Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense authorization bill. I wish to thank and pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and obviously to our chairman, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for his long record of support and leadership for our men and women in uniform is almost unequaled in the history of the Senate. Some of my colleagues are opposing passage of this important bill for reasons I know they are committed to, and they certainly feel they are taking action in the best interests of their constituents. But I feel strongly we must as a body demonstrate unity and support for our military by passing this bill. Yesterday, we were briefed on the serious events in the Mideast, in particular in Iraq. The day before, several Members of Congress met with the President to discuss the U.S. military commitment of lasting peace in Bosnia. Early next year this body will debate the enlargement of NATO and the implication of extending the military security of NATO. We all watched with great interest the developments on the Korean peninsula. That is a very dangerous place. We are at peace, but we all understand this is a fragile peace. Congress is charged with the responsibility to raise and support armies, and in this troubled time we cannot forget that is our responsibility. We have all heard of the morale problems and the difficulty in retaining key leaders in the military. We all understand the long and frequent deployments we ask our men and women to make are taking a terrible toll on their families. We all understand we rely on these dedicated and patriotic Americans to be the instruments of our national policy. We should not hold this bill hostage because of internal differences between Members of this Congress. I feel it would be a terrible signal to send to the men and women of the military that we are so egocentric and so parochial that we are unable to provide a bill to provide a pay raise or quality housing. Let me highlight some of the important aspects of the bill I feel strongly about. Active duty pay raise. The bill includes a 2.8 percent pay raise for active duty military members. If the bill is not enacted, the pay raise for active military will be limited to 2.3 percent because of the statutory link between pay raises for the military and pay raises for Federal civilians. Active duty end strength. The bill, compared to current law, provides lower end-strength levels and increased flexibility for the managing of military personnel strengths. If this bill is not enacted, the military services will be held to the higher fiscal year 1997 end-strength levels that were based on the Bottom Up Review. Special pay and bonuses. The bill includes authority for significant increases in the special pay and bonus structure designed to respond to critical recruiting and retention problems highlighted by DOD. If the bill is not enacted, these authorities will not be available to DOD to address these problems. Specific groups that would be affected include--listen to this--aviators, nuclear-qualified officers, dentists, military members on overseas tours, military members receiving family separation allowances and/or hazardous duty assignment pay, and also the military members serving on hardship-duty locations. Reform of housing and substance allowances. This bill includes significant reforms of the existing structure for housing allowances and subsistence allowances for military members. These reforms are intended to simplify the management of these allowances and to better target the allowances to those individuals and geographic areas where the need is most acute. If the bill is not enacted, the Department of Defense will continue to use the existing allowance structure with all of its demonstrated inefficiencies and also inequities. Military construction projects? The bill provides authority for the Department of Defense to begin construction on the fiscal year 1998 military construction projects. If the bill is not enacted, that construction cannot begin. Mr. President, my fellow colleagues, there are many other examples of why this bill must be supported now. Despite the differences we have in our ranks, I think this is a fair and credible bill, the best bill possible. The Members of both Houses worked hard to reach compromise. It was a very difficult task, but when the work was done the Members of both committees--the House side and Senate side--were satisfied with the results. The system worked the way it was designed. Now the Senate should act on the bill. I urge the Senate to pass on the bill. One thing about a Presidential veto. Tuesday night we were with the President, 40, 50 Members. Senator Thurmond rose to his feet and said that our policy in Bosnia cannot be separated from this bill. It is inseparable. And that if we pass this bill, it will be commensurate with our goals in Bosnia and with our vital national security interests. And he pleaded with the President, eloquently, with fervent passion. He said: Mr. President, do not veto this bill. And I will tell everybody here, the President has not made his mind up. He looked at the Senator and said he would consider his remarks. The Department of Defense will agree with this bill. I do not think the President will veto it. We need to pass the bill. We need to do what is right, and our first obligation as Members of this Congress is to do everything we can for our national defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the amount of time that is remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that speaks directly to the issue of fairness in public policy. The Kansas natural gas industry operates on the slimmest of margins. It is still subject to the heavy regulatory ambitions of the Federal Government. It employs 24,000 individuals, operates in 89 of 105 Kansas counties, and in 1996 paid $132 million in mineral and property taxes in the State. Mr. President, the natural gas industry is a major industry, an important industry, and a beneficial industry to the citizens and local governments of Kansas. Unfortunately, as happens too often, a regulatory body of the Federal Government is about to cripple another valuable industry. At issue is the failure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to use discretionary authority and mitigate damages to the Kansas natural gas industry resulting from a retroactive and punitive order. Since 1974, first sellers of natural gas in Kansas have been allowed to recover the cost of a State ad valorem tax. First the Federal Power Commission and, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, held the Kansas ad valorem tax was eligible for recovery as a reimbursable tax under the Federal price ceilings established by the Federal Power Commission and later under section 110 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. In 1983, an interstate pipeline company petitioned the Commission to overturn treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable. In 1986 and 1987, the Commission responded to this petition by stating the Kansas tax clearly qualified as recoverable. In 1988 the D.C. Circuit court reviewed these prior rulings and, believing the Commission had failed to adequately explain its orders, remanded the issue to the Commission. In 1993, five years after the court remand, the Commission reversed 19 years of regulatory treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax and ordered refunds retroactive to the year 1988 based on the date of the District of Columbia Circuit's remand order. Kansas gas producers paid the ordered refunds for the period after 1988, both principal and interest. Unfortunately, in 1996 the D.C. Circuit reversed the Commission's decision and required refunds back to 1983, based on the Federal Register notice of the 1983 interstate pipeline company's petition to the Commission. In essence, what had been legal for 19 years was retroactively declared illegal, to the serious financial detriment of not only the Kansas natural gas industry, but local and state government budgets that rely on this industry's economic base. The burden on the industry was made even heavier by the assessment of interest on the period 1983 to 1988. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to alleviate the unjust and punitive financial burden placed upon this Kansas industry by the Commission. This legislation does not address the legality of the Commission or the court rulings. The subject of this legislation, the interest penalty on the principal between the years 1983 to 1988 with such interest accumulated to the present, was never considered by the D.C. Circuit. This is an issue of equity and of the proper exercise of discretion and authority by the Commission in association with an order retroactively declaring a practice ruled legal for 19 years illegal. While the industry and the State of Kansas still are in the process of assessing the cost of this Federal action, there is no question the cost will be huge and threatens to bankrupt many small producers. Relieving the industry of severe interest penalties is appropriate. Congress entrusts oversight and administration of law to regulatory bodies. When that regulatory body fails to properly administer a law, or when it exercises authority in an egregious, inequitable manner inconsistent with congressional intent, Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit's decision in this case, the actions of the Commission are unacceptable. If ever a case demonstrated the need for oversight of administrative bodies and corrective action, this is the case. The natural gas industry and the administrative bodies in Kansas government had every right to follow established regulatory guidance in treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax. Indeed, since 1974, Kansas producers had been permitted to recover this tax. In 1978, with passage of the Natural Gas Policy Act, Congress explicitly used the term ad valorem tax in report language to clarify the intent of section 110. Further, upon another challenge in 1983, the Commission reaffirmed and ruled favorably on the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable several times. Clearly a precedent was established and, over a fourteen year period, not once did Kansas gas producers have any reason to suspect or question the Commission's rulings. Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness, of equity, of this Congress' oversight responsibilities. Regulated industries have every right--indeed a responsibility--to follow and rely upon established Commission regulatory guidelines based on statutorily granted authority. I rise today to reaffirm the proper Federal-State relationship and a state's right to rely on regulatory decisions in establishing and administering the natural resource policies of the State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that speaks directly to the issue of fairness in public policy. The Kansas natural gas industry operates on the slimmest of margins. It is still subject to the heavy regulatory ambitions of the Federal Government. It employs 24,000 individuals, operates in 89 of 105 Kansas counties, and in 1996 paid $132 million in mineral and property taxes in the State. Mr. President, the natural gas industry is a major industry, an important industry, and a beneficial industry to the citizens and local governments of Kansas. Unfortunately, as happens too often, a regulatory body of the Federal Government is about to cripple another valuable industry. At issue is the failure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to use discretionary authority and mitigate damages to the Kansas natural gas industry resulting from a retroactive and punitive order. Since 1974, first sellers of natural gas in Kansas have been allowed to recover the cost of a State ad valorem tax. First the Federal Power Commission and, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, held the Kansas ad valorem tax was eligible for recovery as a reimbursable tax under the Federal price ceilings established by the Federal Power Commission and later under section 110 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. In 1983, an interstate pipeline company petitioned the Commission to overturn treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable. In 1986 and 1987, the Commission responded to this petition by stating the Kansas tax clearly qualified as recoverable. In 1988 the D.C. Circuit court reviewed these prior rulings and, believing the Commission had failed to adequately explain its orders, remanded the issue to the Commission. In 1993, five years after the court remand, the Commission reversed 19 years of regulatory treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax and ordered refunds retroactive to the year 1988 based on the date of the District of Columbia Circuit's remand order. Kansas gas producers paid the ordered refunds for the period after 1988, both principal and interest. Unfortunately, in 1996 the D.C. Circuit reversed the Commission's decision and required refunds back to 1983, based on the Federal Register notice of the 1983 interstate pipeline company's petition to the Commission. In essence, what had been legal for 19 years was retroactively declared illegal, to the serious financial detriment of not only the Kansas natural gas industry, but local and state government budgets that rely on this industry's economic base. The burden on the industry was made even heavier by the assessment of interest on the period 1983 to 1988. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to alleviate the unjust and punitive financial burden placed upon this Kansas industry by the Commission. This legislation does not address the legality of the Commission or the court rulings. The subject of this legislation, the interest penalty on the principal between the years 1983 to 1988 with such interest accumulated to the present, was never considered by the D.C. Circuit. This is an issue of equity and of the proper exercise of discretion and authority by the Commission in association with an order retroactively declaring a practice ruled legal for 19 years illegal. While the industry and the State of Kansas still are in the process of assessing the cost of this Federal action, there is no question the cost will be huge and threatens to bankrupt many small producers. Relieving the industry of severe interest penalties is appropriate. Congress entrusts oversight and administration of law to regulatory bodies. When that regulatory body fails to properly administer a law, or when it exercises authority in an egregious, inequitable manner inconsistent with congressional intent, Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit's decision in this case, the actions of the Commission are unacceptable. If ever a case demonstrated the need for oversight of administrative bodies and corrective action, this is the case. The natural gas industry and the administrative bodies in Kansas government had every right to follow established regulatory guidance in treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax. Indeed, since 1974, Kansas producers had been permitted to recover this tax. In 1978, with passage of the Natural Gas Policy Act, Congress explicitly used the term ad valorem tax in report language to clarify the intent of section 110. Further, upon another challenge in 1983, the Commission reaffirmed and ruled favorably on the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable several times. Clearly a precedent was established and, over a fourteen year period, not once did Kansas gas producers have any reason to suspect or question the Commission's rulings. Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness, of equity, of this Congress' oversight responsibilities. Regulated industries have every right--indeed a responsibility--to follow and rely upon established Commission regulatory guidelines based on statutorily granted authority. I rise today to reaffirm the proper Federal-State relationship and a state's right to rely on regulatory decisions in establishing and administering the natural resource policies of the State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, that the mandatory quorum in relation to H.R. 2646 be waived.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, yesterday those who cover national security policy and issues within our Nation's press reported the best- kept nonsecret in Washington; namely, what has already been discussed or leaked or trial ballooned or decided upon and reported for weeks in the United States and the international media has finally become public--sort of. In the last days of this session, the administration apparently will now consult with the Congress and today announce what has been obvious, and that is, Mr. President, that the United States has no intention of leaving Bosnia by the once stated deadline of the 8th of June of next year. President Clinton has not said this outright. The position to date is that he has not ruled out staying beyond June 8. However, given the overall goals of the Dayton accords in juxtaposition with the ongoing ethnic apartheid reality in Bosnia, the concern of our allies, the coming of winter in Bosnia, and the crucial and obvious need for U.S. and allied commanders to have enough time for central planning have all forced the administration's hand. Simply put, the clock is moving toward the stated deadline to have the SFOR mission in Bosnia completed. And simply put, whatever that mission is and despite recent and obvious changes under our stated mission, it is not complete. It is long past the time for the President and his national security team to simply tell it like it is. Despite the past promises to limit our engagement to 1 year, and then 2 years, and now indefinitely--I might add, promises that should not have been made and could not be kept--we are in Bosnia, for better or worse, for the long haul. First of all, our commanders and troops in the field know there are many actions that need to take place now or should have already taken place if, in fact, we are serious about ending the commitment in Bosnia in June 1998. From a military point of view, we have established significant infrastructure in Bosnia to support the SFOR troops, and unless we just intend at great cost to abandon what we have established--and we are not going to do that--the military needs a plan and time to remove equipment, to disassemble buildings, to conduct the environmental cleanup and a myriad of other tasks. Several months ago, I visited Bosnia, and I saw firsthand the extent of our involvement and developed an understanding of the complexity required to extract the SFOR troops should that decision be made. On that same trip, I visited Taszar, Hungary, the staging base for U.S. troops going into and coming out of Bosnia. Taszar also provides operational support for logistics in Bosnia. I asked the commanding general in Taszar, what is the drop dead time to support an orderly withdrawal from Bosnia and fully restore the facilities in country? And his answer was, 9 to 10 months to do the job right. Guess what? We are already past that deadline. We should have already made the decision and started to work. But apparently we have not because the President has not publicly admitted what is obvious to most people--we have no intention of leaving Bosnia in June 1998. All I am asking of the President and the administration is to be candid, come before the people and explain his intention concerning our commitment in Bosnia. Even a casual reading, Mr. President, of U.S. and European newspapers reveals numerous stories spelling out the need for continued presence of NATO forces past June 1998. These stories frequently quote U.S. administration and NATO ally decisionmakers. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. New York Times, just last week: ``Policymakers Agree on Need to extend U.S. Mission in Bosnia.'' The Clinton administration's top foreign policymakers have reached a broad consensus on the need to keep some American troops in Bosnia after their mission ends in June of next year. The article further quoted the White House National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger: ``We must not forget the important interests that led us to work for a more stable, more peaceful Bosnia'' including European stability and NATO's own credibility, he said at Georgetown University. ``The gains are not irreversible, and locking them in will require that the international community stay engaged in Bosnia for a good while to come.'' In the Great Britain Guardian, also last week; ``Bosnia forces await US Green light.'' Although the multinational NATO-led Forces are supposed to disband next June, plans for a follow-on force--unofficially the Deterrent force (D-Force)-- We are going from IFOR to SFOR to DFOR-- have already begun. The article continues: But senior military officials are reluctant to talk openly-- Let me repeat this, Mr. President-- But senior military officials are reluctant to talk openly until a skeptical United States Congress has been convinced there is no alternative to staying on. The Financial Times as of Tuesday, October 14: ``Solana plea over Bosnia support.'' Javier Solana, the NATO secretary general, made his strongest plea to date for ``a long-term commitment'' by the alliance to peacekeeping in Bosnia. Continuing, the article states: Following the lead of US administration officials who have recently started to prepare public opinion for some residual US role in Bosnia after the middle of next year, Mr. Solana said: ``NATO troops cannot and will not stay indefinitely, but NATO has a long-term interest in and commitment to Bosnia.'' The French Press Agency, 3 weeks ago: ``A `dissuasion' force to replace SFOR in Bosnia.'' A ``dissuasion'' force will take over from the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia. . ., Defense Minister Volker Ruehe told the weekly Der Spiegel. The new ``Deterrent Force'' will be significantly smaller than SFOR, which [now] numbers 36,000 men. . . These, Mr. President, are but a few examples of reports of a debate and subsequent decisions that apparently have taken place on future actions in Bosnia involving NATO and United States forces. But the sad commentary is that the Congress and the American people have been left out of this important discussion. All I am asking, Mr. President,--I am referring to President Clinton--is for you to be candid. Let us have straight talk. Come clean. Come to the Congress. Tell us your plan. Let us know what your thoughts are and the forces required after June 1998. It is my understanding that this afternoon, at approximately 4:30, that many Members of Congress, the Senate, will go to the White House to enter into a discussion finally on the administration's decision in regard to Bosnia. I have tried to understand why the President is reluctant to directly engage the Members of this body on this vital foreign policy matter. Perhaps it is because there has been some misunderstanding or maybe even he has misled us on his intent in Bosnia for the past 3 years. ``We'll be out in just 1 year.'' That was the first statement that is starting to ring a little hollow on the Hill. Does he think that we are so naive that we will not notice that the term ``SFOR'' has been replaced by ``DFOR,'' and we will think he has kept his commitment to end SFOR in June 1998? I think not. Mr. President, the issue is not the name of the commitment but the commitment itself. The use of United States forces in Bosnia is what we are concerned about. Some have suggested that the reluctance on the part of the President is the concern of two events: NATO enlargement and the decision on Bosnia will happen at about the same time next year and that both will be negatively impacted in the debate in Congress. That certainly could happen. He could be right, if an examination into the commitment in Bosnia and the debate on enlarging NATO occurs at the same time--that debate should take place at about the same time-- and there will be troubling questions raised. But the fact remains that we are in Bosnia, SFOR ends in June 1998, and the administration has done much work on the follow-on forces in Bosnia. Again, however, the administration has failed to include the Congress in its decision process. That time is now. These questions are not difficult. They are challenging, but they are obvious. I would like to review the requirement added to the defense appropriations bill that requires the President to provide certain information on our Bosnian policy. This is a matter of law. These provisions are about being honest with the American public. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for referring to these amendments as the Roberts amendment. We have had long talks about the need to become candid. Specifically, these provisions require the President to certify to Congress by May 15 that the continued presence of United States forces in Bosnia is in our national security interest and why. He must state the reasons for our deployment and the expected duration of deployment. He must provide numbers of troops deployed, estimate the dollar costs involved, and give the effect of such deployment on the overall effectiveness of our overall United States forces. Most importantly, the President must provide a clear statement of our mission and the objectives. And he must provide an exit strategy for bringing our troops home. If these specifics are not provided to the satisfaction of Congress, funding for military deployment in Bosnia will end next May. Let me repeat: We are requiring the administration to clearly articulate our Bosnia policy, justify the use of military forces, and tell us when and under what circumstances our troops can come home. I do not think that is asking too much. In my view, events of recent weeks make this an urgent matter, Mr. President. It has become increasingly clear that in the wake of the Dayton accords this administration has, to some degree, lost focus and purpose in Bosnia. Just consider the following: After drifting for months, and with elections on the near horizon, and the crippling winter only days away, I believe the mission has been changed. We have gone from peacekeeping, which is the stated goal, to peace enforcement with very dubious tactics. Item. Troop protection, refugee relocation, democracy building, and economic restoration and, the other policy goal, ``Oh, by the way, if we run across a war criminal, well, let's arrest him''--that has all been replaced. Today, we see increased troop strength--we are not revolving the troops home--have picked a United States candidate for president of Bosnia--we are no longer neutral--we have embarked upon aggressive disarmament and the location, capture and prosecution of war criminals. Is this mission creep or long overdue action? We do not know. The world was treated to the spectacle of American troops, the symbol of defenders of freedom, taking over a Bosnian television station in an effort to muzzle its news. And the troops were then stoned by angry citizens. In our new role as TV executives in Bosnia, we actually suggested what kind of programs could be run and what kind of programs could not be run. We ordered TV stations to read an apology