Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Kyl have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 584, S. 2392.

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator Thompson has an amendment at the desk and I now ask for its consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 3670 to Amendment No. 3669 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of working groups as a part of the President's Year 2000 Council)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 726, 728, 730, 731, 732, 788, 789, 790, 796, and No. 853. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask for a division vote on the resolution of the ratification.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following treaty on today's Executive Calendar, No. 22. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, declarations, be considered agreed to; that any statements be inserted in the Congressional Record as if read; and I further ask consent that when the resolution of ratification is voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and, following the disposition of the treaty, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa and to present what I believe will be an important plan to help our farmers and ranchers get through the current low prices and natural disasters they are experiencing. Mr. President, there are indeed areas of rural America facing economic hardships caused by drought, flooding, wheat scab, and low prices. The question here is: will raising loan rates provide the cash flow assistance that farmers need? Or, will it create an additional set of issues that simply exacerbate the current problem? We have consistently heard on this floor that there is no longer a ``safety net'' for America's farmers. Yet, we do not hear that under the 1996 farm bill, farmers have received over $6 billion more in payments than they would have received under the old farm bill. We do not hear about the transition payments producers are receiving on 85 percent of their historical yields. And, we do not hear about the Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) producers are receiving under the 1996 legislation. Recent estimates show that producers may obtain up to $3 billion in LDPs on their 1998 crops--in addition to their transition payments. This is a ``safety-net!'' Let me repeat: We have a ``safety-net!'' Raising and extending loan rates does not improve producer incomes. Extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in the long- run. Extending the loan for six months simply gives producers another false hope for holding onto the remainder of last year's crop. Farmers will be holding onto a portion of the previous year's crop, while at the same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998. As I stated during debate on the Agricultural Appropriations bill, rolling over the loan rate actually increases the amount of grain and soybeans on the market and results in lower prices--not higher prices. Since excess stocks will continue to depress prices, will we then extend the rate again? It will become an endless cycle that costs billions of dollars, and which will eventually lead to a return to planting requirements and set-aside acres in an attempt to control agricultural output and limit the budget effects. Extending and raising loan rates will only serve to exacerbate the lack of storage associated with the transportation problems in rural America because it causes farmers to hold onto their crops and fill elevator storage spaces. Kansas still has wheat on the ground from this year's near record wheat harvest and we have begun to harvest what are expected to be record or near record corn, sorgham, and soybean crops. Raising loan rates will worsen the storage problems we are already facing. It is also argued raising loans rates allows farmers to wait for a higher price. However, a study by Kansas State University looked at the years 1981 through 1997 and compared farmers' earnings if they held wheat in storage until mid-November versus selling at harvest. In all but five years, farmers ended up with a net loss as storage and interest costs exceeded grains in prices. Raising rates simply provides a false hope to farmers. Mr. President, I think we must also ask several important question that have not been addressed by the advocates of this plan. How do higher loan rates help producers who have suffered crop failures and have no crop to put under loan? If loan rates will raise prices--as has been argued by the advocates--what will this do to feed prices for livestock producers who are in many instances facing more severe economic situations than grain producers? How do higher loan rates help wheat producers that have already harvested and marketed their crops? It is argued this action is needed to raise prices because the 1996 Farm Bill has caused the low prices we are currently experiencing. What about the low prices we experienced under the previous program in the mid-1980s and early 1990s? What was the cause of those programs? Mr. President, it is obvious this plan will not work and will not assist all producers. Therefore, I am proposing the following five point plan which will be supported by many Republicans and which I believe can also garner bipartisan support. The plan addresses cash flow concerns, crop insurance, the tax burden on farmers, trade, and the Conservation Reserve Program. It is obvious we must provide some form of cash flow assistance to all farmers, including those who did not or will not have a crop to harvest. Therefore, I propose a ``Farmer Income Assistance Program'' which will ensure that all farmers receive some form of cash assistance. I know of no other way to address the multiple problems of farmers with one year of crop losses, multi-year crop losses, and those with large crop but no price. This is the fairest method available to us, and it will ensure that no producer slips through the cracks. Mr. President, we must also take important steps to reform the crop insurance program. One of the most common complaints I hear from my farmers is that cop insurance does not work. They argue the policies available do not address