Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the budget reconciliation bill before the Senate. I do not oppose the Republican budget because it is projected to balance the unified budget by 2002, because I believe we can and should balance the budget over that time period. I oppose this budget because I believe it is the wrong way to reconcile spending and revenues. Instead of a bipartisan consensus, it reflects a too narrow, ideological agenda that does not represent the best long-term interests of the country. And I know that the leadership on both sides of the aisle, at least in this body, can and would like to do better. I have no doubt that my good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, if not constrained by some Members of his own party, mostly in the other body, would develop a more responsible, more bipartisan budget. As a Democrat who supported both the original Senate budget resolution last May and the continuing resolution last night that committed us to a balanced budget by 2002, using CBO numbers, which we may revisit shortly, I have always been ready to work with Presidents of both parties and in Congresses having both Democratic and Republican majorities on a bipartisan basis to solve the long-term fiscal challenges facing our Nation. Unfortunately, this year's budget process has evidenced more partisan politics and political expediency than fiscal responsibility. As my colleagues will recall, the original Senate budget resolution required us to enact legislation projected to actually balance the budget before we could proceed to consideration of a tax cut. When the resolution came back from the conference with the House, however, tax cuts had been added up front, and the deep spending reductions had been moved into the next century. The message that this budget reconciliation bill sends by maintaining this approach is that we should begin handing out new benefits today and count on future Congresses and future Presidents to make the most difficult choices to actually reach a balanced budget. It only increases the likelihood that the budget will become even more unbalanced, hardly a legacy we want to leave to our children and our grandchildren. That will not do anything to reassure the international financial markets, much less address the increasing cynicism our citizens feel toward our Government and its elected officials. In order to pay for a huge tax break, half of which would go to those making $100,000 a year, programs affecting health care for the elderly, the disabled and the poor, programs affecting the environment and education, programs affecting some of our most vulnerable citizens who will be cut more drastically than would otherwise be necessary is not fair. My message to my colleagues and the President today is that there is a better way to balance the budget, a way which I believe can be supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the President and the American people. That way is to postpone a large tax cut until we achieve balance and spread the burden of deficit reduction more fairly and evenly across the Federal budget. Only if we demonstrate to the American people that a plan is fair and equitable will we be able to maintain the road to balance. As the Virginia voters showed just 10 days ago, those who toil at the ideological extremes proceed at their own peril. It is true that the vast majority of the American people want to balance the Federal budget, as I do. But the events of the last few months reflect the fact that they want to do it in a way that reflects a broad consensus. Mr. President, I stand ready to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find that consensus. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. On behalf of the Democratic manager, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to announce how I will vote on the pending continuing resolution--and why. Earlier today I voted for the Democratic ``clean'' continuing resolution because I believe that is the appropriate way to authorize the continued operation of the government, even though I have long supported the 7-year commitment to balance the budget using CBO numbers. The Republican Majority opposed that amendment, and it was defeated, despite the fact that the lapse in agency spending authority was caused by the failure of Congress to pass the 13 appropriations bills on time. I also voted for the Democratic substitute which would have required a unified balanced budget in 7 years while assuring that Medicare and Medicaid would not be cut to pay for tax breaks and any tax cuts would go only to families making under $100,000. I supported this amendment even though I have said repeatedly that I do not believe we should pass any new tax cuts at all, no matter how well targeted, until we actually achieve a balanced budget. But that amendment met the same fate as the first Democratic substitute. I voted as I did on these Democratic substitutes because I could do so in good faith--and because I wanted to support the President and the minority leader. But the question before us now is whether to vote for or against a continuing resolution that would end this indefensible partial shutdown of the Federal Government, which has created unnecessary uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of blameless federal workers, generated hardship for countless Americans, disrupted many local [[Page S 17178]] economies, and further eroded confidence in our government and its leaders. I have always said that achieving fiscal discipline would present tough choices. And this vote presents one of these tough choices. I take the minority leader's opposition to this resolution and the President's expected veto very seriously. I would like to continue to support them tonight as I have on so many other occasions. But fiscal responsibility is at the very core of everything I have ever stood for as a public official. And the conditions attached to this pending resolution incorporate precisely the advice I have urged both privately and publicly. To be sure, it was Congress that precipitated this government shutdown by failing to pass appropriations bills on time. And it then exacerbated the problem by challenging the President of the United States, a President whom I know for a fact has been fully prepared to negotiate seriously on spending priorities for a long time. And none of this had to happen. Even though this situation could--and should--have been avoided, emotions are raw today. Too many American families have suffered needless disruption and uncertainty. Too many hardworking federal employees have been held hostage by our actions and denigrated as non- essential, which diminishes the value of their labor and their service to their county. So while I continue to support the position of the President and many of my Democratic colleagues that a ``clean'' resolution is the appropriate way to proceed, I cannot in good conscience vote against a measure that reflects the kind of fiscal restraint I believe is necessary and would end the protracted agony of so many of the people I represent.