concerning their inaccurate and unfair broadcasting. We wrote the message for them and required they read it every day for 5 days. Gen. Wesley Clark is now a new TV executive in determining what goes on television and what does not. The Washington Times reported United States troops have become the butt of jokes in Bosnia because of pregnancies. It seems the pregnancy rate among our female soldiers is between 7.5 to 8.5 percent. The Bosnia media joked that the peacekeepers are breeding like rabbits while turning a blind eye to war criminals on the lam. In a country where any benevolent leader is very scarce, we have chosen up sides, we have picked our candidates, supporting the cause of one candidate over another. I might add, that candidate has lost support as a result. Elections were conducted, but to cast ballots, many citizens had to be bussed back to their homes, which they now cannot live in or may never occupy, and then bussed out. NATO forces, which include U.S. troops, have been cast into the role of cops on the beat, chasing war crimes suspects. Just to arrest Mr. Karadzic, we are told, try him for war crimes and our problems will be solved. But as the New York Times recently pointed out: ``[Mr.] Karadzic reflects widely held views in Serbian society.'' If you bring him to trial in The Hague, somebody else will take his place. Do these events reflect a sound and defensible Bosnian policy that is in our national interest? Or do they sound an ominous alarm as America is dragged down into a Byzantine nightmare straight out of a Kafka novel? Ask the basic question, ``Who's in charge and where are we heading?'' and to date there has been silence from the administration. But that silence speaks volumes, Mr. President, about the lack of direction and focus of our Bosnian policy. If the provisions of the defense appropriations bill do nothing else, they should force a major reexamination of our Bosnian involvement from top to bottom. As Chairman Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will tell you, our involvement in Bosnia has come at a large price. There are approximately 9,000 American troops in Bosnia. That is closer to 15,000 today. That is nearly one-third of the NATO troops involved. Dollar costs are escalating. From 1992 until 1995, the United States spent about $2.2 billion on various peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. From 1996 through 1998, costs are estimated to be $7.8 billion. That figure, too, is escalating. In justifying our policy in Bosnia, the administration must include a plan to fund the costs. Do they intend to take these rising costs out of the current defense budget, money we need for modernization, procurement, quality of life for the armed services to protect our vital national security interests? Or is the administration prepared to come clean and ask for the money up front? Finally, I offer these thoughts, Mr. President. All of us in this body desperately want lasting peace in Bosnia. I know it is easy to criticize, but we want the killing to stop. We all want that. We want stability in that part of the world. We do not want a Palestine in the middle of Central Europe. Permanent peace, permanent stability, but wishing--wishing--it does not make it so. Richard Grenier, writing for the Washington Times, put it this way: . . . generally speaking, Serbs didn't love Croats, Croats didn't love Serbs, nor did either of them love Muslims. Reciprocally, Muslims loved neither Croats or Serbs. What happened to the lessons we're supposed to have learned in Beirut and Somalia? What happened to our swearing off of mission creep? In Beirut we were intervening in Lebanese domestic affairs, which led to the death of 241 U.S. Marines. Our mission in Somalia, originally purely humanitarian, expanded like a balloon as we thought, given our great talent, we could build a new Somali nation. [We all saw] what happened. But here we go again in Bosnia. Once again our goal was at first laudably humanitarian: to stop the killing. We have done that, thank goodness. But it expanded as we thought how wonderful it would be if we could build a beautiful, tolerant, multi-ethnic Bosnia, on the model of American multiculturalism. . . Gen. John Sheehan, a Marine general, just stated in the press--and a remarkable candidate interviewed just this past week--we can stay in Bosnia for 500 years and we would not solve the problem. It is a cultural war. It is an ethnic war. The Bosnian situation is complex. And it is shrouded by centuries of conflict that only a few understand. They have had peace and stability and order and discipline only a few times in their history--the latest being with an iron fist by Marshal Tito. Is that what NATO is going to be all about? What we have seen in recent months is a lull in the fighting, unfortunately not its end. It is a fragile peace held together only by continued presence of military force. How long can that continue? Are we prepared to pay the price? National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said the United States must remain engaged in Bosnia beyond June of next year, but that continued American troop presence has not been decided. This afternoon, when Members of Congress meet at the White House, it is time to decide what the specifics of our Bosnian policy will be. Compare that statement of our National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, with that of the advice of former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote just this past week: ``America must avoid drifting into crisis with implications it may not be able to master'' and that ``America has no [vital] national interest for which to risk lives to produce a multiethnic state in Bosnia.'' Mr. President, no more drift. It is time for candor and clear purpose. Let the debate begin when the White House meets, finally, with Members of Congress this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately begin a cloture vote on the committee amendment to the ISTEA legislation. It is the leader's hope that cloture will be invoked. Let me repeat that. It is the leader's hope that cloture will be invoked and the Senate will be able to consider and dispose of highway-related amendments. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate may consider any available appropriations conference reports--possibly the Interior conference report. Therefore, additional votes may occur during today's session. As always, all Members will be notified as additional schedule information becomes available in regard to votes today, and the leader will update all Senators later today as to the schedule for Monday's session.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senate for 12 minutes as if we were in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that really should not have to be introduced to address a controversy that should not be taking place. The legislation is intended to prevent further construction of any memorial on the parcel of Federal land surrounding the U.S. Marine Corps memorial commonly known as the Iwo Jima memorial located in Arlington, VA. Mr. President, the reason I am introducing this legislation is that, unfortunately, this site has been selected for a 50-foot high Air Force memorial approximately 500 feet from the Iwo Jima statue. Mr. President, I realize full well that this legislation and this issue will and has caused considerable emotional debate and difference of opinion within our Marine and Air Force communities. I stress that in my opinion it does not have to be that way. First, the points that I will raise should not be construed as any denigration or challenge to the worthiness of a memorial to the proud men and women of the U.S. Air Force who have served our Nation so very well. In fact, one of my points is that our U.S. Air Force deserves its own special place that will not compete with any other memorial. In discussing this legislation, I am going to leave the legal issues to those with better expertise in the nuance of law. The point I would like to stress is very basic. It supersedes reports and hearings and commission recommendations and whether or not the proponents of construction of another memorial have successfully--and apparently they have--traversed the procedural obstacle course and the tripwires necessary to gain approval for construction. Simply put, the Iwo Jima memorial represents and memorializes an absolutely unique and special time in our Nation's history. Just as Bunker Hill and Saratoga and Yorktown and Gettysburg, Belleau Wood and Bataan, Normandy, Chosin Reservoir, and other battles have been etched in our national psyche as touchstones and reminders of courage, valor and bravery in defense of freedom, and have special meaning for this Nation and the valiant members of our Armed Forces that fought bravely in each of those campaigns, Iwo Jima became a rallying point for this country and the U.S. Marine Corps during the dark days of the war in the Pacific. Mr. President, on a personal note, for me, the Iwo Jima memorial has special meaning. My dad, then a Marine major, Wes Roberts, took part in the battle of Iwo Jima. His accounts of the bravery and sacrifice are part of our family's history and inspiration. Fifteen years later, then Marine Lt. Pat Roberts, stationed in Okinawa with the 3d Marine Division, revisited Iwo Jima, along with the first official Marine party to pay a personal tribute and visit to that island. My assignment was to cover the visit and dedication for the Stars and Stripes newspaper. I shall never forget the experience. Iwo Jima veterans, enlisted and officers, stood on Mt. Suribachi in the quiet of the gentle wind overlooking a now lush green island in the blue of the Pacific, and there was not a sound. Then, in hushed tones, mixed with emotion and tears, the Iwo Jima veterans relived, recounted that battle and said many a prayer for their fallen comrades. Lt. General Thomas A. Wornham placed a 5th Marine Division insignia on the flagpole atop famous Suribachi. Former members of his old unit, the 27th Marines, stood with visiting dignitaries. They listened quietly. The general said, ``We landed over there by those two rocks. The terraces were much higher then. I crawled on my hands and knees right by that small hill.'' In a low whisper, Col. John W. Antonelli, former 2d battalion Commander in the 27th, said, ``I cannot look at this scene, this island, without thinking of my Marines who died in order to capture it. From the top of Suribachi, I can see where they fell. One of my best friends was killed in that ravine. Every time the Marines would take cover there, they invited the incoming artillery.'' Then Col. Donn J. Robertson, former 3d battalion commander in the famous regiment, told listeners how the island had changed. ``This new lush vegetation would have given our boys much needed cover then. As I stand here looking down from Suribachi, I realize how the enemy had us covered in interlocking fire. We landed on a beautiful day just like this, sun shining, blue sky, blue ocean. I am thankful to be alive.'' Standing on Suribachi, it was difficult for any of us to imagine how anyone could have survived the landing and day-after-day assault. The day after the island was declared secure more marines suffered casualties than they had in the last 10. But survive they did, and Old Glory was raised over Iwo Jima on the 23d of February, 1945, and captured on film to become a pictorial moment in history unequaled in portraying uncommon valor. Almost 10 years later, that special event in our Nation's history was recreated and consecrated forever in the dedication of the Iwo Jima memorial here in our Nation's Capital and now attracts over 1 million visitors every year. Let me stress, Mr. President, that Iwo Jima is not purely a Marine Corps memorial. It does, of course, represent an extremely important event in the proud history of our corps, but it is, in a larger sense, a memorial for the American people. Many consider the Iwo Jima site as hallowed ground and certainly not a site where there should be a competing memorial. I also wish to acknowledge that the Air Force Association has been forthright and aboveboard in the process to find a suitable site for their proposed memorial. I applaud and support their efforts to properly recognize the superb contribution the men and women of the U.S. Air Force have made to this country. The point is that I do not believe it serves any purpose for either memorial to compete with or stand in the shadow of the other. I also realize the proponents of the Air Force memorial will say it will not interfere with Iwo Jima, and it will be located behind a line of trees so that it cannot be seen from the Iwo site. Now, the sense I get from those statements is that the Air Force memorial will figuratively be in the shadow of Iwo Jima. If so, that, quite frankly, is not fair to the Air Force and to those the memorial is intended to honor. A location should be found where the memorial can stand clearly, proudly, and in its own place without competition from any other structure. In addition, the National Planning Commission report recognizes that the site for the proposed Air Force memorial is, ``fragile and delicate.'' The report further recognizes that the area encompassing the Iwo Jima memorial and the Netherlands Carillon and the Arlington National Cemetery is ``reverent space whose beautiful nature is already heavily disrupted by heavy automobile and bus traffic on the periphery and by tour bus traffic within the area itself. The planned construction of 40 additional parking spaces adjacent to the memorial, which is currently a wooded area, would further diminish