Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2015 at 12 noon, Wednesday, regardless of the receipt of the papers from the House.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following the morning business period, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1022, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. Under the order, Senator Wellstone will be recognized for 1 hour, equally divided, to debate his two amendments to the bill. In addition, from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m., the Senate will recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. And by consent, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will then proceed to a series of votes on the remaining amendments in order to S. 1022, the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, including final passage. Also, by previous consent, following the votes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will resume the Transportation appropriations bill. As previously announced, all amendments to the Transportation appropriations bill must be offered and debated during today's session. Therefore, additional votes can be anticipated throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention. It appears to me that perhaps we do not have a quorum. As a matter of fact, I suggest to you, Mr. President, the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire whether that dialog came out of my time? I assume I have an additional 2 minutes. I was merely questioning the distinguished Senator from Nebraska on the time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire of my distinguished colleague from Nebraska, was that 4 minutes or 2 minutes?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a bipartisan majority of my colleagues today in support of Senate Resolution 98 that puts the Senate on record against any United Nations-sponsored global climate change treaty that would be binding on only developed nations. It had been U.S. policy until last year that the United States would pursue voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. This made sense, the science is not clear on global warming and no nation should risk their economic well being because of environmental extremism that ignores the call for sound science. However, Deputy Secretary of State Tim Wirth last year at the Berlin meeting of the Conference of Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change suddenly changed the voluntary course of action. Under the White House's supervision, Deputy Secretary Wirth proposed global warming treaty language that would force the United States and smaller developed nations like Great Britain and Germany, to control their greenhouse gas emissions, but purposefully exempts so-called developing nations such as China, India, South Korea, Mexico, and Brazil, from the binding treaty language. It is fact that China and India will exceed United States greenhouse gas emissions early next century, but they will be exempt from this U.N.-designed treaty. These developing nations will have no international authority regulating their industries or way of life. As a result, the White House is meekly declining to be forceful in its negotiations and would rather unilaterally disarm our economy that is based on power. If Deputy Secretary Wirth and others supporting this treaty are so concerned, perhaps they can tell me how stopping United States carbon dioxide emissions while letting China and India pollute will help their environmental cause. What is the benefit? There is none under this treaty if these nations are not brought into the same global scheme as the United States. Mr. President we are really talking about a legally binding greenhouse gas treaty. Sounds like Washingtonese to Mr. and Mrs. America, but what it really means is the White House is telling the world that developed nations feel guilty about their strong and vibrant industrial base, therefore they must be causing global warming. Deputy Secretary of State Tim Wirth in his June 19 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee admitted that because the United States produces 20 percent of the world's carbon emissions and has only 4 percent of the world's population that Congress, without sound science on global warming, mandate that business and consumers stop using their cars, trucks, combines, trains, and boats, not to mention shutting down factories to ease the pain of others about our quality of life. In 1990, the United States produced more than 26 percent of the world's goods and services, while producing only 20 percent of its carbon emissions. Deputy Secretary Wirth also failed to show that America's air is getting cleaner because in the Environmental Protection Agency's report National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995 documented improvement in air quality over the past 9 years. This improvement in air quality seems to baffle the EPA and supporters of the binding treaty because our air quality keeps improving despite the growth of the U.S. population, more automobile use, not to mention the growth in our gross domestic product. And, what are the particulars of this globally binding treaty? Perhaps they are reluctant to tell the folks in Dodge City, America, this treaty will establish a global greenhouse trading emissions system. This means some international body, probably the United Nations, will be responsible for tracking our use of fossil fuels in the United States. The United Nations will be required to know how much jet fuel and diesel the Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy use. The White House has not even discussed the national security implications of this treaty with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Wake up, farm country, the U.N. scientific panel blames agriculture for more than 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and has proposed the following proposals for agriculture: Increased fuel economy requirements, meaning that pickups will be lighter and cannot carry as much feed and seed; Phaseout of diesel fuel. What does the President propose we burn in tractors? Limitations on production per acre; been there done that. Mandate for no-till, forcing farmers to use planters that may not be right for their crops or soil; Restrictions on livestock production to reduce methane emission. Evidently the United Nations does not like cow flatulence; Restrictions on fertilizer; and Restrictions on processing and transportation of food products. This is uncalled for and I joined with my Senate colleagues on the Agriculture Committee in a letter to the Vice President on March 14 expressing our deep concern that the White House greenhouse proposal was ignorant of the likely mandatory restrictions on the world's food and fiber supplier. Our agriculture policies are the responsibility of the U.S. Congress in consultation with the President. The United Nations should have no say whatsoever in planting, tilling, or harvesting. In our letter