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it is with a sad heart that I offer a few final words today on behalf of Yitzhak Rabin--statesman, military war hero, peacemaker, and friend. His burial in Jerusalem on Monday casts a pall over Israel and the Middle East. The resilient people of Israel will overcome this tragedy, but his assassination reminds us of the extremist poisons that continue to threaten Yitzhak Rabin's dream--peace between Israel and the Arab world. I first met Yitzhak Rabin when he served as Ambassador to the United States beginning in 1968. It was one of many leadership posts he held in a long and distinguished career. From brigade commander in the 1948 war of independence to Army Chief of Staff during the historic 6-day success in the 1967 war to Ambassador and then Prime Minister on two different occasions, Yitzhak Rabin embodied the fighting, and now peacemaking, Jewish spirit. I had the good fortune of visiting with him many times over a period of three decades. Following the raid on Entebbe, he honored my mother- in-law, my wife, and me with a state dinner in Jerusalem in 1973. During visits to Israel since then, and on his trips to Washington, I continued to learn from Yitzhak Rabin's political wisdom and insights, as well as appreciate the difficulty of living in a world surrounded by declared adversaries. His was a [[Page S 16725]] voice of reason, forged by the fires of war and tempered these last few years by yearnings for peace. Because of my own military background, Yitzhak Rabin shared additional insights with me on the strength and force of Israeli defense forces and difficult combat environment they faced. I respected him enormously for the military prowess he demonstrated during his years of service and afterwards. His fighting skills in 1948 and 1967 earned him accolades as an authentic war hero. Most would agree that his military leadership was invaluable in securing the birth, and continuing security, of the Jewish State. But Yitzhak Rabin left the battlefield for the political trenches in the 1970's, initially implementing iron fist policies during his first term as Prime Minister that brooked no dissent from the enemies of Israel. Hostile states, terrorist organizations committed to the destruction of the Jewish State, and other inimical forces would not push Israel into the sea. After a stint as Defense Minister in the 1980's and then a Labor- Likud powersharing arrangement, Yitzhak Rabin returned to the Prime Minister's Office and began to lay the groundwork for comprehensive peace with the Palestinians and Arab Nations. It was not an easy decision to make, trading land for peace, but no one was more respected or qualified to lead Israel away from the bloodshed of its past to a more secure future. The 1993 Declaration of Principles has started us down that road. I will not forget the Prime Minister's words that sunny September morning 2 years ago on the White House lawn when the accord was signed. ``The time for peace has come,'' he said. ``We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood * * * say in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough.'' King Hussein appropriately eulogized Yitzhak Rabin as one who ``died as a soldier of peace.'' We can only hope that his assassination imbues the peace process, pushing implementation of the Oslo II agreement forward. In earlier times Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin espoused different views and styles within the same Labor Party tent, but in an ironic twist the two forged a personal alliance these last few years in the name of peace. I have high hopes for the Acting Prime Minister carrying forward with Rabin's good work. For if he were with us today, I think Yitzhak Rabin would urge us to finish the job he has begun. It only saddens me that this courageous leader did not live to enjoy the fruits of his own labor to create a better future for Israel.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Illinois. I will not make a full statement at this time. I will put one in the Record. Suffice it to say--I say this to my good friends on the other side of the aisle--this is where we ought to be going. This is a tough, fair, principled budget that reflects the kind of distribution that we ought to be looking toward if we are going to come up with a reasonable solution to the fiscal challenges that are facing the country today, and it does it without a $245 billion tax cut that we simply cannot afford and should not be giving under the circumstances. I am pleased to join my fiscally responsible colleagues in offering an alternative that I think meets the test that this country is looking for us to meet.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have long believed that it would take courage and wisdom to develop and implement a plan that would lead to a balanced budget. Without the courage to make tough choices and the wisdom to place budget policy above partisan politics, our ability to develop an equitable plan that can stand the test of time and public opinion is severely limited. While I give our Republican friends credit for bringing this package to the floor, I must say that a certain element of this plan does not reflect courage, wisdom or equity. A particular concern to me is the tax breaks which have been included in the bill. Mr. President, it does not take courage to cut taxes. That is one of the easiest votes a legislator can cast. What takes courage is to revisit politically popular tax cuts at a time we have a nearly $5 trillion debt, and even a unified balanced budget is at least 7 years away if we get there at all. And for all the talk about fiscal responsibility recently, how can we endorse a $245 billion tax cut that makes balancing the budget much more difficult and adds to the debt over the next 7 years? Mr. President, I was one of three Democrats who supported the original Senate budget resolution this year because I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to make tough choices that are necessary to balance the budget. Unfortunately, during the budget resolution conference between the House and the Senate, fiscal responsibility gave way to political expediency as tax breaks were added up front and the deep spending reductions moved into the next century. Were these particular changes wise? In my judgment, absolutely not. I think most in