their needs, not do they get adequate coverage for the money they invest in insurance policies. A large problem with the program is the roadblocks the Risk Management Agency (RMA) has repeatedly put up to halt or slow down the development and expansion of many private policies. At the same time RMA acts as the regulator over these private companies, it is also developing and selling products in direct competition with the insurance companies. I know of no other industry facing these same roadblocks. Mr. Kerrey and I have long been committed to major reforms of the crop insurance program. And, we are circulating a proposal to pursue these goals. However, it will be difficult to pursue major reforms in the short period of time remaining this session. Therefore, I propose several minor changes this fall to improve the program followed by what I hope will be serious reform next year. The proposed changes include: Providing a proportional subsidy for all coverage levels up to 75 percent. Farmers often buy only the lowest level of coverage because that is where the highest subsidy levels occur. Increase the subsidy rate so that it is the same for all revenue insurance contracts as for other all forms of crop insurance. Mr. President, we must also pursue real tax reform that benefits our farmers and ranchers. We must pursue tax legislation that includes: 100 percent deductibility of self-employed health care; permanent extension of income averaging for farmers; farmer savings accounts; and reductions in the capital gains rates. I realize some will argue that capital gains reductions do not help farmers. However, I would advise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that a recent report by the Department of Agriculture recently stated that the greatest level of benefits to farmers from the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act has come from the reduction in the capital gains rate. Increased access to world markets is an important step that must be taken. Our farmers and ranchers simply cannot be successful without access to foreign markets. The most important toll to obtaining these markets is to pass fast track trade negotiating authority for the President. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has stated on several occasions that trade is the ``safety-net'' for America's farmers and ranchers. Last fall's failure to pass fast track is the single most important foreign policy blunder for agriculture since the shattered glass embargo policies of the late 70s and early 80s. We must pass fast track now. Finally, Mr. President, USDA should announce a new Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) sign-up sometime this fall. I checked the Farm Service Agency (FSA) website before coming to the floor, and it stated that as of October 1998 there will be just over 30 million acres enrolled in the CRP. The Secretary is allowed to enroll up to 36.4 million acres, and I encourage him to enroll the maximum number of acres during this fall's sign-up. This is an important action which the Secretary does not need additional Congressional approval to undertake, and it will help to take many acres of high risk land out of production--particularly in the Northern Plains. Mr. President, to summarize the plan is as follows: Income assistance payments; crop insurance reform; tax relief; increased trade; and full enrollment in the CRP. This is not a plan which is set in stone. It is open to change, and I am happy to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to undertake a plan to assist America's farmers. I am hopeful my colleagues will work with me in a bipartisan manner. I do not question the desire of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help our producers. I simply think their approach will do more harm than good. We tried to increase loan rates in the early and mid-1980s. It led to excess production and excess stocks that brought agriculture to its knees and greatly contributed to the agricultural crisis of the 1980s. Mr. President, we tell our children that we study history so we will not make the same mistakes of the past. Past history shows us the Senator from Iowa's plan will not work. I hope that we have learned our lesson and will take the steps necessary to help agriculture move into the 21st Century and not mired in the broken policies of the 20th Century. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and my good friend from Wyoming for reserving this time and for talking about some of the very crucial issues that affect our Nation's citizens, our daily lives, our pocketbooks, and, quite frankly, the lack of leadership that we see both from the standpoint of the administration and, to be very candid, in this Congress as well. What I would like to talk about for a few moments is the issue that I think is the first obligation of the Federal Government. That is our national security, our national defense. In beginning my comments, Mr. President, I would like to refer to a letter that was sent from the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, to the President. Senator Lott said this: I am very concerned about the growing inability of our country to man the uniformed services. Not only is there difficulty in recruiting, but also in our ability to retain key personnel. Senator Lott then went on in several paragraphs to describe the problem that we have. Then in the last paragraph he said, Mr. President, while I believe that more money needs to be allocated to our National Defense, it needs to be done prudently. We need to get the missions, manning, equipping, and pay and benefits synchronized to enable us to continue with a quality force into the 21st century. I urge you to make this a high priority of your fiscal year 2000 budget request. And then in regard to the suggestion by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, there is an effort by some of us who have the privilege of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and those of us in the Senate Intelligence Committee, to take action as of this appropriations cycle. I think that certainly would be very wise and it is very needed. The President wrote back and