we asked the administration to analyze and brief us on the following points regarding agriculture. First, the potential effect of climate change on U.S. agriculture and livestock production. Second, the estimated greenhouse gas emission resulting from the production of crops and livestock in the United States. Third, the net contribution of U.S. forests and crops soaking up greenhouse gases. Fourth, actions and controls necessary to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions to comply with obligations that may arise under the treaty and an economic analysis of their impact on U.S. farmers and ranchers. Fifth, whether and to what extent greenhouse gas emission controls would disadvantage agriculture producers in this country compared to producers in other countries with fewer stringent emission controls or no controls at all. The silence from the White House about our concern is evident that they are waiting until December when Congress is safely at home that they will reveal the treaty includes a carbon fuel tax. Fortunately, my astute colleagues in the Senate have been able to extract pieces of this plan through congressional hearings. The White House will impose a Btu tax on energy sources like gasoline, diesel, and electricity. According to congressional testimony by Dr. Janet Yellen, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, that a $100 tax for every ton of carbon produced from fossil fuels will be needed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. I know that some of my seasoned colleagues recall that this is the same administration that in 1993 proposed a complicated Btu tax on fossil fuels. Mr. President, a Btu tax is unneeded and goes against everything the Congress and White House has been struggling for over the past 2 months, a balanced budget with income-tax breaks. What would this Btu tax cost the family, the small businessman, or farmer? Well, some economists believe that to reach the 1990 level of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that the Btu tax would be comparable to an increase of at least a quarter, if not two, in the Federal gas tax. That's a lot of money for the pizza man or the single mother shuttling kids between school and soccer practice. The same thing happens on these folks' power bills every month because coal or natural gas is used to generate electricity that provides them a warm home in the winter and a cool house in the summer. Coming from an energy-intensive State where we have to drive long ways to reach home or work, this tax is senseless. Specifically, it will hurt our farmers, who EPA Administrator Browner called earlier this week the ``backbone of America.'' A Btu tax will dramatically affect the bottom line of farmers and ranchers. An analysis of the 1993 Btu tax proposal by the Kansas State University Department of Agriculture Economics determined that would have cost Kansas farmers from $1,311 to $4,531 depending on their location in the Sunflower State. That is a lot of money, and if the crops are bad, it hurts producers' bottom line even more. Here are some specifics from the report that need to be closely examined because they will mirror what the White House will be proposing. A Rice County, KS, farmer planting continuous cropped wheat under the 1993 proposed Btu tax cost per acre would have increased by $1.45. For a northeast Kansas dryland milo farmer in Brown County, his cost per acre would have risen by $2.90. The same Brown County farmer growing corn, which Kansas is increasing its acreage under freedom to farm, would have paid $3.58 per acre for corn under a Btu tax. A Miami County farmer raising hay and alfalfa costs per acre would have gone up $2.91. why can't the White House give us this information about their treaty proposal? What concerns me is that the administration is paying attention to the questionable science on global warming and is blindly putting the U.S. agriculture industry in an uneconomical production straitjacket that will do more harm on a global scale. The Kansas State University study determined that the majority of a Btu tax will be passed on in the price of fertilizer, ag chemicals, fuels, and grain drying costs. I would like to quote directly from the study: ``[I]n return, the manager will not be able to pass these costs on in terms of higher commodity prices. Farm managers may reduce the use of energy-intensive inputs to some degree, resulting in smaller production and increased commodity prices.'' While I am never one to question higher wheat prices, I would if it meant forcing farmers from using diesel or fallowing fields because the United Nations suggested it to meet the treaty's requirement. The study summary goes on. ``An increase in the costs of production will reduce the supply of farm crops.'' We, the United States, who proudly supplies the rest of the world with wheat, corn and almost every imaginable natural product, probably cannot provide food to these developing nations clamoring for international food aid if our production costs increase. If our production goes down, our domestic market will become paramount and the United States may have to ignore the poor and hungry of other nations that we have been feeding for tens of years. My colleagues, the administration was in the process of trying to develop a specific economic model to predict what the costs of this binding treaty would be on America, not only farms, but all industries. But, the administration told the Congress they specifically wanted the model to be peer reviewed to ensure there would be no questions about its results. However, when they presented it for peer review, the reviewers told the White House that their model did not work and, if they did find one, it would clearly show the treaty would substantially hurt the economy. The White House refuses now to speculate what the impacts would be. Could it be they are afraid of spooking Wall Street and its meteoric rise above 8,000? Why should companies invest in plants and people only to be taxed more here in the United States? As you can see, this treaty will cost jobs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose any weakening amendments to the resolution. This strongly worded sense of the Senate needs to be shared not only with the appropriate administration officials but world leaders in developed and developing nations. I know that there will be a meeting in Bonn, Germany, in several weeks and I hope the administration will reveal to the world that if they propose such a misguided treaty to the U.S. Senate, it will fail.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I am upset. Talking about global warming, I have a little global warming underneath the collar. Two minutes and one hour of debate for such a terribly, terribly serious question. I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 98, and that is a fancy word that puts the Senate on record against any U.N.