this Chamber would agree we should not be cutting taxes until we prove capable of carrying out these spending reductions and actually balance the budget. If we get further down the road and decide spending reductions, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, in this plan are politically unsustainable, I fear, Mr. President, that we will abandon the spending cuts and leave the tax cuts in place at a time when their cost will begin to explode. And as we have seen before, the end result will be we will simply be further away from a balanced budget. The last point I would like to address is equity. Including the tax cut in this plan is not equitable. At a time when we are asking the American public to sacrifice by restraining the growth of programs which benefit low- and-moderate-income individuals, how can we, in good conscience, adopt a tax cut which, according to the Treasury Department estimates, will disproportionately benefit upper-income Americans? I simply cannot agree. Including $245 billion in tax cuts in this budget package is not courageous, it is not wise, and it not equitable. I would implore my colleagues to reject the proposition that we should have tax cuts before we have a balanced budget. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair. your're right mr. president, you raised taxes too much!

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I recognize the city of Jerusalem as the united, undivided, eternal, and sovereign capital of Israel, and where the United States Embassy is located should reflect that reality. While some have urged caution about relocating our mission in the midst of the peace process, it is my sense that such a move, as envisioned by the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, will not create a detour on the road to achieving a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Jerusalem stands today as an international city, where the rights of all ethnic religious groups are protected and freedom of worship is guaranteed. Diverse religious faiths coexist peacefully. This week we are seeing a hopeful spirit of internationalism expressed by many world leaders celebrating the founding of the United Nations 50 years ago. Like the community of nations joining together in support of the United Nations many religious faiths and sects engender a collective spirit of interdenominational harmony in Jerusalem. Madam President, Prime Minister Rabin has told the Israeli people that ``I assure you that Jerusalem will remain united under Israel's sovereignty, and our capital forever.'' That expression leads me to the conclusion that the final status talks on the city should not focus on issues of overall sovereignty. Rather, making permanent each denomination's jurisdiction over its respective holy sites and collateral issues of autonomy should be the subject of the negotiations next year. Even President Clinton has stated that ``I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the capital of Israel--whatever the outcome of the negotiations, Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city, accessible to all.'' That statement represents a consensus that our Embassy belongs in the functional capital of Israel. Among the 184 countries we maintain diplomatic relations with, Israel is the single exception to the rule of locating [[Page S 15523]] the United States chancery in the designated capital of each foreign nation. We have a responsibility to respect the decisions of where all countries locate their seat of government, and Israel should not be viewed in a different light. Thus far in the peace talks, Israel has sacrificed the tangible-- land--for the intangible--the security of its people. As we continue down the road of peace, Israel will cede valuable territory, natural resources, and political authority, while Palestinians will enjoy broader political and economic freedoms. There are no long-term guarantees for Israel. A single Hamas-sponsored terrorist attack can disrupt any sense of peace achieved at the negotiating table. Madam President, that is why I endorse this move to demonstrate our long-term commitment to having our Embassy in Jerusalem which will symbolize the united and undivided character of this city. Such a move will not stand in the way of achieving a comprehensive peace. It will simply lay to rest doubts about the U.S. position on the status of our Embassy. I also support the modified substitute offered by the majority leader last night that includes compromise language providing the President a national security interests waiver. I think it is appropriate that the President should be given the authority to waive the legislation if it would have dire consequences on the peace process. Madam President, I joined as a cosponsor of this legislation some time ago, and believe it sends the right message at the right time to Israel. It is our decision alone to move the Embassy. With upcoming ceremonies in the rotunda of the Capitol celebrating the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I believe we will be serving the interests of peace in the Middle East by passing this legislation. So I urge my colleagues to support this effort to relocate our Embassy to the capital of the Jewish homeland.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about an important new PBS series entitled ``The American Promise'', which will premiere on October l, 2, and 3. ``The American Promise'' celebrates community based-democracy--the individual works of countless citizens throughout America who work every day to make their communities stronger and more vital. There is no question that our actions in this Capitol represent democracy's most visible work. It is the facet of democracy most studied in classrooms and most reported nationally by the media. But our legislative world, Mr. President, has increasingly, in my judgment, become a world of partisanship and competition. The focus too often turns to who wins and who loses rather than how we can work together to reach a positive goal. I believe this partisanship is making many of our citizens more frustrated and cynical. So we can not forget that our work in Washington is but one form of American democracy--and that American democracy is larger and more diverse than the business conducted here in this Capitol. In communities throughout our Nation, in ways both large and small, citizens decide every day to become a valuable part of the democratic process. They do this by joining an organization; by bringing others together to improve or expand an existing service; by asking how a practice that does not work can be changed; by engaging in a civil and respectful debate; by considering another viewpoint; or by taking responsibility to make a