pretty much said that he is committed to ensuring that we have a strong and ready force and indicates--and I am paraphrasing here, and perhaps that is not entirely fair, but the way I read the President's letter is that we will stay the course and that we have a defense system certainly prepared to meet all of our national security interests. Mr. President, I don't buy that. I rise today to voice my concern with what I think is a very growing and very worrisome problem with our military. And that problem exists right now and today and we should take immediate action to find answers to that problem. The issue is not, it seems to me, do they have enough tanks or fighters or ships or small arms. By the way, I do not think they have the adequate funding support for the modernization and the procurement of essential systems, but I will leave that discussion for a later time. This issue is even more fundamental and, I think, just as important; that is, the basic care of the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. Now, we have all heard the concern from the leaders of the military-- we have had hearing after hearing--their real growing inability to attract and retain the needed skilled personnel, such as pilots and mechanics and ship drivers or any number of other very critical skills maintained by enlisted and officers of our military. Some say they are perplexed at this talent drain and wonder why they cannot stop the hemorrhaging. Let me recount some other related topics concerning the care of our military and perhaps we can start to understand what I call this hemorrhaging. Following the end of the cold war, the United States started a systematic downsizing of our military, consistent with the threat, and that made sense. I think everybody agreed with that. However, many people have not given much thought to how far we have downsized, just how far we have downsized. Let me summarize what we have removed from the military: 709,000 active duty troops--709,000 active duty troops--293,000 reserve troops; 8 standing Army divisions--8--20 Air Force and Navy wings with 2,000 combat aircraft; 4 aircraft carriers; 121 Navy ships and submarines. With the end of the cold war and with these very dramatic reductions in our military, we should be able to take great solace in the fact that surely our military commitments and deployments have also taken similar reductions. In other words, if you took dramatic reductions in regard to the active duty troops, the reserve troops, the Army divisions, the Air Force and the Navy wings, 4 aircraft carriers, 121 Navy ships and submarines, you would think that our commitments and our deployments would have been reduced as well. Unfortunately, as also many of us understand, just the opposite has occurred. The military across the board has experienced a many-fold increase in their operational commitments and tempo of their operations. Plainly stated, our significantly ``downsized'' military has been asked to deploy much more often and for longer periods of time than they ever have in our history. This increased operational commitment has directly impacted the very culture of our military. For example, Mr. President, General Ryan, who is the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, has stated that the Air Force has shifted from a garrison force to an expeditionary force during this period--a dramatic change. The bottom-line impact on our people is that they are now away from their families significantly more than they were in the past. And, by the way, as we have shifted to an all-voluntary military, the number or percentage of married service members has also significantly increased--reportedly 63 percent now of our military members are married. So, problem No. 1, Mr. President, we have significantly increased the workload upon a substantially smaller military. Since the percentage of service members that are married has grown, this increased workload has amplified the negative affect of deployments on the morale of our troops and their families. The reluctance of families to continue to tolerate these separations really contributes to the loss of mid-level personnel, key personnel, mid- career personnel. Asking our military to deploy and endure hardship in their personal lives is not new. Ask any veteran of World War II, Korea, or Vietnam about hardship and long separations. But those situations were drastically different than the involvements the U.S. military is being asked to participate in as of today. In each of the major conflicts in the past, the mission and importance of the U.S. involvement was clearly articulated by the President, by the administration, understood by the American people, and certainly understood by our men and women in uniform. Those conflicts were founded on the notion that our involvement was in the U.S. vital national interests. The men and women of the military understood that concept, and they and their families were more willing to accept the hardship of military life. I am convinced that the missions that our military are now participating in today do not meet that fundamental threshold of national interest. I am also convinced that our military members understand the nature and the motivation of their missions. Although they continue to perform superbly, they understand that their sacrifice and their family's sacrifice today is not for the same noble cause as the defense of the American homeland--the very reason many join the military in the first place. Problem No. 2: With a significantly increased deployment schedule and a substantially smaller force, the value and importance of today's missions impacts on the willingness of the men and women to join or to commit to the military as a career. Without clearly articulated mission goals and objectives founded in the fundamentals of the U.S. vital national interest, the ability to recruit and retain motivated men and women for our military will remain very difficult. You only have to look at the deployment of 27,000 men and women in uniform in the Gulf, 37,000 in Korea, approximately 10,000 in Bosnia, with the expectation of what happens in North Korea and Kosovo as an example. Certainly, if we are putting our military in a position of increased deployments and increased family separation, Mr. President, we must have or are doing a better job of adequate pay, health care, and retirement system. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring in today's military. Let me outline the pay issue with one example that is occurring all too often in the military today. Picture, if you will, a young soldier--in which we have placed a great deal of training and responsibility and trust--commanding the world's best tank, M1A2, a $4 million piece of equipment. At home, this soldier has a wife and three children. They live in a mobile home off post, and because of his low military income, they are on the WIC Program, the Women, Infant and Children Program, which is a form of welfare. What has happened to reasonable compensation for men and women that are committed to the service of our country? Can't we pay our military enough to keep them off of welfare programs or off of food stamp programs? We, the Congress, cap the raises that the military can receive. The net result of this action is that the military pay differential between a comparable job in the civilian market and the military has grown from 13 to 15 percent. That gap can go to 20 percent in just a few years. Problem No. 3: Although the skill level required of the men and women of our military does continue to grow, the pay differential between the same skilled civilian and the military simply continues to widen. The current pay of many of our young military families is so low that it is not adequate to keep them off of welfare programs. The prospect of continued and frequent long deployments coupled, with the opportunity to get better pay on the outside for the same work, contributes to the inability to attract and retain the skills needed for today's military. This is true for both officer and enlisted personnel. OK, the pay is not great, but surely the housing has kept up with the increased numbers of married military members, and we have provided them with adequate housing--not palatial housing, but certainly adequate. Wrong again. To illustrate this issue, let me quote from an article entitled ``Shoddy Military Housing Need Repair,'' by John Diamond, a writer with the Associated Press. He says this: ``In reality, we're the biggest slum lords in the country,'' said Michael J. Haze, chief of Fort Carson's housing division. ``I have soldiers every day telling me they live in the projects.'' In the projects. The article went on: Behind the bureaucracy, thousands of military families continue to tolerate what the Pentagon acknowledges is shoddy, substandard housing because they cannot or will not pay higher rents for off-base housing. I don't want to mislead anybody. Some of the base housing is very nice and adequate. But if a serviceman happens to be unlucky enough not to be assigned to nice facilities, or a base that has nice facilities, their pay will not support quality housing in the private sector. Problem No. 4: We ask our military to deploy at a much higher pace than ever before, we assign missions that do not meet the national interest threshold, we pay them less than they could get for the same or similar skills as a civilian, and in many cases, we ask them to live in substandard housing. It goes without saying that the culmination of these problems really contributes to the dissatisfaction with the military as a career and its attractiveness to potential recruits. How could anybody assume otherwise? Finally, many of the men and women are able to work with and through all of these issues with their families and make the military a career. Many are still doing that. For many years, the attraction and reward for the tough life in the military was the great benefit of retirement. The deal was that if you would spend at least 20 years in the service of our country, your retirement benefits would be one-half of your base pay. And if you elected to spend 30 years, you would receive 75 percent of your base pay. That retirement program was a major benefit, a major recruiting tool, a major retention draw. Many young men and women have said, ``I can stick with this tough life because I know I am doing a good job for my country and I know that at least I have half of my pay coming to me at the end of 20 years.'' The plan is now that if a service member works for 20 years, the benefit is only 40 percent of the base pay. It is still 75 percent after 30 years, but the big draw has always been the 20 years. This is not popular with the troops. That is probably the understatement of my remarks. The fear is that the retirement program has been so weakened that, coupled with a myriad of other problems that I have described, many service members will leave rather than ``tough it out until 20.'' Problem No. 5: The members of our military are working harder, deploying more, receiving less pay than civilians are for the same job, living in inadequate housing, and are now seeing a reduction in retirement benefits. It is not difficult to understand that with this collection of negatives, and all of our commitments all around the globe--some may or may not be in our national interest--the military is experiencing problems in retention and recruiting. I didn't mention health care. I don't have prepared remarks regarding health care, but I will come back to the floor and mention that as problem No. 6. That is an additional problem--adequate and affordable health care that is at least accessible. So, in many cases, that is an additional problem. Mr. President, these are very serious problems that face the men and women of our military. I must admit that they do not have simple or inexpensive solutions. I do plan, with the help of many of my colleagues, to systematically attack these problems as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I hope that together we can help restore the faith of our military members that the American people care about the sacrifice they and their families make in the defense of our Nation by providing adequate pay, housing and retirement benefits and health care. We owe this to these men and women and