-sponsored, legally binding greenhouse treaty. I come to this issue as the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, where we spent years trying to address our emission policies with sound science, reasonable cost-benefit considerations, and I want to wake up farm country because that is not what is going to happen. A U.N. scientific panel now blames agriculture, under the auspices of this plan, for 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. They propose the following things, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, so get your pencil out, get your yellow tablet out. We don't have time to really discuss this--Senators want to leap on their airplanes at 12 o'clock-- in terms of an issue that will affect every life and every pocketbook in America. But we are here talking about it, and I probably have 30 seconds. Wake up. Mandatory increased fuel economy requirements. Phaseout of diesel fuel. How are our tractors going to run? I don't know. Limitations on production. Been there, done that. We passed a new farm bill. Mandate for no-till; no-till farming, forcing farmers to buy all sorts of new equipment. Here's a good one: Restrictions on livestock production to reduce methane emission for the United Nations. We are going to control what goes into the cow and now, evidently, we are going to have a U.N. observer trying to control what comes out of the cow. And restrictions on processing and transportation of food products. This is uncalled for. Many of my colleagues joined to send a letter to the administration to say, how on Earth are we going to do this and still feed America in a troubled and hungry world? That answer has not been forthcoming. We recommended five considerations, and then we follow with the letter that was sent to the President last November by every major agriculture group. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has acted expeditiously on S. 1000, the legislation that Senator Brownback and I introduced several weeks ago to designate the Kansas City, KS, Federal Courthouse after our Kansas colleague Senator Bob Dole. I appreciate the efforts of Senators Chafee and Baucus and the other members of the Environment and Public Works Committee in their effort to approve the bill for its consideration by the Senate before the August recess. After the bill was introduced, Kansans contacted my office about Senator Dole and their recollections of his work, which he continues to do in behalf of Kansas. I thought it would be fitting to share an example with my colleagues. Mrs. Rose Coughlin of Kansas City, KS, shared with me her story about Senator Dole calling her just several weeks ago. Mrs. Coughlin, who suffers from polio, wrote to Senator Dole in mid-June just to pass along her deep appreciation and admiration of his perseverance during his legislative career on behalf of Kansas despite his permanent injuries sustained during World War II. Much to her surprise, Senator Dole called her upon receiving the letter and talked with her at some length, inquiring about her condition. At the close of her letter to me she says, ``Needless to say he made my day.'' Her letter is indicative of Senator Dole's commitment and caring for Kansans. Mr. President, S. 1000 has been endorsed by Carol Marinovich, mayor of Kansas City, KS, the location of the soon-to-be Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse. I look forward to joining Senator Dole along with proud Kansans in the near future for the dedication ceremonies. The bill (S. 1000) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed; as follows:

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, prior to discussing the amendment, I want to take this opportunity to associate myself with the most pertinent remarks stated by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Arkansas. Chairman Cochran and the ranking member, Senator Bumpers, have demonstrated continued leadership and tireless efforts to make it possible for the American farmer and rancher to continue to feed this country and a troubled and hungry world. Senator Cochran said in his earlier remarks that all have contributed. I would also like to extend my congratulations to the staff, both of Mr. Cochran and to Mr. Bumpers, and I would point out to the American consumer, all taxpayers as well as our farmers and ranchers about what is at stake here. It is just not the eighth or ninth appropriations bill we are considering in this Chamber, albeit that is important. We are talking about the fact that the American consumer today spends only 10 cents of the disposable income dollar for that so-called market basket of food. Every housewife in America should pay attention to the fact that that frees up 90 cents for hard-pressed families today to spend on education or housing or the other essentials. And so we want to say thank you to Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers for providing the funds to continue this vital responsibility of feeding America. Senator Bumpers mentioned food safety. Now, we have heard a great outcry in regard to E. coli, salmonella, and other challenges we face, but as Senator Bumpers pointed out we have, hopefully, adequate funds to address that problem. So this bill deals with food safety. And I might point out that since we have the best quality of food at the lowest price, the American consumer today apparently cares more about convenience and the safety of their food supply rather than price. That is unequaled in regard to any country. And so this bill does address that. I could go on about the trade aspects of the bill and our balance of payments and jobs. I could point out we all live longer as a result of the efforts of agriculture and farmers and ranchers and the investment we are making in this bill. Simply put, we do have the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world, and I think a lot of people do take agriculture for granted. The first obligation of any government is to provide its country an adequate food supply. Who is responsible for this? Many are, but two particular individuals, one the chairman of the committee and the other the ranking member. And I again wish to thank them. As a matter of fact, I can recall several months ago that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, and I were privileged to join Senator Stevens on a trip to the Russian Far East and to South Korea and to North Korea. We were the first congressional delegation allowed into North Korea. And in North Korea, the former leader of that country, if I can refer to that person as a leader, Kim Il-song, called the ``Magnificent Leader,'' by the way, has written a veritable tome of books about that kind of government. It is a very repressive and totalitarian government. But the first book--and I read it the evening we were there--starts out with agriculture and says the first obligation of any country is to be able to feed its people. So while we were there we were working on the four-party peace talks, and we were trying to be a positive influence, and Senator Cochran has a great deal of expertise