Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for offering this amendment. I join with others that have already spoken on this particular amendment in support. I particularly want to commend our Republican colleagues, because this is a situation where it might be in their interest to take a little different course of action. During the time when we had a Republican President and a Democratic majority in the Congress, I took the same position that I do now. I sometimes kidded colleagues on this side of the aisle suggesting that if we were to give this particular request to the then-Republican President of the United States, it might not be a gift that was enjoyed to the extent that remarks might have suggested it would be. In this particular case, it puts the burden directly on the President to make some of the very difficult decisions that Members of the legislature frequently want to find a way not to have to make. So I strongly encourage colleagues to vote in support of this. And I encourage those in the other body to encourage the Speaker to make those appointments so we can get on with the business. It does not make sense to suggest that it is an amendment that only makes sense if you have a certain majority and a certain party in the Presidency. And I hope that very shortly the Speaker will find time to make these appointments. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. At the outset, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, as we watch the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina wither under Serbian attack, we are faced with a very difficult choice: Stay the course with the U.N. and allied forces on the ground in the hope of limiting the bloodshed and containing fighting as best we can, or breaking with the current policy and letting the Bosnian Army defend itself. I am troubled by the fact that we treat Bosnia and Herzegovina as a barren wasteland, not as a country. We have slipped so far into a policy of sustaining and occupying U.N. force in the Balkans for the sake of rebuffing Serbian aggression that we shut aside the views and aspirations of Bosnian Government officials, Prime Minister Silajdic among them. Madam President, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a living, breathing country, represented in Washington, at the United Nations and around the world. We should respect and listen to the views of its officials and not ignore them. Like many of our colleagues, I met recently with the Prime Minister, and he angrily intoned that our policy of militarily straitjacketing his forces made us complicit in the Serbian slaughter of the Bosnian people. While I took very strong issue with his point that we were serving as a partner in genocidal crime, his message was unmistakable: We and the international community are standing in the way of a free and independent country seeking to fight for its very survival on its own territory and terms. I understand those who caution us about the consequences of letting weapons flow to the Bosnian Government forces. They argue that a lift- and-strike policy does not consider the battlefield incineration that might follow. But I believe that we should leave these decisions in the hands of Prime Minister Silajdic and other Bosnian leaders. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, like Serbia, Croatia, and any other sovereign nation, should be allowed to exercise its right of self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and our policies should not interfere with that fundamental authority. There are no painless options before us. Ultimately, there are substantial risks, and we have to be prepared to assume some of them. With no peace to keep in the former Yugoslavia, however, I believe a policy of simply muddling through is a prescription for failure. It extends the war indefinitely and provides no hope or answers to the Bosnian people on how the community of nations intends to help defer Serbian aggression. I advocated pushing our allies much harder earlier to change course, but they have clung to a policy of defending the status quo. As the situation on the ground has worsened, we have failed to respond decisively in any way. Given that bleak outlook, I have consistently supported an approach in the past that allows the Bosnian Government to defend its people and territory. We have voted on seven separate occasions on the arms embargo question and, in each instance, I have supported giving the Bosnian Army the military capability to defend itself. And I will support legislation again tonight that I believe provides the only real chance for eventually establishing a permanent and lasting peace in the Balkans, and that is by lifting the arms embargo. I should note, however, that while I share the goals of what is likely to be a majority of my colleagues regarding the lifting of the embargo, I am deeply troubled by the invasive means by which we encroach on Presidential authority. On war and peace issues, I have long advocated placing our trust and support in the hands of our Commander in Chief. This legislation, admittedly, challenges Presidential authority outright and sets a bad precedent for our intervention in executive branch prerogatives. But we have been urging this course of action literally for years now, and yet the genocidal slaughter continues. Madam President, I feel Congress ought to exercise its oversight on matters of national security with great caution and be particularly sensitive to actions that might have the effect of micromanaging foreign policy or usurping the President's constitutional responsibilities. I have tried to support Presidents of both parties on defense and foreign policy decisions, and I want to continue to do so in the future. Serbian atrocities, beyond the pale, however, force the Senate to act today. Ethnic cleansing, gang rapes, hostage-taking of noncombatant peacekeepers, and pillaging the eastern enclaves of Bosnia, demand an unequivocal United States response. In that case, it is lifting the arms embargo. An affirmative policy of lift and strike will clarify to Serb marauders that their military campaign is ultimately a futile one and that a negotiated settlement is the only way out. For now, Serb gunners and soldiers have no incentive to lay down their arms. They brazenly march ahead. Srebrenica last week, and then Zepa, Bihac today, and Gorazde tomorrow, fighting a