their families that serve our Nation. In closing, again, I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, for the time. I want to come back to the letter sent to the President of the United States by the majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator Lott said in two or three paragraphs, in brief, what I have tried to outline today. Mr. President, we have to do something about this. Mr. President, we have to do something now. We have to do something with the current appropriations bills. The President has sent a letter back to the majority leader saying, in effect, that we do have a military that still stands in the breach to protect our individual freedoms and national security. And we will talk about it in the next budget. That is not good enough. It is not good enough. We need to begin the process now. I ask the President to reconsider the letter by Senator Lott. I know my colleagues will work in a bipartisan fashion to end what is a growing scandal in the military in terms of retention of the people who we need to maintain our military and maintain our national security. I thank my colleague and my good friend from Wyoming for the time. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to refer to the statement made by my distinguished colleague and friend from Arizona about the 21-1 vote that happened in committee. I must say that it is my observation over a weekend of deliberations things were changed in that particular bill that we needed to address, and we did. And so the Senate spoke 84 to 16 to endorse the reforms, and they are not passive reforms, that were worked on by a whole group of Senators--Senator Grams, myself, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, Senator McConnell, and Senator Stevens. Basically, what are we talking about here? We require consensus in regard to achieving these reforms not only with the G-7 nations but the 37 other nations involved. This isn't just a U.S. IMF program. Under the Kyl amendment, he says that we have to micromanage basically from Congress, from the U.S. standpoint something called a board of executive directors. That process is very slow. We don't have the time in regard to that, with the global contagion, maybe the global pneumonia, that is occurring right now. So the Senate has spoken 84 to 16. I would point out that the seriousness of this is extremely critical. The Senator from Nebraska has talked about what is happening in agriculture. It is happening in every segment in regard to the economy, not only in this country but all over the world. We have a package. We have been meeting here with other Senators across the aisle for normal trading status with China, with fast-track legislation, with sanctions reform and now IMF. If this amendment passes, it is a killer amendment. I don't mean to perjure the amendment, but it is a killer amendment. A, it will kill IMF, and, B, IMF cannot work under the circumstances of this amendment. And the testimony to that certainly comes from Chairman Greenspan and many others. And so I urge the Senate to stick by that early vote. Again, I would mention it was, what, 86 to 14? No, 84 to 16. Well, there were two that were off base, but we will get it back. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to add my reservations to those of my colleagues. I am very concerned about overextending our military commitments without sufficient resources to handle the additional tasks we might assume. Enlarging NATO should be a step by step deliberate process that should not be circumvented in any way.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to respond if I can.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the basic reason I think this is so important is that the other body, the House, is going to pass this very same bill, and all it is, is one of the many steps that we need to consider and hopefully pass in regard to growing problems we are experiencing in farm country. There was a great deal of press last week about the intention of the House to provide something called ``advanced transition payments.'' All that does is provide the farmer an opportunity for a voluntarily decision which he can make as to whether or not he can accept next year's transition payments this year. It means a considerable amount of money. And if we are able to pass the Farm Savings Account that Senator Grassley has introduced, it will be of tremendous cash flow assistance. I thought it was not controversial. Since the House is going to pass it next week, since the House is out of session, it made a lot of sense, it seemed to me, and many others, for us to deem it passed, or to pass it. Farmers would then have, under the banner of consistency and predictability, the knowledge that they would have this as a tool. Now, I can't tell you what we are going to do in September with the $500 million that was referred to by the distinguished Democratic leader. That is a place hold, and it is sitting there, and as we go through the situation of judging what is happening with adverse weather all around the country--in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and the Northern Plains certainly--perhaps that number will change. We can take a look at it at that particular point. As a matter of fact, I was just going to give to all the distinguished Senators from the Dakotas a proposal that I have had in regard to crop insurance and see maybe if the $500 million could be increased somewhat and funneled through crop insurance to answer these indemnity payment questions that have been raised. But for goodness' sake, to object to this at this particular time--to give farmers the advance news that this is, as a matter of fact, on the table, that they can expect this, that they have some consistency, some idea of what is coming--I think is very untoward. More to the point, I think it has been agreed to in a tremendous bipartisan effort in the House and, I had thought, in this as well. Now, I understand that people perhaps don't get the word on each and every occasion, but I cannot imagine anybody objecting to this knowing full well in September we will get to the $500 million that the distinguished Senator