dollars, and then to get on to the serious business of negotiating some very real differences that I acknowledge. Mr. President, I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I would like to add my own word of thanks and appreciation to the distinguished majority leader and those who have worked with him to propose the continuing resolution at this point. I think it is very important. Understandably, because of the serious differences in some of the philosophical questions that have been presented in this debate, it is not easy for leaders on either side of the debate to make a move toward getting us beyond a step which many of us feel is simply unconscionable and indefensible to continue. I hope that the leadership that the distinguished majority leader has provided in moving us to this point will indeed provide an impetus for our colleagues in the other body to act in accord so that we may move beyond this particular impasse. The big issues can still be debated, but the question of whether or not it makes any sense to continue the furlough of Federal employees who will eventually get paid so this Government is saving no money but which represents an enormous waste of taxpayer resources and an inconvenience for many and serious economic concerns for others who interact with the Federal Government, for many small businesses that are dependent upon the successful actions of the Federal Government, all of this can be resolved at least in the near term with this particular action, and all of the essential arguments that have been made by both sides are preserved for full debate at the appropriate time. I again thank the majority leader for exercising this leadership. I thank my distinguished colleague and senior Senator from Virginia, the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, and others in the region who are most impacted by this particular situation but all who have shown the good will in an attempt to get beyond the difficulties that have held us up. So to all, including my good friend from Rhode Island, who may be about to speak on this topic, I say thank you for bringing us to this point and hope that they will succeed in urging our colleagues in the other body to follow the leadership of our distinguished majority leader. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. And I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, notwithstanding my opposition to several specific provisions included in the conference report on Defense authorization, and concerns about how the conference itself was conducted, I will vote to approve the report on final passage. I do so reluctantly, knowing that the President has indicated he will veto the bill if it passes, and knowing that most Democrats--including the respected former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and now ranking member, Senator Nunn--and some Republicans, will vote against it. In truth, I agree with most of the reservations expressed by the President, Secretary Perry, Senator Nunn, and many of my Democratic colleagues on the committee. But if we do not approve this conference report, I believe we run the very real risk of not getting a Defense authorization bill this year and I believe this bill even in its current form is better than no bill at all. Were it absolutely clear that the deficiencies in this legislation could be corrected and a new report passed very quickly, I might join my Democratic colleagues in opposing it. But because I am not as sanguine as others about that result, I want to show my support for the majority of the measures as they exist in the report and to ensure that it not be viewed in strictly partisan terms. Mr. President, we have learned repeatedly in this century that new enemies can arise on distant shores within a matter of years, and that the price of inadequate preparation--in places like Bataan or the Kasserine Pass in World War II, or Osan during the Korean War--can be very high. We now live in an era where the complexity of military systems mandates decades of development before those systems are fielded, meaning that we have to prepare now for the unexpected conflicts of tomorrow. Our national strategy calls for being prepared to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee know that unless our major procurement accounts are strengthened we simply won't have enough airlift, ships, and smart munitions to fight and win decisively in two major regional conflicts. Yet despite the steady drone of critics attacking this strategy, no one has offered a more attractive alternative. Until a broadly supported alternative is adopted, I intend to provide more than just lip service in advocating a procurement program that supports our national strategy. The conference report attempts to address some of the major shortfalls in the procurement accounts. My Armed Services colleagues are also aware that funding for readiness cannot tolerate further reductions without serious erosion of troop morale and effectiveness. The conference report adequately funds readiness. And of course, we all know that we must maintain decisive U.S. superiority on the battlefield of the 21st century. This report authorizes adequate funding for the research and development that will provide our troops the communications, the intelligence, and the weaponry to defeat any enemy, anywhere, anytime. But there are areas of significant disagreement, as well. I have carefully reviewed the issues that concern the President and others, and I share many of their criticisms. In the case of ballistic missile defenses, while the conference report is much less onerous than the House version of the bill, it would nonetheless send a message to the Russians that our commitment to the ABM Treaty is tenuous. In committee, I offered an amendment to strike a measure from the Senate version of the bill that would restrict a servicewoman's access to privately funded abortions overseas. It was supported by a majority of committee members, including two Republicans. And I was very disappointed when the measure was restored in the conference report. The report includes provisions discharging HIV-positive service members on the pretext that they are nonworldwide deployable, when in reality no others who are permanently nonworldwide deployable are forced out under current law. Mr. President, the report includes roughly half a billion dollars to continue funding the B-2 bomber. This funding was removed by the Senate Armed Services Committee--with the support of four Republicans--but again restored in conference. This despite a detailed