defenseless enemy. Bosnian Government soldiers, lacking the wherewithal to fight back, retreat and scatter. UNPROFOR stands as an idle force nearby, if anything, helping Belgrade's aspiration for achieving a greater Serbia. While UNPROFOR certainly deserves credit for supporting humanitarian missions, the war-torn Balkans, separating the combatants and attempting to deter atrocities, I do not see how the international community can afford to keep peacekeepers in a region where there is no peace. The role of UNPROFOR has gone from keeping the peace to regulating the war. It is time for a change. Secretaries Christopher and Perry, for whom I have enormous personal respect, visited us again today and said now is not the right time to unilaterally lift the embargo. [[Page S 10634]] Time is running out on the Bosnia people. If not now, when? The escalation of events these last few days with Bihac under attack today, underscores 3 years of failure to achieve a peaceful settlement. Madam President, this civil war, in my view, must ultimately be resolved by the different groups within the former Yugoslavia. We should conduct a policy that provides the greatest incentive for both sides to peacefully negotiate their differences at the bargaining table. To wit, I believe the United States should first press our allies for the expeditious withdrawal of UNPROFOR; second, lift the arms embargo multilaterally, if possible, unilaterally, if we must; third, continue to isolate the Bosnian Serbs politically and economically; fourth, not harbor any illusions about the consequences of lifting the embargo. We cannot duck the question of whether United States forces--up to 25,000, in some scenarios--will be required near and in Bosnia to help extract UNPROFOR. President Clinton has pledged to support UNPROFOR's emergency extraction. In my judgment, this is the right thing to do. We ought to go on record supporting him in this regard. In that regard, I certainly support the Senator from Georgia. With emergency extraction, however, come risks. Both the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Government forces could choose to interdict the UNPROFOR withdrawal. Given the narrow and fragile transportation routes in Bosnia, either side could do much to accomplish this goal. Closer examination suggests that neither side has a compelling incentive to prevent UNPROFOR's withdrawal by force. The Bosnian Government would be loathe to attack its potential supporters, and although the Bosnian Serbs are benefiting immensely from UNPROFOR's indecisiveness, they would have no rational reason to delay UNPROFOR's departure. We must accept, however, that lifting the embargo will not and can not mean the end of United States involvement. The Bosnian Government will request that the U.S. provide airstrikes to stem a Bosnia Serb advance. It is reasonable to expect that the United States will need to continue the equivalent of Deny Flight to keep the skies free of Bosnian Serb air power. The United States may have to take an active role in supplying the Bosnian Government with arms and equipment, intelligence, and training, and the United States will have to supply extensive humanitarian assistance by airdrops and other means to compensate for the departure of the humanitarian assistance personnel. The Balkans conflagration may well get worse before it gets better, implementing a lift and strike plan, but it is going to end sooner due to it, and it will save many innocent victims in the long run. These, Madam President, are not attractive options. There are no attractive options before the Senate. Accordingly, Madam President, I believe that the United States should lead by example and not be deterred by protestations from our allies on lifting the embargo unilaterally if they choose not to join us. The time has come to give the Bosnian Government a fighting chance. I hope the Senate will send that message in resounding fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Georgia. I would like to have the opportunity to seek recognition at the conclusion of his remarks.

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. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly. As most of our fellow Senators know, I believe it is critical that this Nation become more fiscally responsible. Accordingly, I joined Senators Sam Nunn and Bob Kerrey in voting for the original Senate budget resolution last month, even though I disagreed with many of the underlying priorities and was fundamentally opposed to any possibility of any tax cut before true balance is actually reached. I did so because I thought it represented a commitment to serious deficit reduction and deserved bipartisan support. I wanted very much to be able to vote for the conference report we are now considering for the same reasons. But I cannot vote for the conference report, Mr. President, because the conferees insisted on changes I simply cannot support in good conscience. I differ with many of our colleagues because I believe it is essential that we make some very difficult but necessary cuts in our projected spending, and I am willing to take the heat with those who have the fortitude to make them. In fact, when President Clinton was kind enough to ask me recently for advice regarding his role in the current budget process, I not only urged him to reenter the debate with his own revised proposal, but I also urged him to stick to the 7-year goal the Congress had already established and to abandon his own more modest and better targeted tax cut, because I thought it was paramount that the progress he had begun on deficit reduction in 1993 be continued. There is no question that his 10-year plan is fairer and more practical than the one we will vote on today, although I wish he had stuck to CBO figures. Mr. President, if this conference report better reflected the priorities of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I would still be prepared to support it, and I believe my colleagues, Senator Nunn and Senator Kerrey, would as well. Instead, however, as compared with the resolution we passed last month, the conference report we vote on today is less fiscally responsible in every way. Compared to the original Senate resolution, this resolution increases the deficit every single year before the year 2002. It increases the national debt. It postpones most of the politically difficult decisions