the natural beauty of the memorial and the park surroundings.'' I realize in the passage of time, even the most memorable acts of courage and valor and bravery tend to fade into yesterday's history books. Succeeding generations tend to forget the lessons of the past, and the world, indeed, is a different place. Today, great historical events, and even the lives and lessons of our Founding Fathers are many times mere footnotes in a fast-paced society, or worse, subject to revision depending on what is politically correct at the moment. But, let us not add to or hasten this erosion by unnecessarily competing or infringing upon what has been accurately called ``sacred and reverent space.'' This so-called controversy about the location of the proposed Air Force memorial in conjunction with the Iwo Jima memorial is, in fact, a paradox of enormous irony. The battle of Iwo Jima was fought to secure a safe haven and staging area for bomber aircraft flown by the forerunners of the U.S. Air Force. Marines fought and died to help save the lives of the fliers of the Army Air Corps. For 43 years, ever since the memorial was dedicated on the Marine Corps birthday in 1954, the Iwo Jima memorial has been in fact a memorial to both brave marines and fliers of World War II. Why, why then, why indeed, should any memorial so inspired, so true to the memory and sacrifice of both marines and Army Air Corps fliers, why should such hallowed ground be subject to encroachment and duplication of yet another memorial for the same purpose, a memorial that should stand in its own right and on its own site? We should preserve the sanctity of a memorial that has come to be viewed by all Americans as a de facto memorial to World War II. Nothing should detract from the serene and hallowed setting of the Iwo Jima memorial. In a letter I have received from the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, Gen. C.C. Krulak, the Commandant eloquently sums up what all marines feel in their hearts and what I have tried to explain in my remarks. I quote from his letter: Although I was just a young boy, I remember watching as the Iwo Jima memorial was erected on the edge of Arlington Cemetery. I remember that November day in 1954 when my godfather, Gen. Holland ``Howlin Mad'' Smith, stood before that magnificent statue and, with tears slowly streaming down his cheeks, softly said, ``My marines, my marines. . . .'' Truly, this is a sacred place. Mr. President, the commandant went on to say that, as the last marine on active duty to have witnessed the Iwo dedication, he truly believes that this Nation must preserve its sanctity. For, as General Krulak said, the Iwo Jima memorial is more than a monument; it is a place for reflection, a place to pay respect, and a place to gain inner strength. Over 23,000 marines were killed or injured on Iwo Jima, and each year, over 1 million Americans pay tribute to those marines. General Krulak closed his letter by saying: In speaking for them, for their survivors, and for all marines past, present and future, the sanctity of the Iwo Jima memorial must be preserved. Semper fidelis, general, semper fidelis. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that really should not have to be introduced to address a controversy that should not be taking place. The legislation is intended to prevent further construction of any memorial on the parcel of Federal land surrounding the U.S. Marine Corps memorial commonly known as the Iwo Jima memorial located in Arlington, VA. Mr. President, the reason I am introducing this legislation is that, unfortunately, this site has been selected for a 50-foot high Air Force memorial approximately 500 feet from the Iwo Jima statue. Mr. President, I realize full well that this legislation and this issue will and has caused considerable emotional debate and difference of opinion within our Marine and Air Force communities. I stress that in my opinion it does not have to be that way. First, the points that I will raise should not be construed as any denigration or challenge to the worthiness of a memorial to the proud men and women of the U.S. Air Force who have served our Nation so very well. In fact, one of my points is that our U.S. Air Force deserves its own special place that will not compete with any other memorial. In discussing this legislation, I am going to leave the legal issues to those with better expertise in the nuance of law. The point I would like to stress is very basic. It supersedes reports and hearings and commission recommendations and whether or not the proponents of construction of another memorial have successfully--and apparently they have--traversed the procedural obstacle course and the tripwires necessary to gain approval for construction. Simply put, the Iwo Jima memorial represents and memorializes an absolutely unique and special time in our Nation's history. Just as Bunker Hill and Saratoga and Yorktown and Gettysburg, Belleau Wood and Bataan, Normandy, Chosin Reservoir, and other battles have been etched in our national psyche as touchstones and reminders of courage, valor and bravery in defense of freedom, and have special meaning for this Nation and the valiant members of our Armed Forces that fought bravely in each of those campaigns, Iwo Jima became a rallying point for this country and the U.S. Marine Corps during the dark days of the war in the Pacific. Mr. President, on a personal note, for me, the Iwo Jima memorial has special meaning. My dad, then a Marine major, Wes Roberts, took part in the battle of Iwo Jima. His accounts of the bravery and sacrifice are part of our family's history and inspiration. Fifteen years later, then Marine Lt. Pat Roberts, stationed in Okinawa with the 3d Marine Division, revisited Iwo Jima, along with the first official Marine party to pay a personal tribute and visit to that island. My assignment was to cover the visit and dedication for the Stars and Stripes newspaper. I shall never forget the experience. Iwo Jima veterans, enlisted and officers, stood on Mt. Suribachi in the quiet of the gentle wind overlooking a now lush green island in the blue of the Pacific, and there was not a sound. Then, in hushed tones, mixed with emotion and tears, the Iwo Jima veterans relived, recounted that battle and said many a prayer for their fallen comrades. Lt. General Thomas A. Wornham placed a 5th Marine Division insignia on the flagpole atop famous Suribachi. Former members of his old unit, the 27th Marines, stood with visiting dignitaries. They listened quietly. The general said, ``We landed over there by those two rocks. The terraces were much higher then. I crawled on my hands and knees right by that small hill.'' In a low whisper, Col. John W. Antonelli, former 2d battalion Commander in the 27th, said, ``I cannot look at this scene, this island, without thinking of my Marines who died in order to capture it. From the top of Suribachi, I can see where they fell. One of my best friends was killed in that ravine. Every time the Marines would take cover there, they invited the incoming artillery.'' Then Col. Donn J. Robertson, former 3d battalion commander in the famous regiment, told listeners how the island had changed. ``This new lush vegetation would have given our boys much needed cover then. As I stand here looking down from Suribachi, I realize how the enemy had us covered in interlocking fire. We landed on a beautiful day just like this, sun shining, blue sky, blue ocean. I am thankful to be alive.'' Standing on Suribachi, it was difficult for any of us to imagine how anyone could have survived the landing and day-after-day assault. The day after the island was declared secure more marines suffered casualties than they had in the last 10. But survive they did, and Old Glory was raised over Iwo Jima on the 23d of February, 1945, and captured on film to become a pictorial moment in history unequaled in portraying uncommon valor. Almost 10 years later, that special event in our Nation's history was recreated and consecrated forever in the dedication of the Iwo Jima memorial here in our Nation's Capital and now attracts over 1 million visitors every year. Let me stress, Mr. President, that Iwo Jima is not purely a Marine Corps memorial. It does, of course, represent an extremely important event in the proud history of our corps, but it is, in a larger sense, a memorial for the American people. Many consider the Iwo Jima site as hallowed ground and certainly not a site where there should be a competing memorial. I also wish to acknowledge that the Air Force Association has been forthright and aboveboard in the process to find a suitable site for their proposed memorial. I applaud and support their efforts to properly recognize the superb contribution the men and women of the U.S. Air Force have made to this country. The point is that I do not believe it serves any purpose for either memorial to compete with or stand in the shadow of the other. I also realize the proponents of the Air Force memorial will say it will not interfere with Iwo Jima, and it will be located behind a line of trees so that it cannot be seen from the Iwo site. Now, the sense I get from those statements is that the Air Force memorial will figuratively be in the shadow of Iwo Jima. If so, that, quite frankly, is not fair to the Air Force and to those the memorial is intended to honor. A location should be found where the memorial can stand clearly, proudly, and in its own place without competition from any other structure. In addition, the National Planning Commission report recognizes that the site for the proposed Air Force memorial is, ``fragile and delicate.'' The report further recognizes that the area encompassing the Iwo Jima memorial and the Netherlands Carillon and the Arlington National Cemetery is ``reverent space whose beautiful nature is already heavily disrupted by heavy automobile and bus traffic on the periphery and by tour bus traffic within the area itself. The planned construction of 40 additional parking spaces adjacent to the memorial, which is currently a wooded area, would further diminish the natural beauty of the memorial and the park surroundings.'' I realize in the passage of time, even the most memorable acts of courage and valor and bravery tend to fade into yesterday's history books. Succeeding generations tend to forget the lessons of the past, and the world, indeed, is a different place. Today, great historical events, and even the lives and lessons of our Founding Fathers are many times mere footnotes in a fast-paced society, or worse, subject to revision depending on what is politically correct at the moment. But, let us not add to or hasten this erosion by unnecessarily competing or infringing upon what has been accurately called ``sacred and reverent space.'' This so-called controversy about the location of the proposed Air Force memorial in conjunction with the Iwo Jima memorial is, in fact, a paradox of enormous irony. The battle of Iwo Jima was fought to secure a safe haven and staging area for bomber aircraft flown by the forerunners of the U.S. Air Force. Marines fought and died to help save the lives of the fliers of the Army Air Corps. For 43 years, ever since the memorial was dedicated on the Marine Corps birthday in 1954, the Iwo Jima memorial has been in fact a memorial to both brave marines and fliers of World War II. Why, why then, why indeed, should any memorial so inspired, so true to the memory and sacrifice of both marines and Army Air Corps fliers, why should such hallowed ground be subject to encroachment and duplication of yet another memorial for the same purpose, a memorial that should stand in its own right and on its own site? We should preserve the sanctity of a memorial that has come to be viewed by all Americans as a de facto memorial to World War II. Nothing should detract from the serene and hallowed setting of the Iwo Jima memorial. In a letter I have received from the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, Gen. C.C. Krulak, the Commandant eloquently sums up what all marines feel in their hearts and what I have tried to explain in my remarks. I quote from his letter: Although I was just a young boy, I remember watching as the Iwo Jima memorial was erected on the edge of Arlington Cemetery. I remember that November day in 1954 when my godfather, Gen. Holland ``Howlin Mad'' Smith, stood before that magnificent statue and, with tears slowly streaming down his cheeks, softly said, ``My marines, my marines. . . .'' Truly, this is a sacred place. Mr. President, the commandant went on to say that, as the last marine on active duty to have witnessed the Iwo dedication, he truly believes that this Nation must preserve its sanctity. For, as General Krulak said, the Iwo Jima memorial is more than a monument; it is a place for reflection, a place to pay respect, and a place to gain inner strength. Over 23,000 marines were killed or injured on Iwo Jima, and each year, over 1 million Americans pay tribute to those marines. General Krulak closed his letter by saying: In speaking for them, for their survivors, and for all marines past, present and future, the sanctity of the Iwo Jima memorial must be preserved. Semper fidelis, general, semper fidelis. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am making today one of those ``I did not intend to make a speech, but here I am making a speech'' speeches. I think most would agree that opponents of so-called campaign reform--a term, by the way, which should top the oxymoron list of the 1990's--the opponents of this ill-advised attack on free speech have just about worn everybody out, even in Washington where people actually talk about such topics over dinner. Some months ago, thanks to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I spoke on this issue and made what I thought was a pretty fair defense of free political discourse when the distinguished Senator from South Carolina proposed withdrawing first amendment protection from that same political discourse. Senator Hollings, by the way, was up front. He was candid in his approach, as opposed to the current proposals of so- called reform. Having been through at least three campaign reform efforts in the House of Representatives as a member of the then Administration Committee and goodness knows how many campaign task forces, and having paid attention to the current debate, I have been hard pressed to figure out what can be said that has not been said. However, it appears as if there is a sure bet in regard to this topic. It is that those who insist that they propose reform, regardless of the consequences, and wave their reform banners from self-consecrated, high moral ground, they never seem to suffer from arm fatigue. When it comes to campaign reform, the high road of humility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this town. Despite the fact there is no clear consensus or a majority in the Senate regarding alleged campaign reform, there is no mercy from the proponents of the effort to further federalize the American electoral system, and we will apparently debate and vote, debate and vote and say the same things over and over and over and over again. I would surmise this is going to get a little tiresome, if not painful. But apparently the failure of past reforms does not deter or change the minds of current reformers. Well, when you know all the answers, you haven't asked all the questions. But in this debate, there is a new axiom: The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinions, and apparently the less a thing can be proven, the angrier we get when we argue about it. Nevertheless, I think we have an obligation to at least try to set the record straight in regard to this issue and, in that regard, I would like to make the following observations: First, the distinguished Democratic leader of the Senate, Senator Daschle, a good friend, stated on the floor that there should be no confusion--no confusion--that the question is, do you support meaningful reform in response to the hearings regarding all of the illegal campaign activities apparently conducted in the last Presidential campaign. The only problem with the Senator's statement is that the campaign finance reform bill is not reform. Let me repeat that, it is a reform bill that is not reform. It will not work. It again leads us down the road to a maze of election laws, rules, and regulations that favor incumbents, restricts desired political participation on the part of the American people, and would tripwire honest candidates and citizens into criminal acts. To make matters worse, the bill is fundamentally flawed and is what I hope--I hope--is an unintended attack on the most basic right of individuals guaranteed by our Constitution, and that is the right of free speech, the right written first, the right without which no other right can long exist. Well, I know that people who think they know it all often annoy those of us who really do, but for the life of me, how this concoction can be labeled or disguised as ``reform'' is beyond me. Senator McConnell said it best when he stated: My goal is to redefine reform, to move the debate away from arbitrary limits and toward expanded citizen participation and political discourse. He said McCain-Feingold is a failed approach. It is. We already have it in the Presidential system. It is a failure. So, for all the good press and good intentions, McCain-Feingold is a bad bill. Why? The basic premise of the bill is flawed, Mr. President. That premise is that too much money is corrupting politics. No, it is not. Oh, now, now, I realize that our opponents and all of the so-called special interest groups--those groups who do not agree with us--they have too much money, I know that. And I realize when they spend it on negative ads opposing me or positions that I favor, that spending should be banned or limited --boy, I'm for that--or at least capped. Too much spending? Compared to what? The Citizens Research Foundation has reported that campaign spending for all offices in 1996 added up to about $4 billion. All offices of the United States, $4 billion. That is a lot of money. But that compares to one-twentieth of 1 percent of the gross domestic product in our country of $7.6 trillion. One-twentieth of 1 percent is too much to set priorities on how those trillions will affect our daily lives and pocketbooks in the next generations of Americans? Compared to what? Americans spend $20 billion on dry cleaning and laundry. One 30- second Super Bowl ad could finance three campaigns for Congress. Columnist George Will points out that millions of Americans gave $2.6 billion to 476 congressional campaigns and still had enough left over to spend $4.6 billion on potato chips. We can apply the same thing to yogurt or almost anything the American people will spend their hard- earned dollars on. While having the privilege of presiding in this body, I remember well the chart displayed by proponents of this bill. It showed the so-called dramatic increase in campaign spending since 1976. It did not show the causes--the increase in postage, radio, TV, newspaper ads, printing, phone banks, campaign workers, all of that. It did not show virtually everything else that Americans must purchase in this country has also increased--homes, education, automobiles, health care--not to mention the purchasing power of the individual citizen. Senator McConnell has pointed out that in 1996, we had a pretty high- stakes election, a very important election. There was a fierce ideological battle over the future of this country. On a per eligible voter basis, the congressional elections cost $3.89. Every voter in America, dividing it up equally, is $3.89, about 4 bucks. The Senator pointed out that that is roughly the cost of a McDonald's extra value meal. The second major flaw I think in McCain-Feingold is that no matter how you try to regulate or cap the flow of money to campaigns, it reappears, most of the time in the murky and illegal shadows with little or no public disclosure. Witness the circumvention of current campaign laws in regard to the money laundering scheme among certain interest groups, the Democratic National Committee and the Teamsters Union. To make matters worse, McCain-Feingold compounds the felony. Instead of focusing on blatant violations of current law, the reformers want to place limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates for election. And therein, Mr. President, lies the ``Aha!'' of this current debate, what is really going on. As Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. It is pretty simple, really. Just take the interest groups who are pushing for this so-called reform and then take a look at their legislative agenda. I wrote it down. I had a staff member go through it. All the interest groups that are for campaign finance reform and then their legislative agenda: Nationalized health insurance; status quo on Medicare and Social Security--this is my version; increased Federal role in education; opposition to liability and tort reform; opposition to tax cuts; increased Federal role in environmental protection. I might support part of that. Opposition to a balanced budget; reduced defense spending; opposition to current welfare reform. I am not trying to perjure these positions. They are honest positions. The AARP, AFL-CIO, Common Cause, and the many so-called nonprofit consumer groups have every right to express their views, and they do. These issues are bigtime stuff. How we decide these issues will affect the daily lives, pocketbooks, and future of every member of these organizations, every American. Organized labor should weigh in. Boy, they sure as heck did in the last election in my campaign. But so should the business community and farmers and ranchers and small business Main Street America, and all of the folks who might just disagree on how we get there from here on these issues. The truth of it is this reform is skewed to a particular political point of view. It is called unilateral retreat from the political playing field for those who have a political view different from you, but we will continue our vote, our vote buying, really, through the Federal budget. Take the proposal to ban so-called soft money. Ban soft money and all of the interest groups whose future is and will be decided in part by the decisions of those who propose the ban will simply bypass the Republican and Democratic Parties and will conduct their own campaigns, and we will have a further weakening of the two-party system. That is wrong. That is detrimental. I know soft money has become a pejorative, but, in fact, it is the only money spent today on campaigns by the American people that is not under control of the Federal Government. We haven't got our fishhooks into the regulations and redtape and all that goes with it. Are we really saying, Mr. President, are we really saying that in America citizens and various interests groups whose very economic future depends on the decisions we make in this Congress cannot support or oppose those candidates? Think about it. ``I'm sorry, you cannot invest in good government, you cannot express your point of view independent from the FEC.'' There are many countries in which that is the case--China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. I do not think we want to go down that road. ``I am sorry, Farmer Jones, you cannot run an ad or distribute a handbill opposing Pat Roberts in his freedom-to-farm bill 60 days before the election. That's soft money. You can't do it.'' The same thing for farm organizations or commodity groups--unless, of course, you are a newspaper or a labor union. How do you define a newspaper, by the way? It used to be to be a newspaper you had a hatrack, and then you had a typewriter, and you had a letter press, and you had somebody run it. You had a list. You had advertisers. You had to get your printing equipment somewhere. You had the local printing contract for the county. Today, a newspaper is when you have a computer. You can manufacturer your own newspaper--Pat Roberts Weekly News, published every day. I do not know how you are going to define this. Who is going to be in charge? Finally, let me stress the most serious flaw in the McCain-Feingold bill, and that is money spent to express your views or the views of voters cannot be regulated or banned without being at odds with the first amendment. We simply cannot improve the integrity of any political system by restricting the political speech under the banner of reform. Speech controls in the last 60 days of a campaign envisioned in the bill represent the lawyer full-employment act. Just read the provisions exempting the voter guides and try to figure it out. Well, finally, I must say, with all due respect--this may be viewed as a little partisan on my part--but with all due respect, that the administration's position in regard to campaign finance represents a new threshold for what is political chutzpah. Here we have evidence presented before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee itemizing campaign malfeasance that includes everything from Buddhist nuns; unprecedented misuse of our Nation's intelligence agencies--let me repeat, unprecedented misuse of the CIA for campaign activities--that is unprecedented; money laundering in exchange for taking sides in a Teamsters election; a fugitive influence peddler bribing his way to the President's side--he did not get his way, thank goodness--soft money turned to hard, circumventing existing campaign limits; and now missing tapes of the White House coffees or fundraisers. In answer to all of this, Mr. President, the people who have been caught with their hands in the campaign violation cookie jar say we need a new cookie jar. President Clinton stating he will take the bully pulpit for campaign finance reform is like somebody charged with drunk driving insisting we lower the speed limit for everybody else. Mr. President, in regard to President Clinton, the administration and the proponents of reform that is not reform, the greatest of faults is to be conscious of none. In this regard, I do not mean to malign the President or my dear friends across the aisle, but this is not reform. I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture. Let us get on with the business of the Senate in the United States. Oh, and real campaign reform? As stated by Robert Samuelson in his column in Newsweek, ``The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible-- and most important--'' most important, do not infringe upon the first amendment, ``let the public see who is giving.'' They can figure it out. They are six jumps ahead of Washington and any proponent of reform we have in this body. ``That would be genuine reform.'' I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern regarding actions last night in Bosnia. NATO forces, of which we constitute the major part, have again seized several Bosnian Serb radio transmitters because they were hostile to the peacekeeping goals of our forces. No doubt that was the case. I have no question about that. But I suggest that were we at war and the issue more clear such action would be more than warranted. But we are not, Mr. President. We are trying to implement the Dayton accords, and as such I am concerned this action is not only questionable but may very well be counterproductive. What did the stations do to warrant this action? They said bad things about the SFOR troops and our mission, and they tampered, apparently, with an hour-long program taped by Louise Arbor, head of the International War Crimes Tribunal. The good news, Mr. President, is that no violence has occurred yet in regard to the seizure. But I remind my colleagues that the last time we did this our troops were stoned and we quickly returned the station. But we made the Serbs promise not to interfere with pro-Moslem or pro- SFOR messages. Is anyone really surprised, Mr. President, that the Serbs did not live up to that promise? First question: Now what? Do we have a plan this time? Do we intend to monitor and control all of the media in Bosnia to ensure that only messages that meet our criteria are heard by the people of Bosnia? Is that what the NATO mission has become--one-sided and totally controlled by NATO? Will we put NATO media and our intelligence personnel, let's be frank about it, in charge to produce programs that fit our mission? Are we shining the light of truth into Serb darkness or are we holding a censorship flashlight? If that is the case, I think you can make a good case that we are enforcing the peace and we are aggressively establishing media control, then let's not kid ourselves and continue to call our role even-handed peacekeeping. But here is the second question: What will we do if the Serbs react violently to the seizure? General Clark has stated rightly that we will use lethal force to protect our forces. Is this the issue that will precipitate that lethal force? Is this how we would explain loss of life to the parents of an American man or woman in uniform stationed in Bosnia? Mr. President, we need to hear from the administration on last night's action and they need to outline the plan to get us out of this tar baby. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, notwithstanding the upcoming vote, for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and ranking member. Everyone involved in our military and our national security owes Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye a depth of gratitude for their outstanding leadership. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the provisions contained in the defense appropriations bill--so kindly referred to by the chairman as the Roberts amendment--that will force the Clinton administration to clearly and articulately justify our policy in the use of military forces in Bosnia. Additionally, Mr. President, these provisions will also force Congress to debate the Bosnian dilemma and our policy in that shattered region. These provisions are about being honest with the American public. Specifically, these provisions require the President to certify to Congress by May 15 of next year that the continued presence of U.S. forces in Bosnia is in our national security interests, and why. He must state the reasons for deployment, and the expected duration of deployment. He must provide numbers of troops deployed, estimate the dollar costs involved, and give the effect of such deployment on overall effectiveness of our U.S. forces. Most importantly, the President must provide a clear statement of our mission, and our objective. And he must provide an exit strategy for bringing our troops home. If these specifics are not provided to the satisfaction of the Congress, funding for military deployment in Bosnia will end next May. Let me repeat: We are requiring the administration--and, yes; the Congress--to clearly articulate our Bosnia policy, justify use of military forces, and tell us when and under what circumstances our troops can come home. That is not asking too much. In my view, events of recent weeks make this an urgent matter. It has become increasingly clear to me that in the wake of the Dayton accords, and after drifting for months, and with elections on the near horizon and the crippling winter only weeks away, the United States went from peacekeeping to peace enforcement with what I consider to be dubious tactics. Troop protection, refugee relocation, democracy building, economic restoration, and, oh, by the way, if we run across a war criminal let's arrest him. Those goals have been replaced. So today we see increased troop strengths--perhaps up to 16,000--we have picked a U.S. candidate in the election process, we have embarked upon an aggressive disarmament and location, and capture and prosecution of war criminals. Is this mission creep, or is it long overdue action, Mr. President? And will these goals accomplish realistic progress? Item: The world was treated to the spectacle of American troops, the symbol of freedom's defenders, taking over a Bosnia television station in an effort to muzzle its news. The troops were stoned by angry citizens. We gave the TV station back. Item: In the country where benevolent leaders are scarce, we have chosen up sides, supporting the cause of one candidate over another. It is a cynical approach, it seems to this Senator, to foreign policy that says to the world, ``Sure, he--or she--is a dictator, but he's our dictator.'' At least for the time being. Item: Elections were conducted but to cast ballots--listen up--to cast ballots many citizens had to be bussed back to their homes, which they cannot now, or may never, occupy to vote for officials who will never serve unless SFOR stands at the ready. In the Civil War in the United States, Quantrill's Raiders sacked Lawrence, then fled to Missouri. Should his ruffians have been bussed back to Lawrence to vote for city council? That makes about as much sense. Item. A United States diplomat overruled a Norwegian judge, whose decision disqualified candidates with ties to indicted war crime suspect Radovan Karadzic. Members of the group overseeing the elections threatened to resign. Posters of Elmer Fudd--I am not making this up. That's right, the cartoon character Elmer Fudd sprouted up as a protest to ``free'' elections by one faction. NATO forces, which include U.S. troops, have been cast into the role of cops on the beat chasing war crimes suspects. Just arrest Mr. Karadzic, we are told, try him for war crimes, and our problems will be solved. Mr. President, as the New York Times pointed out recently, much as we do not like it, ``Mr. Karadzic reflects widely held views in Serbian society.'' Those views are real. Do these events reflect a sound, defensible Bosnian policy that is in our national interest? Or do they sound an ominous alarm as America is dragged down into a Byzantine nightmare straight out of a Kafka novel? I visited Bosnia, like many of my colleagues. I talked with the troops in August, met with the officers, met with intelligence officials. They are outstanding individuals. They deserve our support, our respect, our gratitude. They are doing an outstanding job, Mr. President, even though they have not been given a coherent mission. Just this past week, Gen. Hugh Shelton, our outstanding nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at his confirmation hearing by Senator McCain of Arizona whether there is a strategy to remove United States troops from Bosnia, and the general was stumped. Let me repeat that. The general admitted he was aware of no exit strategy by the administration. That awareness is repeated in Tazar, Mr. President, which is our staging base in southern Hungary, 7 days in for our troops and 7 days out. We have no clear idea of how to extract them. If the provisions of this bill do nothing else, they should force a major reexamination of our Bosnian involvement from top to bottom. Now, our former Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, articulated six conditions for military intervention, Mr. President. I repeat them here today just to show how much our Bosnian policy is lacking. He said troops should be committed only when the following things happen: No. 1. Vital national interests are threatened. I do not think that is the case in Bosnia. The United States clearly intends to win. We did win. We stopped the fighting. But the political settlement is contrary to the means by which we stopped the fighting. We separated the ethnic groups. Now we are trying to put them back together again. The intervention has precisely defined political and military objectives. As the former Secretary of Defense said, there is reasonable assurance that intervention will be supported by the American people and the Congress. The commitment of American forces and their objectives can be reassessed and adjusted, if necessary. And, finally, Secretary Weinberger said this: The commitment of forces to combat is undertaken as a last resort. As Chairman Stevens will tell you, our involvement in Bosnia has come at a large price. There are approximately 10,000 troops. I personally think it is closer to 16,000. That is nearly one-third of the 35,000 NATO troops involved. From 1996 to 1998, costs are estimated to be $7.8 billion--almost $8 billion. That figure, too, may escalate. In justifying our policy in Bosnia, the administration must include a plan to fund the costs. Do they intend to take these rising costs out of the current defense budget, money we need for modernization and procurement and quality of life for the armed services to protect our vital national security interests? Or is the administration prepared to come clean and ask for the money up front? Finally, I offer these thoughts. All of us in this body, and I know President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen, all of us, desperately want lasting peace in Bosnia--all of our allies as well. We want the killing to stop. We have stopped the killing. We want stability in that part of the world, permanent peace and permanent stability. But wishing it does not make it so. Richard Grenier, writing for the Washington Times put it this way: Generally speaking, Serbs didn't love Croats, Croats didn't love Serbs, nor do either of them love Muslims. Reciprocally, Muslims love neither the Croats or Serbs. What happened to the lessons we are supposed to have learned in Beirut and Somalia? What happened to our swearing off mission creep? But here we go again in Bosnia. Once again, our goal was at first laudably humanitarian: to stop the killing. But it expanded as we thought how wonderful it would be if we could build a beautiful, tolerant, multiethnic Bosnia on the model of American multiculturalism. I respond. The Bosnian situation is complex. It is shrouded by centuries--centuries--of conflict that only a few understand. What we have seen in recent months is a lull in the fighting, not the end. It is a fragile ``peace,'' held together only by a continued presence of military force. How long can that continue? Are we prepared to pay the price? This week, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said the United States must remain engaged in Bosnia beyond June of this year but that continued American troop presence has not yet been decided. It is time to decide. Now, compare that statement with the advice of former Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote just this week: America has no national interest for which to risk lives to produce a multiethnic state in Bosnia. Mr. President, no more drift. No more drift. It is time for candor, for honesty and clear purpose. Let the debate begin. I urge acceptance of these provisions. We owe them as a debt of honesty to the American people. We owe them to our military men and women with their lives on the line. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill. Senators who have any additional amendments to this legislation are encouraged to contact the managers and come to the floor this morning so that we can continue to make real progress on this bill. At 10:45 this morning, the Senate will begin 15 minutes of debate on H.R. 2016, the military construction appropriations conference report. A vote will occur at approximately 11 o'clock on the MilCon conference report. Following disposition of that report, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill with the intention of completing that measure today. Therefore, Senators should anticipate votes throughout today's session. As always, Members will be notified as these votes are ordered. I thank my colleagues for their attention and yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield to my colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for yielding. I especially thank her for obtaining this time to discuss our policy, the American policy on Bosnia, at what I consider a special time, a real crossroads time to determine exactly what that policy is. The Senator has already pointed out that we were in Bosnia over the recent break at different times--very close, but at different times. I went as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and, as a matter of fact, I received briefings in Prague, Budapest, Bosnia, and London. Most of the concern in regard to those people in charge of our intelligence capability was in regard to Bosnia and, obviously, we spoke with the officials within our embassies, as well as the SFOR command and those of the military. I came back after visiting Sarajevo, Tazar, our staging base in Hungary, and Tuzla, which is the SFOR command center. I must say that I share many of the concerns with the Senator from Texas. There is progress in Sarajevo. If you land in Sarajevo, you will get a briefing by the embassy that indicates that the 90-percent figures in relation to unemployment have now been reduced to 50; the shops, the markets-- the famous market that literally exploded on CNN, really that first great atrocity where American people became aware of the severe problems there, that is back in business. The schools are now operating, and we know that there is income in Sarajevo because the gypsies are back. The areas over the main highway obviously are very heavily mined. That is still a big problem. I arrived I think at a very special time, I would tell my colleague from Texas, because it was just after the President's special emissary, Mr. Richard Holbrooke, had arrived in Bosnia. And I must say that in my personal opinion that up to that point we were drifting in Bosnia, and I think with Mr. Holbrooke's arrival there was a new impetus, if you will. A week prior to that the British--our allies over there, part of the SFOR command--had arrested and captured and killed one or two of the war criminals. As that happened, the Embassy officials that we visited with indicated that certainly did a lot for our credibility in regard to that area; that up to that point there had been some drift. So I asked all of our intelligence people, I asked the SFOR command, and I asked our Embassy people: Had the mission changed? Because obviously if we are going to adopt that kind of an aggressive posture in Bosnia; that is, really going after the war criminals to locate and to capture and to prosecute them--that certainly is a different kind of mission that many of us here in the Senate, and I might add in the House, envisioned for our United States troops in Bosnia. They reiterated the following. No. 1: The relevancy of the United States in Bosnia is peacekeeping, refugee resettlement, economic restoration, democracy building, and the war criminal issue. I think the mission has been changed. I think it has been changed substantially. I think we have gone from peacekeeping to peace enforcement. I think we now are disarming, if you will, the police that Mr. Karadzic has around him in Srpska. It is a very aggressive overt effort. We are now taking over radio and TV stations and apparently giving them back after a fuss is raised by a mob against our NATO troops. I think we have a timetable. I think this is a must-do situation prior to the elections to be held later on this month in Srpska. I think we have taken sides in that election overtly. I think it is very clear in that regard. And I think we made a decision that before winter comes in that area we must do something about the war criminals. Why? It is pretty easy to point out. I know that this is a very small replica of persons indicted for war crimes. I have a much larger chart. Time did not permit me to bring it over from the office. These are 79 individuals that are pictured here-- 10 are in custody now--of the war criminals or the persons indicted for the war crimes. Let me just say, I said 79 and 78. They are indicted by the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague for grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention, violations of laws, customs of war, and crimes against humanity. The person I would like to draw to your attention is a young man 34 years old who is still at large. He is only 34 years old. The charges are from about May 7, 1992, to early July 1992. There were hundreds of Muslim and Croat men and women confined at the Luka camp in inhumane conditions under armed guard. These detainees were systematically killed at Luka almost every day during that time. The accused, often assisted by camp guards, entered Luka's main hangar where most of the detainees were kept, selected detainees for interrogation, beat them, and often shot them. They killed them. It goes on here. I would just say simply that the descriptions involved remind you of the Nazi war crimes. I will not go into that. But obviously if these people are not brought to justice there is no chance for peace in Bosnia. Who is going to do this job? The Senator from Texas has already indicated that it is pretty obvious now that the NATO troops are. That is a clear difference, or a clear policy change, from peacekeeping. I call it peace enforcement.

Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the Senator's comments. The young man I was talking about is 34 years old, at large now, and 78 other war criminals are at large as well. As I have indicated, there is no way that you can bring the Dayton accords to their successful completion with these folks at large. Let me just say this. Everybody there, every intelligence source, every person that you visit with, whether they be Muslim, Croat or Serb, SFOR command, Russians. We visited with the Russians in their compound. They are really doing a very good job working with us and closely cooperating; and obviously the Brits and the Norwegians; 34 nations are involved in this effort. We have literally planted the flag. We have an outstanding cooperative effort. We have spent $7 billion in Bosnia. But there are some expenditures too from all those nations involved in the SFOR command. All of these people have indicated very clearly that if we leave, and if we leave, why, the Brits will leave. If we leave, the British will leave. We both have learned that when we were talking to Embassy officials and members taking part in the interparliamentary conference over there in Great Britain, they said, ``We were with you in terms of our ground troops. When you leave, we leave.'' If we leave, if SFOR leaves, or the American presence in SFOR. Let's not really kid ourselves. Within weeks, why, the fighting will break out again. Yet we have in the other body in the House on the defense appropriations bill a cutoff date saying our troops must come home as of June 1998. Our Secretary of Defense, our former colleague and dear friend, Secretary Cohen, indicated that the troops will be home in June 1998. The President has said the troops will be home in June 1998. But maybe, I don't know. We are a little nebulous on that. That is where the candor comes in because I think our policy has become very disingenuous. On the one hand we are building up the troop levels from about 8,500 to 12,000. We have changed the mission from peacekeeping to peace enforcement. Yet, we say in June 1998 we can withdraw the troops. That is not possible. I personally think that once you plant the flag, once you have 34 nations involved, once you have that kind of cooperation, it is going to be very difficult to withdraw. When the Dayton accords fail, that is going to send a message around the world that we don't want to send. Yet the case has not been made to the American public, to this Senate, or to us by the administration, as to how we are going to accomplish that. Thank goodness the Senator from Texas has arranged this time so we can sort of have a kickoff here in terms of long-term goals and what I consider to be short-term politics. I think we need a lot of candor. I have a related concern. In a meeting with about 18 young Kansans, both men and women in uniform, only 2 plan to stay in the service. They have been over there 9 months. They work 13, 14, 15 hours a day. The personnel tempo, the operational tempo--the Senator from Texas, as a former member of the Armed Services Committee, knows, I know, and everybody even connected with the military knows that we have downsized to the point where the operation and personnel tempo in all the countries involved in the peacekeeping operations--we are wearing out our military. It is not working. When you get 16 out of 18 Kansans, some of whom are very dedicated in midcareer, say they are going to leave because of the pressures on them and their families, working overtime, there is a big problem here. That is a related problem that we have not really talked about in relation to the Bosnian situation. Let me just say in closing that I would like to refer to the remarks by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, who has had many trips to Bosnia. I have his remarks here that he made before the Senate as of this morning. He says that we have reached a crucial point in our policy toward Bosnia. Resolute American action, combined with allied support and local compliance, could turn the corner. I also add that I agree with Senator Biden. I am not sure we can turn the corner. I want to know what is around the corner. And we need candor. I also say that he lists the goals--to greatly expand the number of refugees returning to their prewar homes. The Senator from Texas was in Brcko, talked to the people there, and saw the futility of forced relocation. I was flying in a helicopter with a one-star Army commander, went over a knoll where Moslems used to live--60 of them. We have tried three times to relocate these people. Each time they have been beaten, and the homes have been destroyed. He has indicated that it might not be a very good idea to try for the fourth time. Senator Biden went on to say--and I agree with him--that we can and must ensure that the country's municipal elections in mid-September are held and are free and fair. I hope we can do that. That will be our best hope. But there once again we are having our troops and the NATO troops take part, and are actually taking part in an election. They are election observers, and more than that. He points out that we must and can guarantee free access to the electronic media. We guarantee the TV station. And Mrs. Plavsic, who is one of the candidates and the best candidate, openly now is supported by NATO forces, and our forces. But now we apparently have given that back to Mr. Karadzic and his people. So we are playing sort of a back and forth business in terms of TV. Senator Biden--and I will just sum up here--in his remarks said that it is absolutely essential for an international military force to remain in Bosnia after June 1998 to guarantee that progress will continue. Thank goodness somebody has been candid. Senator Biden has indicated that. He says an international force should be there. Everybody in that whole part of the world indicates that if we are not involved in that international force it will not succeed. That is what happened in the beginning. So I commend Senator Biden for his candor. But then he says--I want the Senator from Texas to pay very close attention in regard to his comments as it relates to NATO expansion. He indicates that not only would all that has been accomplished go up in smoke if fighting reignited--i.e., if we leave--but a failure in Bosnia would signal the beginning of the end for NATO which is currently restructuring itself to meet Bosnia-like challenges in the 21st century. Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, and many others who are involved in the proposal to expand NATO have indicated that the Congress of the United States is not focused on this issue. The American public is not focused on this issue. Let me say that Senator Hutchison has certainly focused on the issue, and that she is able to have 20 Senators sign a letter to the President expressing many concerns over NATO expansion--tough questions that need to be answered. In Prague I was very privileged to address the Transatlantic Conference in regard to NATO expansion. I guess you could say that I was sort of the skunk at the expansion picnic in that I took the concerns that the Senator has raised. I raised them with the Czech Republic not because of any lack of support or admiration for the emerging nations. But there again we have planted the flag for NATO expansion. Here we have a situation where the Congress of the United States is going to say, ``OK, we are going to take our troops, and we are going to bring them home after June 1998. But, on the other hand, we are going to go ahead with NATO expansion. And under article V we are going to be committed to American men and women perhaps risking their lives on Polish soil, Czech soil, and Hungarian soil, not to mention the 24 other countries that would like to become involved if we are going to withdraw the troops in regard to Bosnia. You certainly can't propose an expansion of NATO with article V.'' These are the kind of questions that I think we need to raise. I have gone on much too long here this evening. But I do again want to thank the Senator from Texas for raising these concerns. I have just touched on several concerns. I plan when we have additional time under morning business--or we ought to take the time--to go over all of the concerns that the Senator from Texas has raised, and some of the concerns that I have raised. It is a time for candor because the clock is ticking. The election will be held at the end of September to determine the future of Bosnia. I do not want to see the Dayton accords fail. But I can tell you one thing, they are not going to be successful if we simply withdraw the troops by June 1998. Then where are we? If we keep them there, where are we? I asked one of the Embassy officials in Sarajevo, ``When did all of this start?'' I think I am right by saying it was in 1384 when the Turks and the Serbs first got involved in a very difficult conflict and a war. It has not been fully settled since, except for the reign of Marshal Tito who ruled the country with an iron fist. So I thank the Senator from Texas. I thank her for her leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with her as we try to answer some of these very, very difficult questions. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1997. I am pleased to have my colleagues, Senators Sam Brownback, Jeff Bingaman, Pete Domenici, and Daniel Inouye, and Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell as cosponsors. This legislation will provide Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute the administrative authority and flexibility to complete their transitions from two year institutions to a 4-year university for Haskell, and a national community college for SIPI. Located in Lawrence, KS, Haskell is an educational institution rich in history and opportunity for American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. Founded in 1884 as the United States Indian Industrial Training School, Haskell has grown from a school providing agricultural education for grades one through five to a fully accredited four-year university. In October 1993, Haskell changed its name from Haskell Indian Junior College to Haskell Indian Nations University after receiving accreditation to offer a bachelor of science degree in elementary teacher education. Since its inception, Haskell has provided tuition-free education, culturally sensitive curricula, innovative services and a commitment to academic excellence to federally recognized tribal members. With as many as 175 tribes represented in the student body, Haskell offers Native American history, institutions, arts, literature, and language courses integrating the perspectives of various Native American cultures. Haskell continues development of 4- year programs in other fields, striving to meet the challenge of enriching the lives of young native Americans and Alaska Natives. I support Haskell's vision to become a national center for Indian education, research, and cultural programs; increasing the knowledge and supporting the educational needs of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. This legislation, which allows the institution to remain within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and employees to continue participation in Federal retirement and health benefit programs, provides the Haskell president and Board of Regents authority over organizational structure, classification of positions, recruitment, procurement, and determination of all human resource policies and procedures. In short, this legislation completes Haskell's transition by giving the school the autonomy enjoyed by the tribally controlled community colleges and BIA elementary and secondary schools. As Haskell continues to change and meet the educational demands of native Americans and Alaskan Natives into the 21st Century, so too should the system by which Haskell is administered change and grow. The Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1997 complements the educational and administrative efforts of these schools, giving Haskell and SIPI the support and flexibility required to progress and develop into outstanding institutions of higher learning. My Kansas colleague, Representative Vincent Snowbarger, has introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1997. I am pleased to have my colleagues, Senators Sam Brownback, Jeff Bingaman, Pete Domenici, and Daniel Inouye, and Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell as cosponsors. This legislation will provide Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute the administrative authority and flexibility to complete their transitions from two year institutions to a 4-year university for Haskell, and a national community college for SIPI. Located in Lawrence, KS, Haskell is an educational institution rich in history and opportunity for American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. Founded in 1884 as the United States Indian Industrial Training School, Haskell has grown from a school providing agricultural education for grades one through five to a fully accredited four-year university. In October 1993, Haskell changed its name from Haskell Indian Junior College to Haskell Indian Nations University after receiving accreditation to offer a bachelor of science degree in elementary teacher education. Since its inception, Haskell has provided tuition-free education, culturally sensitive curricula, innovative services and a commitment to academic excellence to federally recognized tribal members. With as many as 175 tribes represented in the student body, Haskell offers Native American history, institutions, arts, literature, and language courses integrating the perspectives of various Native American cultures. Haskell continues development of 4- year programs in other fields, striving to meet the challenge of enriching the lives of young native Americans and Alaska Natives. I support Haskell's vision to become a national center for Indian education, research, and cultural programs; increasing the knowledge and supporting the educational needs of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. This legislation, which allows the institution to remain within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and employees to continue participation in Federal retirement and health benefit programs, provides the Haskell president and Board of Regents authority over organizational structure, classification of positions, recruitment, procurement, and determination of all human resource policies and procedures. In short, this legislation completes Haskell's transition by giving the school the autonomy enjoyed by the tribally controlled community colleges and BIA elementary and secondary schools. As Haskell continues to change and meet the educational demands of native Americans and Alaskan Natives into the 21st Century, so too should the system by which Haskell is administered change and grow. The Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1997 complements the educational and administrative efforts of these schools, giving Haskell and SIPI the support and flexibility required to progress and develop into outstanding institutions of higher learning. My Kansas colleague, Representative Vincent Snowbarger, has introduced this bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to support--and reflect--on the Taxpayer Relief Act, which will be passed by the Senate tomorrow. I am pleased that at long last we are providing tax relief to our Nation's family farms and businesses and to many individual Americans. My philosophy long has been that if we can allow any American to keep one extra dollar of his or her hard-earned income, we have achieved a measure of victory. At the same time, I have serious concerns about major parts of this legislation. First, let me review some victories. As former Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I helped steer Freedom to Farm legislation through Congress. It was an important step in returning agriculture to the free-market and removing the Government from the operation of family farms. However, that historic farm legislation will be successful only if we take steps on the other side of the ledger that give farmers the tools they need to compete. High on that list are capital gains and estate tax relief, which are included in this tax bill. I have received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents who purchased their farms and businesses 40, 50, or 60 years ago. These people want to pass their family farms and businesses to their children, but cannot because of burdensome capital gains and estate taxes. I have long argued that it is unfair to tax a family's income three times--once as income, once as capital gains, and once as an inheritance. Although this bill does not eliminate capital gains and estate taxes, the increased exemption for estate taxes and reduced capital gains rate will make it possible for numerous parents to pass their farms and businesses on to their children. I am also pleased we have achieved repeal of the AMT for deferred payment commodity contracts and income averaging. A farmer must deal with drought, floods, freezes, and insects, any of which can destroy or severely harm their crops. Thus, farmers often experience large fluctuations in income from year to year. These provisions provide important tools for managing these income fluctuations. While something is always better than nothing, I am disappointed that income averaging will only apply to the 1998 and 1999 crop years and not the full remaining 6 years of the farm bill. I am also pleased that the bill does not include the onerous House provisions that would have taxed the tuition waivers received by graduate teaching and research assistants at universities throughout the country. Acceptance of these provisions would have sharply cut access to graduate school for many students, created teaching shortages, and greatly increased the cost of continuing important research projects. Mr. President, while I am happy to see these provisions included in the Taxpayer Relief Act, I also have serious concerns with several provisions of this bill. First, at a time when Americans have asked us to lower their tax burden and make the tax code less complex, this bill actually increases the complexity of the tax code. We have obtained a reduction in the capital gains rate. At the same time we have set up six different capital gains rates: 28 percent for collectibles; 25 percent for recaptured depreciation on investment real estate; 20 percent for all other capital gains, falling to 18 percent beginning in 2001 for assets held longer than 5 years; A 10 percent rate for those earning less than $41,200/year, falling to a rate of 8 percent in 2001 on assets held longer than 5 years. If you include the corporate capital gains rate, we now have seven capital gains tax rates. Only in Washington is an expansion from 3 to 7 tax brackets called simplification. There are numerous examples where this bill will make the tax code more complex. High on that list is the incomprehensible maze of individual retirement accounts set up by the bill. There is no escaping the fact American families may need a tax lawyer to establish an IRA--but they most certainly will need a lawyer to sort through withdrawal of money from their IRA's. Additionally, this bill tells Americans: ``The Federal Government will reward you for having children. The Federal Government will reward you for limiting your income.'' Have a child, get a $500 credit on your taxes. But if you are a family making over $110,000 per year you get none of the benefits. Nearly all of the bill's rewards, in fact, are subject to income limits. That is a clear message. That is more social engineering than tax policy. Could we achieve the same goal of tax reduction by spreading the cuts across the board to help every American taxpayer? You bet we could. Mr. President, we all agree with the goal of assisting families send their children to college. This bill provides several tax incentives to do that. But I must ask: ``Have we looked hard at these provisions to ensure they will not quickly inflate the cost of higher education so that any benefits to students and families are lost?'' Finally Mr. President, I ask what is in this tax bill for those individuals who are not rich, who do not have large investments and savings, and who do not have children? I received a call this week from a constituent who works on the assembly line at Boeing Military Aircraft Co. in Wichita, KS. He labors side-by-side with another worker who earns a salary identical to his. However, his coworker is married, has two children, and paid $4,200 less in taxes this past year than the single worker. This constituent commented that his coworker is now getting an additional tax break, while his taxes will not be lowered one penny by this tax bill. He was angry, upset, and wanted to know why his Government penalizes him for being single. Mr. President, I am not sure I have an answer. I received another call from a father of three college graduates. This man and his wife used most of their savings to put their children through college. He has heard about the $500 per-child-credit, tuition credits, and capital gains reductions. Yet, he had one very important question. How was this tax bill going to benefit him and his wife, since none of these benefits apply to them? These constituents are not unique. They speak for a large segment of decent, hard-working Americans who have been forgotten in this tax bill. These constituents have a particularly difficult time understanding why they are receiving no tax breaks under this bill, but someone who pays no income taxes can still receive the $500 per child credit as a refund towards their payroll taxes. My constituents want to know why these people are receiving a refund on their Medicare and Social Security taxes, but will still receive the same benefits when they retire, as those Americans who are working hard to make a living but who receive few benefits under this bill. Why are we failing to give tax breaks to people who pay taxes, while giving refunds to those who pay nothing? Why are we using a tax cut bill to develop and expand a new form of welfare? I do not argue that families with children do not deserve tax breaks. Everyone in America deserves a break from their onerous tax burden. Unfortunately, in our hurry to give tax breaks to families and people who do not even pay income taxes, we forgot about those middle-income Americans who are single, or married with no children, and who work just as hard to make ends meet as their counterparts with children. Mr. President, I will vote for the Taxpayer Relief Act because it contains many tax relief provisions long needed by American taxpayers. However, I would urge my colleagues to begin thinking seriously about the need to return to these issues as soon as next year and make new attempts to simplify our tax laws and make them fair to all classes of taxpayers. This tax bill is far from the best we can do. A good tax bill should not promote disparity between economic classes, it should not promote social policies, it should not expand welfare, and it should not create additional employment for CPA's and tax lawyers.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the votes scheduled to begin at 2:15 p.m. today now begin at 3:30 p.m.