in regard to disarmament. He had this other idea; he insisted in regard to Senator Stevens, myself and others, we visit this collective farm. And the Senator made a good point. We went out and we visited it outside the capital city of Pyongyang, and we found a farm that had farming practices back in the 1930's, largely responsible, I might add, for the famine in that country. I really think, if you stop to take a look at it, we ought to count our blessings in the fact we have outstanding individuals in the Senate such as Senator Bumpers and Senator Cochran responsible for the investment in American agriculture to allow us to do the things we do. I have been through what, five or six farm bills, having had the privilege of serving in the other body. Those are the authorizing committees. I also wish to thank Senator Cochran in particular for the way that he has handled the obligations and responsibilities of the appropriators. It is a difficult task to try to fit together our spending priorities with the policy objectives of the authorizers, and I must say in all candor, unlike the other body, Senator Cochran has closely cooperated with the authorizing committee, has done so with fairness, with tolerance and with respect and comity and also understanding and effective leadership. I think we have quite a team on the appropriations subcommittee involving agriculture appropriations, and I again wish to thank them. I thank Senator Bumpers and Senator Cochran on behalf of every farmer, every rancher, and every consumer in America. I think they have done an outstanding job. Mr. President, I regret that I must offer this amendment. Quite honestly, it pains me to have to even suggest this course of action, but my responsibility to the farmers of America certainly compels me to do so. The purpose of this amendment is twofold. First, it allows this body to recognize that the Risk Management Agency--that is the outfit that administers the USDA's Federal Crop Insurance program--has failed to comply with the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1994. That is 3 years ago. Second, as a result of the Risk Management Agency's unwillingness to submit and implement a plan to reduce administrative and operating costs of approved insurance providers as required under the 1994 act, this amendment would withhold--I am not trying to cut, just withhold-- funding of $4 million of funding from the RMA appropriation unless the plan is implemented by September 30, 1998. Mr. President, farmers have always needed crop insurance in order to make ends meet, in order to work, but for too many years it was always either too expensive or provided too little coverage depending on what region you came from and what commodity. But we passed the 1994 Crop Insurance Act and privately developed crop insurance products surfaced as a replacement, very long needed replacement, to the old USDA- sponsored insurance programs. Now, while crop revenue coverage, or what we call CRC, is widely regarded as a revolutionary new risk management tool in farm country, we are providing farmers the capability, the tools, if you will, to manage their downside risk when prices fall. It is not like the old insurance products. The CRC protects both against price and yield risk. It is expensive, that is true, but it is worth the price for farmers who want adequate protection for their farm and their family. But, unfortunately, too often the USDA has taken an adversarial position to the development of these private crop insurance programs. Too often the department has tried to compete with the private sector in the development and marketing of these products. A few weeks ago, a crop insurance agent from Luray, KS, population about 500, came into my office and said: ``Senator Roberts, I really want to continue selling crop insurance because I know the farmers in our community need it, that our town depends on the farm economy for its survival. But, Senator, all the paperwork and redtape involved has forced me to hire additional people just to push the paper around. Unless the regulatory burden subsides, I am afraid I will have to stop selling crop insurance entirely.'' This amendment is all about that crop insurance agent and small town America. This amendment is all about the farmer, who tries to feed this very troubled and hungry world, who will invariably face higher crop insurance premiums as a result of USDA's intransigence. We cannot let this unfortunate situation threaten the viability of our crop insurance program and our farmers, the exciting new tools for the farmers to manage their downside risk. I urge support for this amendment. I simply ask the risk management agency to do what the Congress and the President required of them back in 1994. We made that arrangement. We lowered the payments that went to the crop insurance companies in exchange for regulatory reform. I don't know how many times I have asked the RMA folks, officials down there, where is the report? In 1994, no report; 1995, no report; 1996 no report; 1997--it's time. This is going to give them clear up to September 30, 1998. But this ought to at least open some eyes down at USDA that we need regulatory reform. That's what we asked for, that's what we required in the 1994 act. I ask consideration of the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 961 and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent on behalf of the leader. Before I make that unanimous consent request, I would like to thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Alaska in reference to the amendment concerning our policy with North Korea. Senator McCain has pointed out the situation that now exists with another flare-up of hostilities on the DMZ between South Korea and North Korea. Some time ago--about 4 months--I was privileged to take part in a delegation with Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens, Senator Domenici, Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, and myself were the first American congressional delegation allowed into North Korea. We went to North Korea with a specific purpose. We know that country is hard hit by a famine, and that the situation is very real. We wanted to encourage the North Koreans, in cooperation with Ambassador Richardson, the State Department and the administration, to participate in the four-party peace talks. Since I have had the privilege of being the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and serve on the Agriculture Committee here in this body, I wanted to encourage the North Koreans to explore every opportunity for normal trading relations--that is, to explore the possibility of commercial trade and third-party agreements that would alleviate their situation. I think we made some progress. I think we tried to make our point that these kind of negotiations, these kind of contacts, would certainly open up new doors of cooperation only to find out, however, that now just at the time the administration is announcing a doubling of the