until we are so far down the road that we will not be credible, and it places the burden primarily on those least able to bear it, all to provide a tax cut that would disproportionately benefit those with incomes well above the national average. Then, to add insult to injury, it is now structured in such a way that the tax cut can be guaranteed this year to start taking effect immediately, while most of the savings from which it is theoretically derived would not begin to show up until after the turn of the century. Mr. President, that is not credible and that is not conscionable. I will continue to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the tough decisions that lie ahead, and they are going to be far tougher than those willing to vote for this conference report are willing to acknowledge at this point. But I cannot be a party to guaranteeing a tax cut now that will not be paid for until much later, or to endorsing a much less fiscally responsible approach to the serious debt and deficit challenges facing this country. Mr. President, I voted for the original Senate budget resolution. But regrettably I will have to vote against this conference report, because it is less credible, less responsible, and less fair. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about several votes on amendments to the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. These votes did not reflect a lack of support for helmet and seatbelt laws or speed limits on our highways. They reflected a choice as to the appropriate level of government to make those decisions. I believe these decisions are better decided, not by the Federal Government, but by each individual State, taking into consideration local conditions and local demographics. Issues involving highway safety have always been important to me, dating back to my years as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I know the members of the Virginia General Assembly and the citizens of my State care very deeply about these issues as well. Mr. President, existing Federal requirements forcing States to impose safety belt and helmet laws have had their intended consequences. Most States have enacted helmet and seatbelt laws. In my view, the time has come to remove the Federal Government from issues which properly fall within the province of the States. In the spirit of devolving non- Federal responsibilities to the States, I think we can start with ending the Federal role in setting traffic laws. At some point, we must trust the States on issues which fall particularly within their areas of expertise and for which they bear the full responsibility of enforcement. To conclude, Mr. President, my votes yesterday were not to repeal safety laws or speed limits. I personally support helmet laws and seatbelt requirements. My votes were to allow Virginia and other States to use their own expertise to determine the laws that will best serve their citizens and enhance their safety.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster, Jr., to be Surgeon General of the United States. While I recognize the concerns that have been expressed about this nomination, after reviewing his Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee confirmation hearings, I am confident that Dr. Foster answered all questions honestly and openly and is well qualified for the position of Surgeon General. Accordingly, I will vote for cloture and in support of his nomination if cloture is envoked. Any examination of Dr. Foster's record, Mr. President, shows that Dr. Foster has dedicated his life to the health and well-being of others--a qualification uniquely suited to a Surgeon General nominee. Dr. Foster has worked at Meharry Medical College in Nashville, TN, where he has received numerous honors for his work in obstetrics, treatment of sickle cell anemia, and teen pregnancy prevention. In 1988, in a Tennessee housing project, Dr. Foster began his I Have a Future project which encourages young people to practice abstinence and was named by former President George Bush as one of his Thousand Points of Light. And Dr. Foster's record of service continues to this very day. Mr. President, at the very least, Dr. Foster deserves a vote by this body on the merits of his nomination. We owe him that much. So I urge my colleagues to support today's vote to envoke cloture on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster as Surgeon General of the United States. With that I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from Florida and Virginia, Senators Graham and Warner, to introduce the George Washington Commemorative Coin Act. This legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a coin in the year 1999 commemorating the 200th anniversary of the death of George Washington. The surcharges raised from the selling of the coins will go to the Mount Vernon Ladies Association for the preservation of Mount Vernon and help the American people about the life and the legacy of our Nation's first President. This is an important endeavor, Mr. President, because George Washington is one of our Nation's most prominent and beloved founding fathers. Before serving as President of a young Nation during its first 8 difficult years, Washington was a distinguished soldier and statesmen. After commanding the Virginia forces during the French and Indian Wars at the age of 23, Washington went on to serve his State and Nation as a member of both the Virginia House of Burgesses and the First Continental Congress. As Commander of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, he led the defeat of the most powerful nation on earth, and in doing so, allowed for the establishment of a bold experiment we call America. As Virginius Dabney once wrote: George Washington epitomized what subsequent generations have come to recognize as a great, a good, a brave and a patriotic American. Without him there would have been no victory in war, no stability in peace. He came as close as anyone in our history to being the indispensable man. In approving the George Washington Commemorative Coin Act, Mr. President, this Congress helps preserve the legacy of George Washington for future generations of the great nation he helped create and sustain. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as you know, the Internet is a remarkable development that has transformed the way people communicate. On the Internet, you can converse on-line with family, friends, and associates across the globe, search untold numbers of data bases on every imaginable subject, and share ideas with millions with the push of a button. The Internet is an enormous highway with few rules. Its simplicity is part of its appeal. But its lack of rules is also a source of considerable concern, because of the widespread availability of materials on the Internet that are entirely inappropriate for children. Certainly one option is to impose stricter legal penalties for putting offensive materials on the net, and the provisions in the bill accomplish this. I am concerned about these provisions, however, because they challenge first amendment rights and undermine one of the freest, most spontaneous communications media ever devised. Another approach is to pursue a technological solution. Parents can block [[Page S8474]] cable TV channels they deem inappropriate for children. We need similar controls for the Internet and other electronic communications media. Some Internet providers are offering schools a service that denies access to unsuitable Internet sites. One software vendor is now offering a service which identifies and, if a parent desires, filters out inappropriate materials on the Internet. These are encouraging steps, and I hope industry will continue to develop and market such services. These services must be purchased, however, and will not come cheap for all Internet users. Hence a more ubiquitous fix is needed. Another option, addressed in this amendment, is to include a ``tag'' or ``marker'' in the filename of Internet text or graphics of a mature nature. For example, if an Internet user is preparing to post a file that is of a mature nature, he or she can include a tag such as ``adult'' or ``mature'' in the file name. Similarly, he or she can put this tag in an address--essentially this would mark all files under that address as inappropriate for children. It is then a simple matter for programmers who develop the software that connects users to the Internet to include an optional parental block to filter out all such files. Teachers could use the filter as well. This amendment simply encourages the Internet community to self- regulate its behavior by adding tags to files that are inappropriate for children. It does not mandate such tags, Mr. President. The amendment encourages vendors of software that links users to the Internet to include a parental block to filter out the tagged files. Finally, it requires the Department of Commerce to promote the program and GAO to study whether the voluntary tags are effective after one year. This amendment does not conflict in any way with the indecency provisions in the bill. I should note that one industry initiative, announced Monday, involves putting a ``stamp of approval'' on materials judged appropriate for children, where parents can then choose to let their children see only those approved materials. Since the vast majority of material on the Internet is entirely appropriate for children, it is unclear how this idea can be implemented practically. It is nonetheless a useful initiative and complements the approach of this amendment. This amendment offers only a partial fix, but in concert with appropriate legal penalties and other technical approaches, it will help address a very serious problem. bellcore

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to authorize the Coast Guard to issue the appropriate endorsement for the vessel Sea Mistress--U.S. official number 696806--to engage in the coastwise trade. This legislation is necessary to resolve a lapse in the Sea Mistress's chain of title. The Sea Mistress was built in the United States in Louisville, KY, by Aluminum Cruisers, Inc. It is a 41-foot, high-speed houseboat, which is currently being refurbished in the United States for the excursion tourboat trade. In 1984, the Internal Revenue Service, seized the vessel to secure an unpaid tax debt incurred by the original owner of the vessel. This seizure has left a gap in the chain of title of the vessel. The Coast Guard has informed the owner of Occoquan Tours that if the gap is left unresolved, a coastwise endorsement cannot be issued for the vessel, even though the owner is a U.S. citizen and the vessel was built in the United States and is being refurbished locally. The Congress passes a number of these technical bills every year. The Sea Mistress was part of a package of similar legislative waivers which passed the House of Representatives October of last year, but failed to be enacted prior to the end of the session. I'm introducing the bill today so that the Senate Commerce Committee may act upon it with the upcoming coastwise bill this session.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the language that was passed by the committee, which my friend, the Senator from Arizona, is proposing that we strike. I would like to speak to that part of the bill that makes advanced telecommunications more affordable to public schools and libraries. During the consideration of the telecommunications bill last year, I offered legislation very similar to the language that we are considering today, to ensure that every school and classroom in the United States has access to telecommunications and information technologies. I proposed an educational telecommunications and technology fund to support elementary and secondary school access to the information superhighway. Regrettably, last year's telecommunications bill was not taken up by the full Senate before adjournment. The provision in the bill before us, introduced by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Kerrey of Nebraska, will make advanced telecommunications connections more affordable for schools and libraries. Specifically, the provision allows elementary and secondary schools, as well as libraries, to receive telecommunications services for educational purposes at an affordable rate. Currently, schools all over the country, including those in my own State of Virginia, are forced to pay business rates for access to the information superhighway. That means that schools are subsidizing residential customers. Without more affordable rates, schools, by the thousands, will not have adequate, and, in some cases, not have any access to the Internet. As a result, too many American children will be left by the wayside. For those of our colleagues that have