has mentioned. I would certainly urge that we not object to this, we give the farmers a very clear signal, and we get on with the business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the United States and the rest of the Western European countries are on the verge of a very deep and expensive and very dangerous involvement in yet another area of the Balkans, the Serbian province of Kosovo. Unfortunately, and once again, it seems to me the administration has yet to explain to the Congress or to the American people why it is in our vital--again, I emphasize the word ``vital''--national interest to get in the middle of this growing conflict. Let me make it clear I think a case can be made that, under certain circumstances, it is in the U.S. national interest to get involved in the conflict in Kosovo. But in my view, it is the responsibility of the President of the United States and the administration, i.e., the national security team, to explain to the American public and the U.S. Congress why such an involvement is in our vital national interest before our troops are committed. The reports on CNN are clear that the Yugoslavian leader, Mr. Milosevic, is taking hard and very brutal action against the ethnic Albanians who are living--and, by the way, they comprise, Mr. President, 90 percent of the total population--in Kosovo. Certainly, this should be of no surprise since this is the same kind of activity that he directed in the breakup of Bosnia. Our diplomatic efforts are active, but they keep changing in purpose and intent. The all too frequent U.S. diplomatic technique has been employed. Several lines in the sand have been drawn, with threats of severe reprisals if the Serbian action against the Albanian population does not cease, but, regretfully, nothing positive to date has come from our diplomatic initiatives or threats. So these lines in the sand are crossed and the fighting has intensified, resulting in increased human suffering. The Albanian rebels, known as the KLA, are growing in strength and the fighting grows more fierce, with no peaceful solution in sight. The United States and NATO have threatened military action, and they gave a military demonstration consisting of a determined flight involving a considerable amount of aircraft. They called it ``Determined Falcon.'' I am not sure how determined the falcon was. At any rate, neither side has offered to end the conflict. In fact, the KLA is actually buoyed by the apparent Western support for their cause, and therefore they are not interested in backing off now. Mr. Milosevic, having observed our unwillingness to carry out our threats when he crossed the lines in the sand, and coupled with the strong support of the Serbian people to put an end to the rebel uprising in Kosovo, has no reason to back off either. We have now started an international monitoring program, Mr. President, in Kosovo. It is ``aimed at bringing peace to this strife- torn region.'' I don't know of any Senator or anybody or any observer who would object to that. But it is not entirely clear what these observers will accomplish other than to report on the obvious, and that is, there is a small war in Kosovo and we have been unable to influence its cessation. This observer group is comprised of about 40 diplomats and ``military experts'' attached to the embassies in Belgrade. Our ``military experts'' are unarmed U.S. military forces from the European Command, and they are specifically trained for this mission. Here are my concerns: In Kosovo, we are, once again, backing into a military commitment, just as we did in Bosnia--and I hate to use this example but I think it is applicable--and in Vietnam. The term of ``unarmed military observers'' or ``experts'' brings back some pretty sad memories of other wars that we have backed into. We are running a great risk that our military experts or diplomats could be in harm's way. As a matter of fact, in terms of hearings yesterday in the Intelligence Committee, we were talking about the priorities in regard to intelligence assets in certain countries, and force protection, obviously, plays a big role in that. So if we have our intelligence assets certainly supporting our troops in that part of the world, it gives real evidence that this is the case. NATO is conducting contingency planning that could involve thousands of military troops to separate the warring factions or impose peace--it has been estimated anywhere from 7,000 to 25,000 troops, even more. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, at a briefing when the Secretary of State briefed a bipartisan group of Senators on what was happening in regard to India and Pakistan, actually warned the Secretary of State and said we do not have the personnel, we do not have the means, we do not have the materiel to commit those kinds of troops, that kind of involvement with regard to Kosovo, without emergency funding, without certainly stepping up our support, both in terms of funds and in terms of troops. The costs of involvement in Kosovo, both in dollars and the impact on an already-stressed military, are potentially devastating. The chairman indicated that in his discussion with the national security team and with the administration. There are many unanswered questions of how this conflict in Kosovo is in our vital national interest. I think a good case can be made for our involvement in Kosovo. I just came back with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from taking a look at the three new NATO countries, what our intelligence assets are there and what the situation is there. Every official there, every foreign minister, every president indicated that Kosovo was in the interest of NATO and peace in Europe. But there are some very serious unanswered questions, and there are unexplained scenarios of the conflict in Kosovo leading to a larger war in Europe if this war is not ended now. But my primary concern is that this whole business has yet to be addressed by the administration or, for that matter, to some degree, the Congress in any substantive way. He cannot, nor will Congress let him, commit the men and women of our Armed Forces without defining our national