humanitarian food assistance to North Korea we see another repeat of these hostilities. I remember well in meeting with the South Korean Government officials when South Korea sent a ship full of grain and other food shipments to the North. The North simply confiscated the ship, took down the South Korean flag, raised the North Korean flag, took all of the personnel involved, and had them incarcerated for about 10 days, and then finally let those folks go back to South Korea. That to me is not a very willing partner in an effort to relieve any kind of famine. Quite frankly, when we were in North Korea they were conducting a military exercise at the time that we were there, and wasting, as far as I am concerned and any other observer, valuable dollars that could have been provided to their own people who are suffering. This is a repressive regime--a theocracy, if you will--that is punishing their senior citizens and their very young--putting them through a famine at the same time that they are asking us for this kind of assistance. Question: Will these funds go to the purpose that it should go to, or will they go to simply reinforce a very repressive military? These are questions that should be answered. And I think with the latest flare-up on the DMZ Senator Murkowski and Senator McCain have made an excellent amendment, and I hope we would consider it and I hope it will be improved. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--s. 1004 In behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1004, be considered read a third time, that the vote on passage occur as under the original consent, and additionally the bill not be engrossed, that it remain at the desk pending the receipt of the House companion measure; I further ask unanimous consent that when the House companion measure is passed pursuant to the previous order, the passage of S. 1004 be vitiated and that S. 1004 be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have the great pleasure of introducing legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, to name the U.S. Courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas City, KS, as the Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse. I think all of our colleagues know that although our esteemed former colleague has received scores of honors, I am pleased to lead the Kansas congressional delegation in naming this courthouse after Bob because it reflects his common sense and honest work in the U.S. Senate not only nationally but also in regard to Kansas. Senator Dole's career on behalf of the State of Kansas is well- known--State Representative, Russell County attorney, Congressman of Kansas' big First Congressional District from 1961 to 1969, and Senator from 1969 to 1996. When Senator Dole stepped down from the Senate last year as Kansas' great senior Senator and longest-serving Republican majority leader, he showed determination and courage in his all-out effort to win the 1996 Presidential election. Although being majority leader cast Senator Dole as a national political figure, forcing him to tackle every single issue before the Congress, he never stopped his tireless work on behalf of Kansans in all 105 counties. There was no inside the beltway for Bob Dole; it was inside the Sunflower State. If you travel into any Kansas community, be it Wichita or Wakeeney and ask a resident about Bob Dole, they will easily recall his care about their concerns. Kansans will tell you of getting the Social Security check delivered quicker or inserting some provision in legislation for a public works project that made a lot of sense and was a taxpayer investment. Whenever national disasters struck, Kansas Senator Dole also alerted the appropriate Federal disaster relief officials and personally tried to alleviate the emotional and the physical damage from tornadoes, droughts and floods. Throughout Kansas, Senator Dole was always available. He listened and learned from farmers, soccer moms, businessmen, and children. The issues were as diverse as Kansas itself-- economic development needs of our State urban areas like Kansas City, or a farmer's desire for higher grain prices and safer roads for drivers and transportation. Mr. President, the Federal courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas City, KS, is an example of Senator Dole's leadership in Kansas. He, with the support of a bipartisan group of local elected officials and community leaders, succeeded in keeping the courthouse in downtown Kansas City, KS. Now, this Federal presence has served to revitalize the neighborhoods. In fact, on Tuesday, another key component of his interest in Kansas City, KS, to this development effort was started through the groundbreaking of the new Federal building across the street from the courthouse to house the EPA region VII offices. This was very typical of Bob Dole. He reached out to local Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. No matter that Senator Dole was a Republican, Kansas City, KS, and Wyandotte County Democrats deeply appreciated his efforts not only on the Federal courthouse but on other matters such as the Federal response to the flood of 1993. Realizing that the former Federal courthouse would be vacated for the new courthouse and would become excess Federal property, Senator Dole worked with local officials and the GSA to ensure that the former courthouse would be transferred to Wyandotte County so they could use it for additional judicial space. This saved Wyandotte County and the taxpayer a great deal of money. This U.S. courthouse represents the State of Kansas' efficient use of land and labor. The building was designed in a contemporary judicial style and is intended to be a model for future Federal court buildings. As part of this style, cost savings features were used such as precast concrete instead of a natural stone facade, combined with energy efficient double-glazed aluminum frame windows. It is clear that Senator Dole's perseverance to reduce our Federal spending was applied in this courthouse. This design reduced costs and increased efficiency unlike other Federal courthouses that have Cadillac courtrooms and exceeded their budgets. Mr. President, this Federal courthouse has 165,000 square feet of office space. I am proud to let my colleagues know that its budget was $40,868,000. But the finished cost was $34 million. That is right, a Federal project was actually finished for less than its budget, $6.7 million to be exact. While the primary role for this building is for the Federal judicial process, other agencies such as the U.S. Marshal, the Peace Corps and Congressman Vince Snowbarger, also utilize this office space in the courthouse. Mr. President, Senator Brownback joins me in asking that the Environmental and Public Works Committee act expeditiously on this bill before the August recess. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 1000 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Amendment No. 668