any doubts about the value of electronic communications in the classroom, I challenge them to sit down at a computer with Internet access and surf. They will be visiting one of the most up-to-date and fastest growing libraries in the world. You can chat with experts from across the globe. You can set up the video link with teachers at distant schools using a small camera costing as little as $100. You can share data or results in a joint research effort spanning continents. You can take an electronic tour of the White House, or visit the so-called web page of a Member of Congress. I have such a page, and many of our colleagues have those, Mr. President. You can even see images of molecules or galaxies. The possibilities are endless. In discussions with school administrators, it becomes clear that students are fascinated by the Internet. Students that might otherwise be indifferent are eagerly pursuing new subjects and sharing their newfound knowledge with the global community of students. Simply put, Mr. President, the child with access will be at a distinct advantage and better prepared for future employment. And those without access are simply going to be left behind. We cannot afford to let our school systems slip behind those of our leading competitors when the technology is at our fingertips--the technology that was pioneered here in the United States. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to support the most cost- effective education we can offer our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey provision and oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Arizona. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield 2 minutes, I would be very pleased.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee for their leadership and the long, hard work that brought us to this particular point. If this were a budget and not a budget resolution, Mr. President, I might take a different course of action. I happen to believe that most of the choices, most of the priorities that we establish in terms of guidelines as to how we get to our destination are not the priorities that I would embrace and, indeed, I have voted with my Democratic colleagues on a number of occasions to try to change those priorities. But we did not prevail. I believe that Republicans were wrong in 1993, when they felt as strongly as they did about deficit reduction, not to try to assist President Clinton and Democrats. And feeling as strongly as I do about the importance of deficit reduction, I believe it would be wrong for me not to assist with the heavy lifting. Mr. President, the lifting is going to be very, very heavy. I do not think many of the Members who may be fully supportive of this resolution have considered all of the implications that are ultimately going to have to be considered when making the tough individual choices about cutting specific programs or cutting tax expenditures, raising revenues, whatever the case may be. But I am prepared to assist in that effort. I think it is important that, to the extent we can, we engage in this most important task on a bipartisan basis. So, Mr. President, I will be pleased to vote for this resolution, notwithstanding significant differences with respect to the distribution of the burden and the pain and a very significant difference with respect to whether or not we ought to have any tax cuts in this measure at this time. Nonetheless, I applaud the leadership for moving us to this point, for setting a very clear and important goal. I am embracing the destination and not the road as to how we get there, and I am going to work to try to make some course directions as we move down that road. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of the Budget Committee for their hard work, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the managers of the bill.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fair share amendment that was offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. I, with a number of other Senators, worked with him to try to develop an alternative to the budget resolution that is on the floor. I continue to accord to Senator Domenici and others credit for moving us in the right direction. Their amendment, if you include the $113 billion of Social Security trust funds, would come to balance under that math by the year 2002. This amendment comes by the year 2004 and gives us true balance without using the trust funds. There are some very difficult choices still ahead of us. We are talking about budget resolutions and not budgets. When we get down to the hard work of the authorizing and appropriating, we are going to have to be making some very, very painful and difficult choices. This particular approach, in my judgment, spreads that burden more equitably and more fairly. Hence, I am very much in favor of it. I, again, commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and I, like some of the other folks on this side of the aisle, may end up even voting for the final version, even if this particular distribution fails, because I think it is important that we make the statement about the seriousness of our intent to move toward true deficit reduction, and we can continue to disagree about some of the details. With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Two minutes will be adequate.

Mr. ROBB. The time was yielded by the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the James Madison Commemorative Coin Act, which I joined my senior colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, in introducing on May l9, l995. This legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a coin in the year 2001 commemorating the [[Page S7401]] 250th birthday of James Madison and honoring his many accomplishments. The surcharges raised from the selling of the coins goes to the National Trust for Historic Preservation for the creation of a permanent fund for the preservation and renovation of Madison's home, Montpelier. This is an important endeavor, Mr. President, because James Madison is one of our nation's most brilliant and significant founding fathers. A Virginian and a distinguished statesman, Madison was the principle drafter of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He served his country as the fourth President the United States. His home, Montpelier, is located in Orange County, Virginia, not far from his friend Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. It is extremely important, Mr. President, that we act today to both honor James Madison's 250th birthday and to create a permanent fund for the preservation of Montpelier. Doing so will ensure that Madison's legacy is sustained for future generations of the great nation he helped create. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today as a supporter and original co- sponsor of the amendment offered by my distinguished friend from North Dakota, which presents an alternative budget resolution to the committee-passed version before us. While both plans theoretically achieve balance by the year 2002, I believe our alterative is a better budget in many important ways. It is a better budget because it maximizes our future investments in our people, restoring partial funding in such critical areas as education, infrastructure, and research and development. It is a better budget because it eases the unprecedented cuts in our Federal health programs contained in the Republican budget, replacing $l00 billion in Medicare and $50 billion in Medicaid. It is a better budget because it restricts current tax loopholes for citizens who make more than $l40,000 a year, bringing greater and urgently needed equity to our current tax structure. And it is a better budget, Mr. President, because it does not designate the so-called economic dividend to an indefensible tax cut which may ultimately benefit our wealthiest citizens. I participated in efforts to craft this budget resolution, Mr. President, because I believe strongly that we Democrats cannot simply be against everything on the table. Rather, we have a profound obligation to be for something as well. While no document crafted by more than one Senator can make any Senator completely happy, I am comfortable that this budget brings much needed equity to our debate. It gives us a plan where revenues are on the table along with spending cuts, where critical investments in our people are preserved whenever possible, where our wealthiest do not benefit at the expense of our neediest, and, where--very importantly-- our Federal budget is balanced. Let me repeat that final point, Mr. President. We offer today a budget resolution that commits us to more deficit reduction than the Republican alternatives by the year 2002. In fact, the budget we propose reaches true balance without using the surplus in the Social Security trust fund by the year 2004. In this amendment, we call for the elimination of our deficit and we outline the budgets that get us there. This debate is not about whether or not we should have a balanced budget. This debate is how to balance it. While I believe the cuts in the Republican budget resolution may be unsustainable when committees try to implement them, the plan we offer today, Mr. President, is fair and defensible. It is about meeting our obligation to our children and our grandchildren in a manner that more responsibly protects the strength and security of their future. I urge my colleagues to support the very serious alternative resolution we bring before the Senate today, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. amendment no. 1127

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. [[Page S7206]] While the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is still on the floor, let me tell him I fall into the latter category of one who is thinking if we do not do any more damage, that I may be one, and there are several on this side of the aisle, I might inform the Senator, who are thinking about voting for the budget that emerges --not because we think it is the perfect vehicle. Indeed, tomorrow, some Members will have an alternative, hopefully, to that particular vehicle. I want to compliment the Senator from New Mexico. I have known him for about 15 years. I have respected his willingness to make tough, principled decisions in attempting to bring some sense of fiscal responsibility to an otherwise undisciplined Federal Government over a long period of time. I said on this floor the other day, that I thought he deserved enormous credit for giving us a target, something that was truly important. I support the amendment of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, because I believe we ought to make it clear that deficit reduction is the most important objective we are attempting to achieve at this particular time. We are not truly balancing the budget even if we stick to the numbers we are dealing with, because we continue to mask the total budget in the Social Security surplus. It will be about $113 billion out of true balance, but it is exactly the same kind of obfuscation we have been using for years and I am certainly willing to give all the credit that is due for moving in that direction. But in this particular case, if we are serious about deficit reduction, I think the only message we can leave at this point is we are prepared to make some tough choices. Several on this side are willing to make those tough choices with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. One of the most difficult votes for me was one just two votes ago when I had to vote ultimately against a very substantial increase in defense spending. Not because I do not think we need it, because if we are serious about fighting two major regional conflicts and winning in the years ahead we are going to have to put more money into the defense budget, even more than the President has added back right now. I accept that responsibility and will continue to work on it. But I thought it was a discordant message with respect to deficit reduction. That is why I am prepared, with several colleagues, I believe, to support the ultimate product of this debate. I hope we will find ways to amend that particular end product so we can have something that has the kind of balance that many of us want to achieve. But I think the most important thing we can do is keep our eye ultimately fixed on the target, which is to bring it into what is balance using the $113 billion that will be available from the Social Security surplus. With that I yield whatever time I have remaining and I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for offering this particular amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I do not know who is controlling time on this side. But I yield myself such time as I may use at this particular point.