analysis by the Department of Defense which showed that the contribution of additional B-2's would be marginal in a theater campaign when compared to more cost-effective means of weapons delivery, such as precision-guided munitions. If we did not have such pressing fiscal constraints, more B- 2's would make sense--indeed I've supported those to date--but not when we are shutting down the Government because we can't agree on the really tough spending choices necessary to balance the budget in 7 years. There are far too many earmarks in the report that will prove costly to the taxpayer. There are earmarks for unrequested Department of Energy weapons programs, Buy America designations, and National Guard and Reserve equipment. And there are earmarks for ships, including submarines which are vitally important to two shipbuilders, one of which is in my own State. Rather than designate particular submarines for particular shipbuilders, I had hoped that we would be able to authorize a winner- take-all competition to save the taxpayers billions in procurement dollars. In the end, my senior Virginia colleague helped devise a compromise to designate the builders of the first two subs to minimize development risks, followed by competition on the third and subsequent subs. The conferees accepted this compromise, but also allowed for the option of building some additional prototype submarines, if the Navy concludes it can achieve a more affordable and more effective submarine by doing so. This is not a perfect solution, but it is better and less expensive than the alternative of eliminating any hope of eventual competition by designating a single submarine builder as was originally planned by the Navy. My biggest problem with the conference report is that it reflects too few tough choices. Too often the conferees resolved differences in procurement priorities between the Senate and House not by compromising but by agreeing to the requests of both. That's not cost-effective, but politics is defined as the art of the possible and the most cost-efficient approach would not have enjoyed majority support. Mr. President, some of my Democratic colleagues on the Armed Services Committee will vote against this report--at least in part--to protest their exclusion from the conference process. After a few pro forma panel meetings, the panels were dissolved with no full committee meetings called to reconcile differences. But while I share the frustrations of my colleagues about the congressional conference committee, chaired this year by the House--I believe the final report moves in the right direction in enough areas to justify my support. By passing this legislation, we make it clear that we are committed to ending the defense budget free fall. We send a firm and unambiguous message of support to our troops in Bosnia. We preserve the many provisions agreed upon through delicate compromises that could be very difficult to rebuild if the report is returned to conference. We may have to do that, if we cannot resolve the differences, quickly, but it would be a bad precedent, and would reduce incentives for the Armed Services Committees--or any committees for that matter--to work out the tough issues within a single coherent bill. Finally, we ensure the prompt implementation of the many fiscal year 1996 defense programs, acquisitions, and operations that have been put on hold for weeks now by our delay. It has been suggested that particular provisions in the conference report, such as the pay raise and BAQ increase, be attached to other legislation if this report is vetoed to ensure their prompt enactment. If the conference report is defeated here on the floor or vetoed at the White House, I will work with the conferees and the President to resolve the veto issues as quickly as possible and I will urge my fellow conferees to stay focused on the specific concerns of the President to avoid unraveling the many fragile compromises contained in this report. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield back any time that I may have been allocated. And I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I just want to address the question that is bothering just about everyone who serves in Congress today and most of the people who live in this area and many of the rest of the people around the country. And that question has to do with the current impasse over the budget negotiations and the shutdown of our Federal Government. Mr. President, I understand the deep feelings and convictions held on both sides of this argument. It goes to some very fundamental choices that are important to this Government today and in the future. I think it is very unlikely, given the deep-seated convictions that are involved on both sides of the question, that the budget impasse will be resolved in the near term. Indeed, if both sides were to agree today on how we could solve the budget problem--and I'm not simply talking about a continuing resolution, but the budget problem--we could not craft, draft, pass, and send to the President a responsible compromise budget in the time remaining before Christmas and the holiday period. I say this with the understanding that we are already in the first day of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah as I speak. Mr. President, while I have never been an advocate for tax cuts before we balance our budget, I have consistently supported a balanced budget. I have consistently supported a 7-year balanced budget. I have consistently supported using Congressional Budget Office figures. And, indeed, both sides have come to an essential agreement on these parameters for any compromise. But, in light of the difficulty in forging an overall budget agreement, I suggest and appeal to the leaders on both sides of the Capitol to do what they can today to extend the continuing resolution that will allow the processes of Government to continue. This partial shutdown is simply irresponsible and, frankly, one that none of us can adequately explain to anyone who is affected by it. Admittedly, I represent a State that has a disproportionate number of those most directly affected, but the pervasive effect of the partial shutdown goes far beyond the people who are actually the professionals of Government and who make Government run. It goes to the local economies in which these individuals live. It goes to the confidence of the international and national financial markets. Indeed, with respect to the first shutdown, the original projections were very significant in terms of the dollars that were directly lost. We had some 