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the overall defense bill and to give credit where credit is due in regard to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the distinguished ranking member from Michigan, Senator Levin. I want to pay tribute to their leadership. I think the committee did great work, and there was much bipartisan agreement. I think we had a very difficult task in this regard. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a study called ``America's National Interests'' by the Commission on America's National Interest. It was about a year ago, and I served on the commission with some very qualified people who have a great deal of expertise in regard to defense matters. The cochairs were Robert Ellsworth, Andrew Goodpaster, and Rita Hauser. The study was done by the Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University and also by the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom and the Rand Corp. Basically, they had an executive summary that pretty well said this: No. 1, American foreign policy and American national interests don't really represent a very high blip on the national attention radar screen. They said America was adrift. ``In the wake of the Cold War, the American public's interest in foreign policy has declined sharply and political leaders have been pressed to attend to immediate domestic concerns.'' Certainly that is true. ``After four decades of unusual single-mindedness in containing Soviet expansion, we have seen five years of ad hoc fits and starts.'' This was last year, remember. ``If it continues, this drift will threaten our values, our fortunes, and indeed our lives.'' I think the committee took an important first step in trying to end this drift. They mentioned confusion and the lack of a national strategy as we try to determine how much money to spend on defense, which, after all, is the first obligation of the Federal Government. So having said that, I want to again thank Senator Levin and Senator Thurmond for their leadership. However, I must rise in opposition to the amendment as argued for by Senator Levin and as proposed by Senator McCain. I am talking about BRAC. I am talking about the effort to, obviously, reduce the excess infrastructure that we have in regard to our national defense system. I want to make it very clear and I want to really emphasize that I do not support--and I don't know of anybody in the Senate or, for that matter, in the House of Representatives who supports--carrying excess or unproductive capacity in our military infrastructure. After all, how could anybody stand up here and say that they were supporting that? Having said that, I don't think we should sign onto another BRAC process until we are confident that the process will be done without making it a political football or without receiving an answer to several very fundamental questions, which I would like to go into. No. 1, we need to certify what is meant by overcapacity. Everybody seems to agree that there is excess capacity in the structure of the military. I think that is obvious. Senator Levin just went over that. But if you ask different people where exactly that excess infrastructure exists, a variety of answers will certainly be given. Many argue that there is a great disparity between the reduction of military end-strength, down 36 percent--Senator McCain mentioned that. Every proponent of the BRAC process and of this amendment will tell you that the military end-strength is down 36 percent and reduction of military base structure is down 21 percent. Now, there is a relationship between these two. I know that. But there is no numerical correlation that would define what percentage of base closure we should strive for. That is extremely important. If there were such a numerical correlation, closing any of our bases would help bring the percentage in line. I think common sense tells us that it is a lot more complex than simple percentages. If we all agree that excess capacity exists--and I think we do--I think that the Department of Defense, before we approve something like this amendment, should develop a certified list defining that excess capacity. What's wrong with that? I might add, I think we probably have that list already prepared. Why not really delineate the amount of excess and the priority of eliminating that excess and the difficulty of restoring the capability if required by a military operation? Let me repeat that. Let us try to delineate the amount of excess and the priority of eliminating that excess and, most important, the difficulty of restoring the capability if required by a military operation. Once you lose the base, once you lose that infrastructure, like Humpty-Dumpty, it is off the wall, gone; you can't regain it. It is not reasonable to agree to a BRAC if we don't fully understand the nature and location and the amount of the reported excess. I have the same letter from Secretary Cohen and the letter illustrated on the minority side from the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressing their support for a BRAC. Secretary Cohen, a good friend, a former colleague, said this: ``With the expiration of the previous BRAC legislation, the Department needs a process to close or realign excess military installations. Even after four rounds of base closures, we have eliminated only 21 percent''--here we go again--``of our U.S. base structure while force structure will drop by 36 percent by fiscal year 2003.'' Let me repeat again what I think is a fallacy. Secretary Cohen's letter--I know it is not his intent, but his letter suggests the direct correlation, again in percentage points, between base closures of 21 percent and force structure reductions of 36 percent. There is no direct correlation between the reduction of troops and how many bases should be cut. There is, of course, a connection, but to suggest there is some kind of a mathematical correlation is false. It is misleading. Exactly how we could get into indiscriminate cutting of facilities--the assumption of such a simple-minded statement is that all bases are equal. Senator Levin has just indicated that of 100 bases remaining, and there is a need to reduce base structure by perhaps 15 percent, that any 15 bases would do the trick. Unfortunately, this is the exact argument--down 36 percent in troops but only 21 percent in bases--which was made in behalf of this whole argument. It is the very reason we need to understand which bases are in excess and which bases support the strategy. If it is 15 percent and you cut 15 bases out of 100, if that doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a base it is, what kind of force is there, or what the mission of the base is, I don't think that correlation really makes any sense. Let's talk about the type of facilities to be considered once the DOD develops a certified list of excess capacity, and then what specific types of facilities to be considered for closure should be provided. If the Department of Defense demonstrates that certain types of