Mr. ROBB. I ask unanimous consent to use such time as may be required.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as we continue our debate on the budget resolution, let us remember that this is the easy part. A budget resolution is not a budget any more than a balanced budget amendment is a balanced budget. It is easy to vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and it is relatively easy to vote for a nonspecific budget resolution. The hard part is actually producing a balanced budget. Both a balanced budget amendment and a balanced budget resolution are in effect a commitment to make the really tough choices required to get to a balanced budget. The heavy lifting comes later. The pain will not really be felt, and the magnitude of the sheer sacrifice required will not truly become a reality until the authorizing, appropriating, and finance committees finish their work, and specific programs are cut by specific amounts and specific revenues are raised either by increasing tax rates or eliminating tax breaks. That formidable task still looms over the horizon even after this budget resolution is passed. Those of us who voted for the balanced budget amendment and those who voted against the balanced budget amendment, because they did not believe we needed to change the Constitution to provide the courage required to make the tough decisions, have a special responsibility to work together to produce a balanced budget. The framework of this debate is how to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. We ought to acknowledge up front, however, that even the current Republican budget resolution does not actually get us to a true balanced budget by 2002 because it still uses the Social Security surpluses for the next 7 years to mask the size of the remaining deficit as we have been doing for many years in the past. Therefore, we cannot deny that, even if we fulfill the promise of the current budget resolution in 2002, we will still be spending $113 billion more than we take in. Nonetheless, this resolution clearly moves us in the right direction, and the Republicans are to be commended. President Clinton started us in the right direction in 1993 with a bold mix of spending cuts and income tax increases limited to the top 1.2 percent of the wage earners that gave us the largest deficit reduction package in our Nation's history. I had hoped for similar boldness in the administration's budget for this year. The political considerations apparently dictated otherwise, as they obviously did for the two previous administrations. Therefore, the Republicans get and deserve credit for keeping the momentum going. Now in control of the Congress, the Republicans are struggling to make the tough choices. And it seems to me that it is critical that we work together to reach the agreed-upon goal by the year 2002. We should applaud Senator Domenici and Representative Kasich for doing what they said they would do by developing budget resolutions that create an outline for how our budget can, if we count in the Social Security surplus, achieve balance by the year 2002. We do not have to agree on every suggested cut. But I hope we can be constructive in our criticism. In all fairness, it is difficult to attack Republicans for advancing a faulty plan when we Democrats have not yet offered a better one. We should take advantage of this historic opportunity to lay out our different priorities for the Nation within the context of a balanced budget. And I can assure you that nothing that we are planning, Mr. President, to propose in the way of a amendment lessen our chances of meeting that goal in the year 2002. Our parties have very different visions of government. We should debate these differences honestly and constructively. I applaud the strength of the convictions that drives my Democratic colleagues to fight for programs which help children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged. Protecting the defenseless and aiding the less fortunate have always been a hallmark of our great party. In my view, however, failing to balance the budget as soon as possible will ultimately harm precisely those we seek to protect. We are on an unsustainable path that places our Nation's future at risk. Every dollar we borrow to fund a program today will have to be repaid with interest by our children tomorrow. And every dollar our children have to spend repaying interest on our debt is one less dollar for them to use to build schools, improve highways, pride health care, or fund law enforcement. In truth, we are paying today for past failures to address the upwardly spiraling national debt. This year, 15 percent of our annual budget is devoted to paying interest on the massive debt we began accruing in earnest during the 1980's. In fact, if it were not for the interest we are paying on this whole debt, our budget this year would be balanced. In any event, we can no longer afford to use deficit reduction as a political hot potato. Now is the time for real leadership. We should begin providing that leadership by educating the American people on a bipartisan basis about the sacrifice that reducing the deficit requires from us all. We have a higher calling than current political passion. The temptation to tear down the other side is difficult to resist. For the sake of the next generation, however, we should not allow ourselves to do to Republicans what they did to us when we made the tough decisions to reduce the deficit in 1993. When we were in the majority, we made the hard choices without a single Republican vote. Republicans then in the minority decided to exploit those tough decisions, and succeeded in the last election largely as a result. The middle class was led to believe their income taxes had been raised when, in fact, we increased the income tax rate only on wealthiest 1.2 percent of Americans who could best afford it, and actually reduced taxes for the 16 percent least affluent working families who needed a break. Likewise, people were led to believe that we did not cut spending. But the fact is that we cut $255 billion in Federal spending. The tactics deployed to attack the 1993 plan, however, are what make balancing the budget so difficult and which have kept us on the path to incomprehensible indebtedness. If we seek revenge against the Republicans and resort to the scare tactics and distortions that so successfully ruined our efforts to achieve even greater deficit reduction in 1993, we will have abdicated our responsibility to protect future generations. We need the courage to ignore the polls which suggest that, while a majority of Americans believe we should balance the budget, and even greater majority oppose cutting the programs that contribute the most to the deficit. And of course, no one wants a tax increase. There are, however, only two ways to balance the budget. We either cut spending or raise revenues. And, in truth, we need to do both. We need to focus our efforts on cutting all the Federal spending that we can eliminate in good conscience. And we should not shy away from terminating departments, agencies or programs that do not make sense, even though they have a strong constituency. But, after we cancel all of the useless, inefficient, or unnecessary spending we can identify, [[Page S7002]] if we still