800,000 Federal employees sent home and then ultimately paid for the time they were sent home. And we had a complete loss of confidence in our Federal Government for failing to do what we have been sent here to do. As I have said, the differences between the two sides are clearly very difficult to reconcile. And, indeed, it is entirely possible that the question of whether or not we have block grants or entitlements may not be resolved until after the next general election when we will elect a President of the United States and all of the Members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Members of this body-- because that question is fundamental to our system of values. But nothing for either side will be accomplished by continuing the partial shutdown of the Federal Government. While it is only within the power of this body to end it, there has been resistance to passing a continuing resolution that does not affect, in part, the arguments that are embraced as part of the larger budget debate that is taking place. But, Mr. President, both sides have made their points on the larger issues of balancing our budget. Now is the time to approve a continuing resolution that would allow our Government to function and not drain taxpayer resources and public confidence. Then the larger questions, where the views are so deeply held and the rhetoric to date has been so irreconcilable, can be addressed in due course. So, Mr. President, to the leaders of Congress and the President, I say publicly, as I have done privately, continue to work on the great issues that are the subject of the debate that we are engaged in today, but also give the Government an opportunity to move forward at this time by allowing Congress to pass and the President to sign an extension of the continuing resolution. We can then continue to see whether or not we can resolve the larger questions. I will close by thanking the Chair and thanking other Members who have been very patient while I have made this particular plea. The plight of many of those directly affected and many others indirectly affected at this time of year is serious, one that should not and, as far as I am concerned, cannot be ignored. With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Chair if we are in morning business or if we are on the Defense authorization bill at this point?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, although it could be properly conducted on the authorization bill, under the Pastore rule I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as if in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes. And it will probably be considerably less.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, may I further assume that such judgments and their amounts, having been certified as valid, will receive expedited processing for payment?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina and appreciate his management of this bill. expropriation in the dominican republic

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, under section 604(b), I understand that the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is authorized to receive and determine the validity of claims of United States persons against the Government of Iraq and its instrumentalities. May I assume that claims which have been reduced to judgment in Federal district court are valid?

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, we cannot and should not attempt to act as the world's policeman. But that eminently sensible acknowledgment of the limits of U.S. power cannot and should not deter us from acting when it is the United States and only the United States that can end aggression and bloodshed, or in this case the genocide that has already claimed the lives of over 200,000 human beings and left over 2 million as refugees. I understand the concerns and reticence of many of our colleagues, indeed most of the American people. Calls in most congressional offices remain overwhelmingly against putting United States ground forces in Bosnia. But without U.S. leadership, there would be no peace. The Europeans tried nobly but in vain. The fighting did not stop until the United States led NATO in the air and led the diplomatic efforts which culminated in the initialing of the agreement in Dayton and the final signing that will take place tomorrow in Paris. Without U.S. leadership and active participation on the ground, the peace will end and the carnage will continue. We now represent the last, best hope to bring the war in the Balkans to a close. Are there risks? Certainly there are risks, serious risks. Of course there are some risks to our troops even in normal training exercises. But I believe the risks are even greater if we fail to honor this commitment. I do not relish putting our troops at risk in the barrens of northeast Bosnia. But for each of us, I would suggest that there are some risks-- something that we consider so important that we are willing to work, that we are willing to risk dying for it. I think, for example, we would all agree that we would do whatever it was necessary to do in order to protect immediate members of our family. But there are also larger risks that are worth dying for--as a Nation worth putting our troops at risk for. I have seen some of these risks. I have seen war. I have had men literally die in my arms in combat. I have written letters and talked to the parents of those who have lost their lives under these circumstances. It is not easy. But the cost of freedom is high. Yet, it is a price that I believe that we have to be willing to pay. We cannot shrink from the role that only the United States of America can play in making peace work in faraway lands when America is now the only nation with the capacity to lead this effort to a successful conclusion. No one supports the atrocities which have occurred daily in Bosnia. But the question we face is whether the lives of American service men and service women are worth risking to stop it. And I believe that risk is appropriate. I believe we have a moral responsibility to act. In that vein, I was struck by Elie Wiesel's comments this morning when he said, ``We in the United States represent a certain moral aspect of history. A great nation owes its greatness not only to its military power but also to its moral consciousness.'' He went on to say ``What would future generations say about us, all of us, here in this land, if we do nothing?'' And I remember his deeply-felt plea to the same effect some 2\1/2\ years ago at the dedication of the Holocaust Museum when he turned and urged President Clinton to stop the war in the Balkans. Mr. President, doing nothing represents an abdication of our responsibilities as the leader of NATO and the larger community of nations. Doing nothing increases the likelihood of a larger war in Europe. Doing nothing amounts to tacit acceptance of more slaughter in Bosnia. The Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, yesterday at a joint session of Congress was eloquent and powerful in saying to us You enabled many nations to save their democracies, even as you strive now to assist many nations to free themselves from their nondemocratic past. You fought many wars. You won many victories. Wars did not cause you to lose heart. Thanks to the support you have given, and to the aid you have rendered, we have been able to overcome wars and tragedies thrust upon us, and feel sufficiently strong to take measured risks to wage our campaign of peace. Mr. President, we now stand alone as the only country capable of restoring order and a sense of hope in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The American imprimatur carries enormous weight among the community of nations. We can and should seek to spread the word of peace to places like the Middle East, and Ireland--and, yes, Bosnia--that have known the language of violence and war for too long. Mr. President, these war and peace decisions are difficult, and they reach deep into our emotions. I believe our Founding Fathers were wise to vest in the President the responsibilities of being the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces while providing Congress with the power of the purse and the exclusive right to declare war. We have only one President at a time, and he has acted in his capacity as Commander in Chief. Were we in his shoes we well might have taken 100 different courses of action in the Senate, and perhaps as many as 435 different courses of action in the House. Indeed, I have long urged more assertive action by the United States for several years. But, Mr. President, it is the President of the United States who is ultimately responsible for this decision, and the American people and ultimately history will hold him accountable. His choice to deploy troops to Bosnia may not be popular with the American people. But you cannot lead by following the polls, and for this I commend his courage. The President has made a choice in favor of leadership over isolation--in favor of standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies instead of abandoning them, in favor of morality rather than allowing the crimes against humanity to continue. I applaud his choice to grapple with these problems and to seek a comprehensive solution. He deserves enormous credit for taking on this cause of peace and freedom that is so ingrained in our American way of life. I happen to have a very high level of confidence in our troops who are the best led, best trained, and most powerful fighting force that the world has ever known. When they have successfully completed their limited mission in Europe, there is clearly going to be more to do with respect to a residual force. And, in that respect, I believe that Europe will step up to its responsibility at the appropriate time. In the same context, Mr. President, I would like to salute our majority leader, Bob Dole, and Senator John McCain in particular, who have risen above whatever partisan gain might have accrued to them by taking a different course of action, to join the President in leading the country to support our troops--just as I was pleased to help lead the effort and support our troops, and support President Bush when he asked for our help in the gulf war. Mr. President, I believe the President of the United States has made a strong case for U.S. leadership. Absent American participation peace will fail in the Balkans, and ongoing war will have continued to threaten our national security interests. Mr. President, I believe our security depends on joining with our allies in times like this, and I urge my colleagues to do what I believe in this case is the right thing to do. And that is to support the deployment and to support our troops in the commitment that the President of the United States acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief has made there and on our behalf. With that, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to vote against the resolution which would be a resolution of disapproval, and vote for the bipartisan effort that the majority leader and others have sponsored to support our actions, notwithstanding some of their own reservations, so that our troops carrying our flag will know that they have our backing when they are placed in harm's way. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, be added in the next Democratic slot on the list of speakers.

Mr. ROBB. I am happy to yield.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise with a degree of reluctance because I'm taking the opposite side from so many friends, and veterans, and those who believe very strongly that we ought to have some constitutional protection for the flag. But I myself feel very strongly that this would be the wrong move for us to make. I, like many of our fellow Senators, served in the armed services. I served in combat. I am one of those who has always respected the flag. I never fail to rise to render appropriate honors. Indeed, like all others who served, I was willing to die for our flag if necessary--or for the underlying freedoms that our flag represents. And yet I believe that this amendment moves in the wrong direction. We already have in place rules and regulations and statutes that prohibit desecration of our flag under certain circumstances. If the flag that is being burned does not belong to the individual that is burning it, there are already laws in place to cover that kind of physical destruction--or desecration. If the flag is being burned for the purpose of inciting a riot, or anything along those lines, there are already laws in place to prohibit that kind of activity. Indeed, the manual that we have on our flag talks about the proper way to dispose of a flag. It is listed under ``Respect for the Flag.'' Section 176, paragraph K talks about the proper way to dispose of a flag that has been rendered no longer useful, one that is either tattered, torn, damaged, or somehow rendered less than an appropriate symbol of our country. The appropriate way to dispose of that flag is to burn that flag. The difference that we are talking about with this amendment is the difference between an act and an expression of opinion, of speech. And it is in precisely those circumstances where the flag is burned to convey a message that the freedom that the flag represents--the basic democracy of this country--is challenged. We nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize many in other countries who stand up to dissent peacefully against their government, who say that they believe their government is wrong for whatever reason. We have nominated, or others have nominated, everybody from Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, who has just been released, to Nguyen Dan Que in Vietnam, Wei Jing Sheng in China, Nelson Mandella in South Africa, many in the former Soviet Union that were honored because they spoke up and spoke out. And it is precisely when an individual is threatened by his or her government when he or she begins to speak out, that basic freedoms and democracy are most threatened. We know that the first sign that freedom or democracy is in trouble anywhere around the world is when the government starts locking up dissenters, when the freedom of the people to express their political opinions is stifled. And this is the distinction--the distinction between an act and a message--that I hope that we will be able to make when we consider this amendment. The acid test of democracy is whether or not we can speak out in peaceful dissent against our Government without fear of being arrested, or prosecuted, or punished. And in this case, the amendment goes directly to the heart of that freedom. Now I know that many who support this amendment--many of my fellow Senators, many other Members of Congress, and certainly leaders of veterans organizations, and others around this country--have a very noble cause and purpose. But I happen to believe that cause and purpose--that expression of devotion to our country--is best served if we don't amend the Constitution in this case. Now I am not one that is arbitrarily opposed to amending the Constitution, but in this situation the amendment goes directly to the heart of what that Constitution protects for us and for all of our citizens. So I would respectfully urge all of my colleagues to think long and hard with all due deference to their patriotism and resist the temptation to amend our Constitution in a way that would significantly undermine precisely the freedoms and the democracy that we seek to protect. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes against the time chargeable to those who oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to express my admiration and respect for Secretary Jesse Brown and my appreciation for his achievements on behalf of our Nation's veterans. In choosing Jesse Brown as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, President Clinton couldn't have made a better choice from the standpoint of America's veterans. A combat-wounded Marine veteran of Vietnam, a former executive director of the Disabled American Veterans, Jesse Brown is a strong and aggressive advocate for the men and women who have served our country. During his tenure in the Cabinet, Jesse Brown has compiled a truly outstanding record of success. To cite just a few accomplishments, Jesse Brown has: Expanded the list of Vietnam veterans' diseases for which service- connected compensation is paid based on exposure to agent orange; Expanded and improved health care services for combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; Created a presumption of service-connection for ex-prisoners of war who contracted wet beri-beri and later suffered ischemic heart disease; Established a host of new clinics offering veterans more convenient access to VA health care; Expanded and improved services for women veterans, which include mammography quality controls and counseling and medical programs for women veterans suffering the after-effects of service-related sexual trauma; Successfully fought for a law allowing the VA to pay compensation benefits to chronically disabled Persian Gulf veterans with undiagnosed illnesses; Established environmental research centers focused on the environmental exposures of Persian Gulf veterans and launched extensive epidemiological and other research efforts aimed at identifying the causes of illnesses from which these veterans and their families are suffering; Made programs for homeless veterans a high priority--more than doubling the budget for specialized programs for homeless veterans, conducting the first National Summit on Homelessness Among Veterans, and carrying out a new program of grants to assist public and non- profit groups to develop new programs assisting homeless veterans; Established a presumption of service-connection for veterans who experienced full-body exposure to mustard gas or Lewisite as part of our military's testing of these substances; Conducted an outreach campaign through which 602,000 veterans' home loans were refinanced at lower interest rates, saving these veterans an average of $l,500 per year; and Wrote to 44,000 Persian Gulf veterans and 47,000 Vietnam veterans notifying them of their potential entitlement to benefits and encouraging them to file claims. In addition to these efforts, Mr. President, Secretary Brown is working to improve the VA's benefits and health care systems, restructuring both its headquarters and field operations to enhance efficiency. There's no question Jesse Brown is an untiring and outspoken advocate--both within the administration and on Capitol Hill--for adequate funding for VA medical programs and benefits processing. But as one who strongly supports a balanced budget, Mr. President, I admire those who make us think hard about prioritizing scarce Federal dollars, who help us understand the consequences of the policy decisions we make, and who force us to defend our actions. Recently, Secretary Brown has been harshly criticized for speaking out on behalf of adequate budgets for the Veterans Administration. But characterizing his support as partisan--as some have done--ignores Jesse Brown's nearly 3 decades of steadfast commitment to our Nation's veterans and their families and his strong personal beliefs in our country's responsibilities to them. It also fails to recognize his own personal experiences as a combat veteran in Vietnam. Jesse Brown reminds us all that, even in these tight budget times, our Nation has an obligation to its warriors and their survivors that we simply cannot ignore. And that is why, Mr. President, that I am proud to call Jesse Brown my friend--and why I appreciate his strong support for the veterans of our Nation.