facilities do not represent excess capacity, it doesn't make any sense to include them in the process. Why would we want to do that? The effect of this action would shorten and focus the BRAC process. We would have successful BRAC, we would eliminate a lot of the headaches, pain and suffering, and the politics that the proponents of this amendment always talk about. Just as important, it would let those communities with military facilities as neighbors know whether they need to be concerned or not and prevent them from spending large sums of money to help save their bases. That is what happens. As soon as this amendment is passed--I hope it does not; the committee did not pass it and the House of Representatives did not pass it--every community next to a base in America will hire a consultant, spending large sums of money, and will end up in BRAC purgatory. It is not necessary. We could shorten the process and get this job done with a better process. Let's talk about the criteria to be used for closure recommendations. There needs to be a full discussion of the criteria used for the BRAC process. I have the old criteria here somewhere, but, obviously, this isn't the criteria that is going to be used. This is the former base realignment and closure criteria. I thought the new criteria were going to be judged on the Bottom-Up Review and the QDR and the National Defense Panel. The National Defense Panel hasn't made a comment on where we are headed in terms of national defense strategy. We don't have the criteria yet. I think we are putting the cart before the horse. So, at any rate, I think we need a full discussion of the criteria used for the BRAC process to ensure the results of the process are consistent with the strategy, as I have indicated, of the Bottom-Up Review and the QDR. For example, it makes little sense to me to use the same criteria of the last BRAC since we have substantially altered the military since then and our strategy has been changed. That is why we are going through this. A critical analysis of the criteria and their weight in the process is required. We should not inadvertently cut meat from our capacity if fat exists somewhere else simply because the criteria we used is flawed. I want to talk about cost for just a moment. It seems to me, despite the claims of, I think, $2.7 billion that the letter indicated that we are going to save--and I think Senators Levin, McCain, and others listed $13.5 billion by the year 2001--I question that either in magnitude or when those savings will be seen. The whole purpose of this process, as proposed by the authors of this amendment, is to save the precious defense dollars. Let me point out that we are supposed to be talking about national strategy here. The committee did its best, but in terms of trying to determine how much we spend on defense in the post-cold-war period, we said, ``OK, you can have all the strategy you want, but don't spend more than $250 billion.'' So it is budget driven and numbers driven, and the whole key argument in behalf of this is to save the precious defense dollars and use them for procurement and modernization and quality of life. So you close the bases. You save the money. And, as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary, and the proponents of the amendment said, we are going to improve the quality of life, modernization, and procurement. Well, I am not sure that those savings will be there. And, second, I will tell you where the money will go. If we could earmark this money, maybe put it in a lockbox and give the key to Senator Thurmond--I sure trust him as to where the money should go--I might support this. But do you know where the money is going to go? Peacekeeping missions. For peacekeeping missions since President Clinton took office: 1993, $2.441 billion; 1994, $1.9 billion; 1995, $2.16 billion; 1996, $3.3 billion; 1997, projected $3.27 billion. I am not sure that even accounts for Bosnia. We are talking about savings that are going to occur in the outyears. And, yet, we have been using the peacekeeping fund for modernization and readiness and quality of life? That is what has been happening. If we could earmark these savings for all of the very good purposes that proponents of this amendment are talking about, it might be one thing. But we are not. So what will happen is that we will go through this whole process only to find out that we are putting a lot of people into what I call BRAC purgatory only to find out that we don't have the separation by the people who really do that right now between those bases that are needed and not, and also the problem with cost savings only to find out that it will be spent for peacekeeping. I am not opposed to peacekeeping in every instance. But it seems to me in terms of our national strategy and in America's national interest, I am not sure that that has been simply well spent. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Feinstein of California, and I would like to say that I know that it is the right thing to do in regard to base closures. Nobody in this Senate--nobody anywhere--is for saving excess infrastructure. That is just not a possible position, and we shouldn't do that. I might add in closing, Mr. President, that I am one who is concerned about some of my colleagues who with some degree of condescending understanding look at me and say, ``Well, now, you know, we all have politics, and we all have the pain of politics.'' I know it is going to be hard. This is not premised on any base in Kansas. This is based on a firm belief that this may be the right thing to do. But we are going at it the wrong way, and it is very premature. So for the reasons that I have listed--and I would only add that there is no reason why we can't wait on the QDR, the review, and the National Defense Panel, have the new criteria, certify the excess, earmark the savings, and, yes, then go ahead with some kind of a BRAC. There is no reason why we can't do that. But it seems to me that we are rushing to judgment here, and I think it would be very counterproductive. I think we should watch out for the law of unintended affects. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona and as agreed to by the Senator from Michigan and urge my colleagues to take another look at this. Let's take a little time. Let's do this right. I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Ms. Lesley Moss of Hoxie, KS, who has been crowned Miss Kansas. Lesley began competing in the Miss Kansas pageant at the age of 17--the youngest allowable age for a Miss Kansas participant--and was a top 10 finalist. Last year Lesley won first runner-up in the Miss Kansas pageant. When the 1996 Miss Kansas, Tara Holland, relinquished her crown after winning the title of Miss America, Moss passed up the chance to take Holland's place, because she wanted to compete for the title again. Growing up on a farm 3 miles north of Hoxie, Lesley realized that there is a special sense of community throughout rural Kansas. Lesley developed an original program called Project L.E.A.D. (Learning what leadership is, Exercising personal leadership skills, Acting in collaboration with others, Devoting time and energy into community service) which encourages leadership through volunteerism within schools and communities of all sizes. As Miss Kansas, Lesley will promote leadership to thousands of students at over 200 schools this year. Project L.E.A.D. will also be her platform when she represents Kansas at the Miss America pageant in September. Mr. President, I am proud of Lesley's commitment to improve the lives of Kansans and commend her for the perseverance and dedication it took to win the title of Miss Kansas. I wish her the best as she travels our great State promoting community leadership in the 21st century.