cannot balance the budget, we are going to have to have the political courage to raise taxes. Otherwise, we will be conceding that we are unwilling to live within our means. Our job as leaders is to describe the choices, educate the people, and explain that we cannot get to balance merely by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, cutting welfare, and stopping foreign aid. There is no line item for the former, and the latter each represent less than one percent of our current budget. And we cannot let the polls dictate our response. Our best judgment of what is right for America in the long run should be our guide. In the oft-repeated words of Edmund Burke, ``[y]our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'' If, to gain political advantage, we pummel those who make the tough decisions to reduce the deficit, we will poison the atmosphere and sow the seeds of our own destruction. Balancing the budget will become impossible. As a result, we will have succeeded in being the first generation to leave the country in worse condition than we inherited. By arguing that painful cuts or tax increases are not necessary, we send a dangerous message to the people we serve. We simply cannot continue to tell the American people that it is possible to have it all without paying for it. The fear of partisan attack, however, has already made this process more difficult. Knowing the power of various interest groups, both sides are afraid to recommend cutting sacred programs or raising needed revenues. Social Security accounts for 22 percent of our annual current budget, Medicare for 12 percent. If we do nothing, entitlements and interest on the national debt will consume every dollar the Federal Government receives by 2013. No program can be placed off-limits if we seek to balance the budget in the most even-handed manner possible. If sacrifice is spread broadly and fairly, we can succeed. Otherwise, we will fail. Our guiding principle should be to provide Federal benefits only to those who truly need the Federal Government. We can no longer afford to do otherwise. Calls for limiting Federal benefits to those in need, however, should not be misconstrued as a battle cry for class warfare. Democrats should be willing to admit that there is nothing wrong with wealth or economic success. Indeed, that is the rung on the economic ladder that most Americans are trying to reach. Republicans, on the other hand, should acknowledge that a progressive income tax, which is based on the fair notion that people should pay taxes according to their ability, and denying unneeded benefits to the well-off, is not class warfare. It is merely a recognition that we do not have the money to pay $30 billion in entitlements each year to families who make over $100,000 annually. In short, Federal revenues should go only to those who need and deserve our help. Given this fiscal crisis, I believe it is sheer folly to even be considering a tax cut at this time. Indeed, we play a dangerous game when we pander to those who say ``it's our money, and we want it back.'' Tax revenues pay for governmental functions that benefit all of us, such as national defense, highways, schools, and law enforcement. We are bound together as a community of individuals who support a social contract. We can support that social contract either out of compassion, believing that we have a moral obligation to each other, or we can support the social contract out of fear, knowing that if we fail to help those truly in need, a feeling of sheer hopelessness will eventually lead them to believe that they have no choice but to take by force what they believe they need to survive. I support the bold efforts of those who seek to balance the budget by 2002. The longer we wait, the more difficult the task becomes. If the events of the last week are an indication, however, we are at risk once again of making deficit reduction a pitched political battle. If we do so, the primary casualties will be the children of the next generation, defenselessly caught in the crossfire. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I support the Strengthening Social Security Act of 1995. I commend my distinguished colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey and Alan Simpson, for their hard work on this important legislation, and I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor. I compliment my friends from Nebraska and Wyoming, Mr. President, because tackling the problems associated with social security takes enormous personal and political courage. In an era when news is conveyed in quippy, provocative soundbites, ``touching'' social security is anathema--even when reforming social security is clearly the only way to save it. For the bottom line is this, Mr. President: if we don't change the way we do business around here, spending on entitlements and interest on the debt will consume all Federal revenues by the year 2012. That same year, social security expenditures will begin to exceed revenues coming into the trust fund, and by the year 2029, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted. Because of demographics and increasing life expectancies, this Nation has evolved from a system where 15 workers supported each Social Security beneficiary when the program was created, to five workers for each beneficiary today, to just three workers for each beneficiary when the Baby Boom generation retires. It's clear to me, Mr. President, that we have promised our people more than we can deliver, and that our present path is simply unsustainable. Unless we act today, we place an unconscionable financial burden on our children and our grandchildren--and we fail to ensure the retirement security of future generations of Americans. This legislation strengthens the retirement security of future generations. It abolishes the actuarial deficit in the trust fund and allows the fund to pay benefits on an uninterrupted basis for the 75- year timeframe reviewed by the fund's actuaries. More young Americans believe in UFO's than believe that Social Security will be there for them, and we urgently need to restore in young Americans a genuine confidence in the system. One of the most intriguing and attractive provisions of this bill to me, Mr. President, allows for almost 30 percent of payroll taxes to be designated for the creation of a personal investment plan--a tangible account--for future beneficiaries. Mr. President, powerful interests will fight even minor changes to the Social Security system, and to succeed, we will have to engage in a battle of our own. This means educating the American people on what the problems are and how to responsibly solve them--convincing our citizens that the time to act is today, when the remedies are so much easier to absorb. This also means persuading our colleagues on both sides of the capitol and both sides of the aisle that touching Social Security does not mean destroying it. Touching Social Security does contributed so much to our country. Reforming Social Security, Mr. President, can mean strengthening it. Reforming Social Security can mean saving it for future generations. And reforming Social Security can mean that we in Congress fulfill our responsibility to govern, and to govern well. I urge my colleagues to take an honest look at this legislation.