interests, the objectives, and the exit strategy for any involvement in Kosovo. In the military, Mr. President, there is a term called a warning order, which is sort of a heads-up that some action is coming your way and, as the commander, you should start planning on how you would handle that action. The amendment I offer today, which is consistent with the amendment that was accepted on a bipartisan basis during the last defense appropriations bill in regard to Bosnia, is a kind of a ``warning order.'' The intent is to let the administration know that before they decide to deploy the military to the region as a result of the conflict in Kosovo, we need to address some salient points before Congress will fund the deployment. It is that simple. The Congress and, more importantly, the American people need to understand at least the following information, and information required by the amendment. They are as follows: No. 1, certification that such a deployment is necessary in the national interests of the United States; No. 2, to explain the reasons why the deployment is in the national security interests of the United States; No. 3, to define the number of U.S. military forces to be deployed to each country; No. 4, to explain the mission and the objectives of the forces to be deployed; No. 5, to discuss the expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives of the deployment; No. 6, what is the exit strategy for U.S. forces engaged in deployment, if that is possible; No. 7, what are the expected costs associated with the deployment and the funding source for paying these costs. I am going to terminate my remarks very quickly, because I know the time schedule here. Let me point out that when Ambassador Gelbard and General Wesley Clark appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported again on Bosnia and again said that the mission had changed and again said that the objective or the end game could not be defined, I pointed out that it could be in our national interest that we are in Bosnia and that while it was ill-defined, while the mission was changed, my main complaint--and I think one of the complaints shared by the distinguished chairman--is that the administration didn't fund it and the money is coming out of readiness and procurement and modernization, and that has to stop. What are the expected costs associated with the deployment and the funding source? What are the anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, retention, and effectiveness of U.S. forces? I think, Mr. President, that Bosnia is the perfect example of why such a ``warning order'' is necessary. We have expended over $10 billion in Bosnia. We have yet to answer most of the questions contained in this amendment: Why is it in our national interest to continue to be there? How many troops do we need? How and when do we get out? And how are we going to pay for it? I am a strong believer, Mr. President, that once the U.S. flag--the U.S. credibility--is ``planted,'' that we must support the U.S. position rather than embarrass or put our troops at risk. My intent is simply to go on record now before we get involved in yet another entanglement in yet another region of the Balkans--before the flag is planted and the troops are deployed. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and colleagues in introducing the Family Investment and Rural Savings Tax (FIRST) Act. I would especially like to thank our Leader, Senator Lott, for his strong commitment to this effort. His dedication and interest in these important issues should underscore how serious we are about providing tax relief and improvements for farmers and ranchers before the 105th Congress adjourns. America's producers are currently experiencing a troubling time. Thanks in large part to the Asian economic crisis and the Administration's inability to open up new markets for U.S. farm products, commodity prices across the board have fallen to dangerously low levels. Low prices, combined with isolated weather-related problems in some regions of the country on one hand and election-year posturing on the other, have prompted some of our Democratic colleagues to call for a return to the failed agriculture policies of the past. They support loan programs that price the United States out of the world market. They support a return to the system whereby the U.S. Government is in the grain business. And they support a return to command-and- control agriculture whereby producers are required to limit their production in a foolish and futile attempt to try to bolster commodity prices. These policies did not work for 50 years and they will not work now. The FIRST Act is designed to address the real needs of producers today. The FIRST Act provides tax relief for every farmer and rancher in the United States. Specifically, income averaging--which was an important component of the 1996 tax bill--would become permanent, the capital gains tax brackets would be cut by 25 percent across the board and a new Farm and Ranch Risk Management Account would be established to allow producers to manage the volatile shifts in farm income from one year to another. I specifically want to address the capital gains tax cut and the FARRM accounts. The capital gains tax represents one of the most burdensome, expensive provisions of the U.S. Tax Code for America's farmers and ranchers and for America's families. Production agriculture is a capital-intensive business. Without equipment and inputs-- expensive equipment and inputs--you simply can't survive in the incredibly competitive agriculture world. Therefore, because of the tremendous costs of depreciating that expensive equipment, the capital gains tax hits farmers and ranchers especially hard. In addition, today the Congress encourages middle-income families to save for their future in part to take pressure off of the Social Security system. However, we continue to allow capital gains taxes to hit America's families twice. Investors' money is taxed both as income when they get their paycheck and as capital gain when they make a smart investment. That's a strange and counterproductive way to encourage personal responsibility and savings for the future. As a result, I am very grateful to our Majority Leader for including the ``Crown Jewel'' of his tax and Speaker Gingrich's tax bill in the FIRST Act today and I look forward to working with the Leader to pass meaningful tax relief before the Senate adjourns. I also want to address the creation of the new FARRM Accounts. While Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I was charged with producing the 1996 farm bill. As we were producing that legislation, I wanted very badly to create what I called a ``farmer IRA.'' Basically, the farmer IRA would be a rainy day account whereby if a farmer or rancher had a good year, he could invest part of his profits in a tax- deferred account. Then, when a bad year hits, he could withdraw that money to offset the downturn. That's exactly what the FARRM Accounts would do. Producers will be able to invest up to 20 percent of their Schedule F (farm) income in any interest-bearing account. They may withdraw that money at any time during a five-year period. If passed, FARRM Accounts will correct the huge problem in our existing Tax Code that encourages producers to buy a new tractor or combine at the end of the year in order to reduce taxable income instead of saving for the future. Again, I wanted to do this during the farm bill but we ran out of time. I'm very pleased that the Congress may finally get the opportunity to provide the flexibility and tax relief producers so desperately need. I want to thank my colleagues again for their leadership in this area and I look forward to working with them and the rest of the Senate to pass this important legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and colleagues in introducing the Family Investment and Rural Savings Tax (FIRST) Act. I would especially like to thank our Leader, Senator Lott, for his strong commitment to this effort. His dedication and interest in these important issues should underscore how serious we are about providing tax relief and improvements for farmers and ranchers before the 105th Congress adjourns. America's producers are currently experiencing a troubling time. Thanks in large part to the Asian economic crisis and the Administration's inability to open up new markets for U.S. farm products, commodity prices across the board have fallen to dangerously low levels. Low prices, combined with isolated weather-related problems in some regions of the country on one hand and election-year posturing on the other, have prompted some of our Democratic colleagues to call for a return to the failed agriculture policies of the past. They support loan programs that price the United States out of the world market. They support a return to the system whereby the U.S. Government is in the grain business. And they support a return to command-and- control agriculture whereby producers are required to limit their production in a foolish and futile attempt to try to bolster commodity prices. These policies did not work for 50 years and they will not work now. The FIRST Act is designed to address the real needs of producers today. The FIRST Act provides tax relief for every farmer and rancher in the United States. Specifically, income averaging--which was an important component of the 1996 tax bill--would become permanent, the capital gains tax brackets would be cut by 25 percent across the board and a new Farm and Ranch Risk Management Account would be established to allow producers to manage the volatile shifts in farm income from one year to another. I specifically want to address the capital gains tax cut and the FARRM accounts. The capital gains tax represents one of the most burdensome, expensive provisions of the U.S. Tax Code for America's farmers and ranchers and for America's families. Production agriculture is a capital-intensive business. Without equipment and inputs-- expensive equipment and inputs--you simply can't survive in the incredibly competitive agriculture world. Therefore, because of the tremendous costs of depreciating that expensive equipment, the capital gains tax hits farmers and ranchers especially hard. In addition, today the Congress encourages middle-income families to save for their future in part to take pressure off of the Social Security system. However, we continue to allow capital gains taxes to hit America's families twice. Investors' money is taxed both as income when they get their paycheck and as capital gain when they make a smart investment. That's a strange and counterproductive way to encourage personal responsibility and savings for the future. As a result, I am very grateful to our Majority Leader for including the ``Crown Jewel'' of his tax and Speaker Gingrich's tax bill in the FIRST Act today and I look forward to working with the Leader to pass meaningful tax relief before the Senate adjourns. I also want to address the creation of the new FARRM Accounts. While Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I was charged with producing the 1996 farm bill. As we were producing that legislation, I wanted very badly to create what I called a ``farmer IRA.'' Basically, the farmer IRA would be a rainy day account whereby if a farmer or rancher had a good year, he could invest part of his profits in a tax- deferred account. Then, when a bad year hits, he could withdraw that money to offset the downturn. That's exactly what the FARRM Accounts would do. Producers will be able to invest up to 20 percent of their Schedule F (farm) income in any interest-bearing account. They may withdraw that money at any time during a five-year period. If passed, FARRM Accounts will correct the huge problem in our existing Tax Code that encourages producers to buy a new tractor or combine at the end of the year in order to reduce taxable income instead of saving for the future. Again, I wanted to do this during the farm bill but we ran out of time. I'm very pleased that the Congress may finally get the opportunity to provide the flexibility and tax relief producers so desperately need. I want to thank my colleagues again for their leadership in this area and I look forward to working with them and the rest of the Senate to pass this important legislation.