hard decision which will make a community better. When this happens, Mr. President, everybody in the community wins. When a community development bank is opened where none existed before, when individuals cooperate so that dry land can be irrigated, score keeping becomes irrelevant. Through action and energy, participation and deliberation, taking responsibility and seeking common ground, American democracy comes to life. ``The American Promise'', a new PBS television series, reminds us of the community-based democracy that is alive and well beyond this Capitol. And in doing so, it both strengthens our faith in our democracy and teaches our citizens how they can personally be a part of the democratic process in their own communities. And because ``The American Promise'' will be made available to high school and junior high school classes through the United States, young Americans will be able to have it as they study civics and government. In roughly fifty story segments taken from every region of the county, lessons are offered on the skills and values needed to bring our democracy to life. These vignettes illustrate core American values such as freedom, responsibility, opportunity, participation, and deliberation. Each 3 hour segment contains select historical reenactments, which serve to establish important contexts through which the remaining vignettes take on new meaning. The first of these reenactments, which appears the beginning of the documentary, is set in l769, in the streets of Williamsburg, VA. We watch as a young Thomas Jefferson, along with Patrick Henry, Colonel [[Page S 14561]] George Washington, Peyton Randolph, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and others, take the first steps toward freedom. In the House of Burgesses, on the streets of Colonial Williamsburg, in a local tavern, the group draws up Virginia's plans to boycott English goods. We hear Washington's words, ``How far their attention to our rights and privileges is to be awakened or alarmed by starving their trade and manufacturers remains to be tried.'' The viewers of ``The American Promise'' see our Founding Fathers starting a rebellion that will gather strength for 7 more years before the Declaration of Independence is written. Although we sometimes think of our freedoms as a Nation being won at Concord, Bunker Hill or Yorktown, these freedoms were also the result of years of meetings and debate and consensus building. This serves as a true reminder of the communal instincts that helped create our great Nation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and viewers across the Nation to watch this important program. ``The American Promise'' reminds us what is right about America--and challenges us all to be good citizens always working to make our Nation stronger and greater.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland which restores $425 million to AmeriCorps. Let me begin by saying that if the Senate is interested in engaging in a productive debate on the accomplishments of AmeriCorps--and on real suggestions for improving the program --I would welcome that debate. Very few programs managed by government at any level couldn't be made better, and wouldn't benefit from an ongoing public review. The amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland both saves AmeriCorps and, in my judgement, improves it. And AmeriCorps is worth saving, Mr. President. It is worth saving because, as the General Accounting Office stated in its August l995 report, ``at the grantees' sites we visited, we found that the projects had been designed to strengthen communities, develop civic responsibility, and expand educational opportunities for program participants.'' How do we identify the catalysts for vesting our people in our Nation? How can we encourage our children to feel an obligation and a responsibility to contribute to the strength and security of America throughout their lives? Military service is one way. And civilian national service is another. What does America get from a single individual's intense and all encompassing period of service? Is it possible that those who work for a year to combat illiteracy will be forever committed to a good education for each child in the city or town in which they live? Is it possible that those who work for a year to fight poverty will remember forever the importance of opportunity? Is it possible that those who work for a year to hold together a crumbling neighborhood will never forget the responsibility of every man and woman to build and to sustain? It is my hope that national service will be a catalyst for a lifetime of community service. It is my hope that experiencing the tangible results of strengthening and teaching will convince our people that citizenship has value, that individuals who roll up their sleeves and enter the fray can personally make something richer and stronger. With every national service slot we fund, Mr. President, we give another American an intense, all encompassing, opportunity to serve. And by investing in them, we gamble that they will then invest in us. I am willing to take that gamble, Mr. President. I am willing to reach for something to help fight this giant malaise that seems to permeate so many of [[Page S 14260]] our citizens. I am willing to grab a tiny particle of idealism and see how far we can take it. I am willing to work to make AmeriCorps better, Mr. President. And I am willing to oppose any attempt to eliminate its funding. Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.'' In national service, Mr. President, we allow our citizens to give. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Children's Fair Share Amendment, which has been offered by my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham. As we debate ways to reform our welfare system, we should constantly remind ourselves that what we have before us is more than just words and rhetoric, more than just political points to score, more than just sound bites for the next town meeting. What we have before us in reality, Mr. President, is the quality of life of the children who live in poverty in United States of America. These children did not make any mistakes, Mr. President. They did not lose a job or miss a house payment or have their marriage crumble around them. By and large, they do not have the capacity to fix the economic problems their families struggle with each day--even if they wanted to and tried. They were just born poor--or their families became poor. And they are our future, Mr. President. This amendment is a valuable addition to this debate because it is based on a simple premise which I believe is fair and unassailable. It takes the money we have decided as a nation to spend on poverty programs and it allocates that money to our fifty states based on where poor children actually live. The only variations from this premise is the inclusion of a small state minimum allocation, and the inclusion of a 50-percent annual transition period. Otherwise, our Federal dollars go to where poor children live. Funding allocations are updated annually and based on census data reflecting the 3 previous years numbers of children living in poverty. Mr. President, without this amendment, block grants are frozen in the underlying bill at fiscal year 1994 funding levels. While this advantages high benefit, low growth States, it severely disadvantages low-benefit, high-growth States, like Virginia. I am extremely concerned that the supplemental funding included in the bill, while helpful, will simply not be enough to enable my fast-growing State to responsibly meet the needs of our most vulnerable children. I served as Governor of Virginia, between January, l982 and January l986. [[Page S 13537]] During that time, the Commonwealth increased its AFDC benefit twice-- once in l984 and once in l985--and it has not increased its AFDC benefit since. Between l970 and l994, Virginia's AFDC benefit lost 58 percent in value when adjusted for inflation. To me, locking in enormous funding disparities between States is bad public policy. It disadvantages poor children in many States, Mr. President, children who deserve a better quality of life, children who should expect to receive one from this Congress. Mr. President, we can argue welfare reform on ideological grounds. We can argue over how much money we should spend. But Mr. President, when we argue about where that money should go, that is an easy one. It should go to the children. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the extraordinary accomplishments of Cal Ripken, Jr. As we all know, last night at Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Cal Ripken broke a record that was once considered unbreakable. From 1982 until today, the one constant in the ever-changing world of baseball has been the presence of No. 8 in the Baltimore Orioles line- up. In an era where job insecurities increasingly permeate our society, Cal Ripken's breaking of Lou Gehrig's long-standing record while playing for the same team during the entire streak, seems even more remarkable. Without a doubt, this new record has reinvigorated American's interest in baseball. And the fact that the record-holder is such a solid, decent, and humble man adds extra luster to this unprecedented achievement. While this record is an extraordinary testament to Cal Ripken's dedication to the game of baseball, his actions during the closing days of this streak are even more telling. In the early morning of September 6, 1995, as Cal stood poised on the edge of baseball immortality, he accompanied his daughter Rachel to her first day of school. And when asked which event held more significance--the breaking of Lou Gehrig's record or his daughter's first day of school--Cal responded that in his house, Rachel's first day of school was undoubtedly the most important occasion. I congratulate Cal Ripken, his wife Kelly, daughter Rachel, and son Ryan. Cal Ripken has made Americans remember why baseball is our national pastime--and how much true heroes mean to us.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that I be recognized for 12 minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. ROBB. I ask that I be recognized until such time as the leaders come to reclaim the time under the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Work First plan offered by our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation because I believe it both establishes firm boundaries to combat welfare dependency and provides beneficiaries with genuine economic opportunity. George Bernard Shaw once said, ``The greatest of our evils and the worst of our crimes is poverty.'' And it is unconscionable, Mr. President, that in America today we have nearly l6 million children living in poverty. In l993, almost 30 percent of all children under age 3 lived in poverty and almost 50 percent of all African-American children were poor. Between l989 and l993, the number of children receiving food stamps increased more than 50 percent and in l994 25 percent of our Nation's homeless were children under 18. For the world's greatest democracy (where the value and the freedoms inherent in each individual citizen are unparalleled anywhere on earth) these statistics portray both a moral dilemma and an economic burden of enormous consequence. We have not only an obligation to improve the quality of life of generations of innocent children shadowed by poverty, but also a responsibility to our taxpayers to both improve our welfare system and to reduce the billions of dollars in lost productivity incurred each year as a result of current poverty levels. Mr. President, there are infrequent moments in time where constructive and meaningful solutions can be found to otherwise intractable problems. I honestly believe we have before us such a moment, and I hope we do not let this opportunity slip from our grasp. At a minimum, we do not want to let politics, or public opinion polls, or fears of 30-second sound bites on the evening news prevent us from doing what is right. And to do what is right, Mr. President, we have to rethink our Nation's social policy. We have to restructure our welfare system to foster greater upward mobility, to reconnect the poor to the mainstream job market, to reward self-discipline and hard work, to encourage families to stay together, and to restore to the poor and the dispossessed both the benefits and the obligations of citizenship. I believe the Work First plan meets those objectives. With a 2-year time limit on benefits for adults--and a 5-year lifetime limit--this bill transforms welfare into the short-term safety net it was meant to be. It contains the funding necessary to allow an individual to both sustain a family in the short-term and secure and keep a job in the longer term. That is the definition of real welfare reform, Mr. President. In reality, single mothers need child care to work, and the Work First plan guarantees that child care. In reality, families need extended Medicaid coverage to bridge the gap created by entry-level jobs with little or no benefits--and the Work First plan makes Medicaid available for an additional 12 months. By addressing the practical obstacles to independence which so many poor families encounter today, the Work First plan provides incentives to shatter current barriers and allow individuals to move up the economic ladder. And very importantly, Mr. President, those who cannot find a private sector job under the Work First plan are put to work as well, either through workfare or community service. In fact, within 7 years of enactment, nonexempt individuals are required to participate in community service jobs just 6 months after joining the welfare rolls. Two years ago, Mr. President, I joined our former colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Boren, in supporting legislation similar to the old Works Progress Act, which placed into public service jobs AFDC recipients who had completed the JOBS Program and still remained unemployed. Requiring that those individuals work for their benefits appeals to my sense of what the shared contract between a society and its people should encompass. Only by providing useful work--and the values and discipline associated with work--can we offer the poor and the disadvantaged a permanent way out of poverty. I believe everyone benefits from the sense of self-worth that earning wages and contributing to his or her community engenders. When we require beneficiaries to work we give them job experience-- job experience that can open doors and bridge the gap between dependency and genuine economic opportunity. The Work First plan is tough medicine, Mr. President, but I believe it establishes a pragmatic, compassionate process to lift many of our poor citizens out of poverty and into the economic mainstream. And while I believe the Work First plan moves us firmly in the right direction, I have some serious concerns about the alternative plan offered by the Majority Leader. First, it guarantees neither adequate child care nor extended health benefits. How can we require poor women to go to work without ensuring that their young children are watched over and protected? Second, CBO estimates that States will need to collectively spend an additional $5 billion by the year 2000--$5 billion above what they are paying now--to meet the work requirements in the alternative bill. Where will States get that $5 billion, Mr. President, if federal block grants are frozen for 5 years at current levels? And what is more vitally important to successfully improving our welfare system than effectively moving people into jobs? Finally, Mr. President, I am concerned that the alternative bill fails to require States to continue to contribute their historic share. As a former Governor, I know that reduced State support could mean financial disaster for many cities and counties. On June l5, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the Senate Finance Committee bill and endorsing the Work First plan, stating that it would ``provide significantly greater assistance--to facilitate the transition from welfare to work.'' The transition from welfare to work--that is our goal. That is the purpose, the spirit, the driving force behind the Work First plan. Mr. President, every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more child in America moves out of poverty. Every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more child in America sees their role model go to work in the morning, earn a salary, pay their bills, believe a little more in their own ability and their self-worth, and live in a world that is infinitely stronger because they contribute to it. And every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more child in America escapes from what could become a cycle of dependency and hopelessness that is inherently unAmerican--and for which we have an obligation today to begin to break. The moment, Mr. President, is before us. We have an opportunity-- indeed, a responsibility--to help many of our most vulnerable people better attain the priceless gift of economic freedom. And we will make our country stronger in the future. This does not have to be a partisan battle, Mr. President. Rather, it should be a bipartisan effort to identify tough, effective solutions. As Franklin Roosevelt said during his second inaugural address, ``In every land there are always at work forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are individuals. But in our seeking for economic and political [[Page S 12789]] progress as a Nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people * * *.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together in support of the Work First amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment No. 2440 to the DOD authorization bill which has been accepted as part of the managers' package. I want to thank the managers, and in particular, my distinguished senior colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his effort in clearing that on his side of the aisle. I will take just a moment, if I may, during the time that no other amendments are pending or about to be offered, to describe the amendment. I believe that this amendment can play an important role in reshaping and improving the efficiency of our military infrastructure. We all agree that Congress must continue to maintain the highest degree of military readiness in order to fulfill the constitutional direction to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, we need to be much smarter in the way in which we fund the establishment that supports our national defense. This year's Defense authorization process has shown us, once again, that the forces and weapons we require are rapidly becoming unaffordable. We have to seek new and innovative ways to conduct our defense business. We must give visionary and far-reaching tools to the military and civilian leaders in DOD to let them continue to transform and remake a military for the next century. The recently completed BRAC Commission, the White Commission and numerous GAO and other studies have consistently shown that our military infrastructure is simply too large. We have completed three exhausting BRAC rounds and have accomplished much--but our work is not yet complete. Both the 1995 BRAC Report to the President and the recently completed White Commission on Roles and Missions in the Military concluded that further efforts in privatization can achieve significant savings and should be aggressively pursued. Mr. President, I strongly agree with these conclusions and am firmly convinced that a key element in reshaping our military establishment must be the active exploration of further privatization opportunities for appropriate defense functions. In the near future, I intend to introduce legislation which will provide the Department of Defense with the tools it will require to implement the proposals made by the White Commission. In the meantime, my amendment will give us an opportunity to move forward in exploring privatization opportunities now. Mr. President, it seems to me that a detailed examination of the operation of our various, non-combat military air fleets offers the quickest and most efficient way to begin the exploration of using private sources to reduce unnecessary infrastructure and associated costs. We maintain a variety of military aircraft for diverse functions, including: VIP airlift, transport, logistics, aerial refueling, target services, and scientific research. Several recent studies have reported that, in many cases, these air capabilities exist well above and beyond that required to meet realistic ``wartime needs.'' In the gulf war, for example, the existing size of the operational support aircraft fleet was 10 times the amount actually used. My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive and detailed study to examine ``privatizing options'' with respect to the specialized, non-combat military air fleets. I want the DOD to focus on the feasibility of using private sources to replace many of the administrative or support functions now being performed, mostly within the continental United States, by military versions of commercial aircraft models. The distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has highlighted the tremendous potential for the foolish and unnecessary use of OSA aircraft for purposes which could and should have been accomplished, at a much lower cost, using commercial means. I support his efforts to reduce unneeded capability in this area of military aircraft. Mr. President, the OSA fleet represents only part of the many functions now being performed by ``military'' aircraft. I believe many of these functions can be done cheaper, through private means, while at the same time increasing overall military efficiency. Paying for air services on a ``per flight hour'' basis (only when requirements exist that cannot be met by commercial airlines) gives us an opportunity to capture tremendous savings by cutting the personnel, maintenance, and infrastructure required to support these specialized fleets. Additionally, I believe that the privatization of these functions, (especially with respect to VIP aircraft) will dramatically reduce instances of abuse of the system. Naturally, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently cut a capability which could adversely affect our ability to conduct wartime or other emergent operations. We must also maintain the ability to retain training opportunities for the [[Page S 12555]] aircrews who will be required to provide support in ``combat operations.'' On the other hand, we will never know exactly how much we can cut until we conduct an in-depth study of the ``non combat air operations'' presently conducted by the military. My amendment will require examination of the realistic wartime requirements economic assumptions in conducting a cost benefit analysis, and the impact on force structure and personnel which ``privatization'' would produce. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I intend to introduce legislation which would form a Privatization and Cross-Servicing Commission which will look at options for using private sources in several areas of existing military operations. This legislation will also examine improving efficiencies by combining like functions within the individual services. By aggressively pursuing the recommendations made in recent studies, we can save billions in defense dollars without the massive unemployment that creates economic hardship for loyal Federal employees and service personnel. My amendment can give us many of the answers we in Congress need to craft the tools to further improve efficiency in the military services. Mr. President, I again thank the managers of this particular bill for accepting this amendment on both sides. I look forward to working with them on this and other amendments as we continue to try to provide ways to meet our defense needs and defense obligations in ways that respect the limited resources of the taxpayers. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would say to the chairman that it has come to my attention that the House report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Defense appropriations bill includes language which directs the Secretary of Defense to enter into a 5-year sole-source contract for the establishment of a single, consolidated National Electronic Commerce Resource Center. Under the current program structure, two nonprofit organizations act as system integrators to coordinate activities at the various Electronic Commerce Resource Centers located across the country.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if the chairman will allow me, I would like to engage him in a brief colloquy concerning the Electronic Commerce Resource Center Program.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would say to the chairman that, as he knows, the current ECRC program is working well and has enabled the development of successful programs to transfer electronic commerce [EC] and electronic data interchange [EDI] technologies and processes to small and medium-sized enterprises. In the first quarter of 1995, for example, the network trained over 4,000 business personnel and 1,300 government personnel and provided services to approximately 1,800 business and Department of Defense clients. Based on industry standards for training and consulting services, it is estimated that this program has saved U.S. businesses over $6 million during the first quarter of 1995 alone. Mr. President, I am concerned about the House effort, on a sole- source basis, to alter the management and reporting relations that have successfully served this program. While a single, consolidated National Electronic Commerce Resource Center is needed to coordinate the program's activities, such a center should be established on a competitive basis, not sole-sourced. Competition will ensure that the interests of both the Department of Defense and the American taxpayer are best served. As the chairman knows, I have an amendment I was planning to offer that would require full and open competition in the establishment of a National Electronic Commerce Resource Center. I will not offer that amendment on this bill, but I would like to seek some assurances from the chairman that this issue will be revisited when the Defense appropriations bill goes to conference.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I appreciate those assurances from the chairman and thank him for his consideration. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to fix, in part, a longstanding procedural contest between the executive and legislative branches. Each year, the administration sends over a budget request for the Department of Defense which includes funding for the National Guard and Reserves. Typically this budget includes a robust request for reserve personnel and O&M funding. But two accounts are invariably unfunded, or underfunded. They are the procurement account, which ensures our reserve forces have modern weaponry and equipment, and military construction, which provides the buildings and other infrastructure needed by the Reserves. With one exception in the last 10 years, the administration's request has failed to include any funding for National Guard and Reserve weapons or equipment. In the last 5 years, Reserve construction has been underfunded in the request, typically by several hundred million dollars each year. The result is that the Congress must add the necessary funding and this leads to several complications., First, the Congress must add back funding that must be taken out of other requested defense programs, or increase the total defense authorization level above the request to accommodate the Reserves. Second, the Congress must determine specifically what the Reserves need in terms of equipment and construction, and how much these additions will cost. In the last several years, the Congress has in fact not specified exactly what equipment should be procured, but rather authorized a generic pot of money for each of the Reserve components and left the decision on how specifically to spend the money to the Department of Defense and the Guard and Reserves. This begs the question as to how the Congress came up with its reserve equipment dollar allocations. This year, the Armed Services Committee decided to specify what equipment to procure, rather than leaving it up to the Department of Defense. Although this process involved extensive collaboration with the Guard and Reserves and the Department of Defense, it makes little sense that the Congress must initiate this process absent an administration recommendation. Without initial Department of Defense guidance, the Congress becomes vulnerable to catering to Member- interest items. More fundamentally, it is imprudent for the Department of Defense to ignore all Reserve equipment and many Reserve construction requirements during its regular budget preparations. How can our military be optimally structured if the Guard and Reserves are treated as mere afterthoughts in the budgeting process? Since the Congress cannot require the executive to submit a Reserve budget recommendation at a set level, the bill before us has a useful provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, concurrently with the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization request, that details actions taken by the Department of Defense to enhance the Guard and Reserves during the previous fiscal year. The provision also requires the Secretary to submit a details listing on how the department will spend its fiscal year 1997 Reserve equipment and construction requests. Because the administration can still choose to make a request of zero--or one that is far too low--this provision still will not necessarily fix the problem. The amendment I offer today will do much to alleviate this problem, Mr. President. It requires the Secretary of Defense to include a listing or report, in addition to the one already required in the bill, that assumes a serious equipment and construction request level. In my amendment, the fiscal year 1996 Armed Services Committee authorization request level for Reserve equipment and construction of $1,080,000,000 is used, but any comparable sum will do the job. In other words, if the fiscal year 1997 Reserve equipment and construction requests are lower than $1,080,000,000, the Secretary of Defense must provide the Congress with a report detailing how it specifically would allocate funding for equipment and construction assuming that it would have this amount to spend. The amendment accomplishes several things. It gives the Congress a foundation to work from in determining a rational topline for the Reserves. The Congress could decide on a significantly lower or higher amount, but at least it would have guidance from the Department of Defense on the Department's Reserve priorities should the Department again decide to deliberately underfund the Guard and Reserve. It forces the Department of Defense to fully address Guard and Reserve funding while Active Force budgets are under preparation. It reduces temptations by Congress to distort Reserve accounts with Member- interest items. Finally, it helps put the Reserves on equal footing with the Active Forces, rather than giving them the leftovers from budgeting for the active components. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable on both sides, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Would the Senator agree that if a more robust funding level for AIP grant funding was possible that these priorities would have been established?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would pose a question for the distinguished Chairman of the Committee. Would the Senator agree that airports which serve communities with a large number of displaced aerospace workers from defense base closures ought to be given a priority in the receipt of airport improvement grants which would encourage and promote commercial development, through the expansion of taxiways and aircraft parking ramps, which could employ a significant amount of displaced workers?

Mr. ROBB. I thank the distinguished Senate.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment to support authorizing the Troops-to-Teachers Program. This program is a vital transition benefit for service members leaving the military because of downsizing. In 1993, the Congress authorized this innovative program which benefits both departing service members and school systems across our country which are having difficulty attracting quality teachers. Troops-to-Teachers has two parts. First, it provides financial assistance to service members to help them get the certification necessary to work as a teacher or teacher's aide. Second, it provides funds over a 5-year time frame to school systems that hire program graduates to defray the individual's [[Page S 11310]] salary costs in decreasing increments. This allows the school system the time to find the means of paying for that teacher's salary. The statistics back up the value of the Troops-to-Teachers Program. Over 8,000 individuals have applied to the program; Over 800 individuals are currently undergoing certification training in 45 states; Over 300 individuals have been hired so far in 35 States; 150 school districts nationwide are employing participants in this program. Clearly this program is a winner for all involved, both the men and women who have served their country and our children who are going to benefit from not just their teaching abilities, but their service as role models. I strongly support efforts to make sure that this program continues.