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is both an honor and a personal privilege for me to join my colleagues and rise today to pay tribute to a great Senator, a great patriot, and now the longest-serving Senator in our Nation's history, the most distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. Mr. President, the challenge for one trying to capsule this great American's service to South Carolina and our Nation is considerable. All Americans, however, should be encouraged--and I certainly encourage them to do this--to access Senator Thurmond's home page and discover the truly remarkable and unprecedented achievements of this man. Mr. President, it has become very commonplace in public service today, especially in this city, to refer to individuals of accomplishment as ``great Americans.'' And in some respects it is so commonplace that the term has even been overused, and sometimes even in humorous fashion. But that is not the case with Senator Thurmond who has been and is truly a great American in every sense of the word. This man has 27 honorary degrees to go with his BS degree from his beloved Clemson University. He has been a superintendent of education, a judge, a decorated veteran and hero of World War II, and he earned 18 decorations, medals, and awards. He has been a Governor of the Palmetto State. He has been a candidate for President, the first person ever to be elected to a major office on a write-in, a leader within three--not two--three political parties. And, obviously, he is our President pro tem of this body, and continues to serve as chairman of the Armed Services Committee providing continued leadership in behalf of our military and national security and the individual freedoms we all enjoy and also take for granted. If you think about this man's career, and as many of our colleagues across the aisle have said, regardless of issue or politics, it is unequaled, it is basically unparalleled. Mr. President, the other challenge in paying tribute to Senator Thurmond is what to say that has not already been said by his many friends, his constituents, his family, and his colleagues. But having said that, I do have a rather unique relationship with the Senator. I am sure that my colleagues have all heard of fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law and brothers-in-law. Well, I am proud to say that I am a Thurmond staff-in-law. The number of South Carolinians and others who have worked for the Senator in various capacities number in the thousands. We could accurately call them ``storm troops for Strom.'' And one of those former staff members is my wife, Franki, who worked for the Senator back when I first came to Washington as a new administrative assistant to then-Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas. As a matter of fact, it was Strom Thurmond who told me about all of the South Carolina magnolia blossoms who came north and whose charms attracted future husbands, always to return to South Carolina. Put another way, Senator Thurmond said, ``You can take the girl out of the South, but not the South out of the girl.'' And that is what happened to me, a Capitol Hill romance if you will, a South Carolina wedding, and in our family a Kansas-South Carolina compromise, always to South Carolina. So while many in this body have thanked the Senator for many deserving contributions and accomplishments, mine is somewhat unique. Thank you, Strom, for introducing me to my future wife and the mother of my three children, David, Ashleigh, and Anne-Wesley. All three, by the way, are Strom Thurmond fans, having met the Senator many times and sharing occasions with his family. In that regard, my wife Franki counts Mrs. Thurmond, Nancy, as a very good and a close friend as well. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, while I was really jotting down my remarks that I am making today, I noted with nostalgia that my Senate office overlooks the Methodist building that has served as home for many young women when they first work on Capitol Hill when they first come to Washington. When my wife, Franki, looked out that window, we both noted in some respects our family had come full circle. Her desk in my office looks out on her first home in Washington. Again, thank you, Senator Strom Thurmond. I might add, Mr. President, with the privilege of serving in this body I have finally achieved status in the Thurmond universe. I am now Senator Roberts instead of that Congressman who married Franki. And now, Mr. President, what with all of the Senator's friends having paid tribute to him, what they really said in their many deserving tributes to Senator Thurmond is that the Strom Thurmond family has come first. Every time I see the Senator he comes up to me with that smile and that twinkle in his eye and, yes, that firm grip that many of my colleagues have described on my arm--and it is a firm grip--and he asks, ``How's your family, your lovely wife and your family?'' And he means it. He cares. One of our treasured scrapbook pictures captured Strom all dressed up as Santa Claus some years back with his staff and his and their families. And there we sit in the front row with all of the kids and the proud parents. To me, that picture is Strom Thurmond, and enlarged it could just as well be a picture of his beloved South Carolina, or this great Nation, for South Carolina and America are his family as well, and he has served them well. Senator Thurmond, a colleague, friend, patriot, and, yes, a great American, thank you for your continued service. It is a privilege to serve with you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. First, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for letting me have this time. I know that he feels very strongly about this debate and wanted to make so many pertinent comments. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Roberts are printed in today's edition of the Record under ``Tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond.'')

Mr. ROBERTS. I would tell the distinguished Senator from Minnesota that I do not intend to speak more than about 10 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000?

Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute.