Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce legislation today to provide additional federal funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The legislation, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Funding Act, has been cosponsored by the other three Senators from this region, Senators Warner, Sarbanes and Mikulski. We have worked well as a team. And I thank Senator Warner, who will introduce corresponding legislation that authorizes the funding to go to the bridge project, which I am also pleased to cosponsor. These two bills complete the job that was started in the TEA-21 legislation we passed last year. In that bill, the Administration agreed to support $900 million for the bridge. I commend my senior colleague for his tireless efforts to secure those funds. But even with the funding provided by TEA-21, the amount of funding available for the bridge fell $1 billion short of what is needed to build it. Since the passage of the highway bill, I have been pressing the Administration to recognize the federal obligation which is owed to this federally-owned bridge. During the past few months of fits and starts on this project, I have focused on funding as the most serious long-term threat to rebuilding the bridge. I've spoken to Secretary Slater, written letters to the Secretary and OMB Director Jack Lew, and my office has been in constant contact with the Department of Transportation urging a solution to our funding shortfall. So I was gratified when the Administration proposed a solution reflected in the bills we are introducing today. After receiving the Administration's proposed legislation and consulting with the entire regional delegation, from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Potomac River, we decided to divide the legislation into two bills, which will be referred separately to the two committees with primary interest in the legislation. The bill I'm introducing allows direct payments from the Highway Trust Fund to be used to finish this project. It will be referred to the Finance Committee, on which I sit, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that committee to move this legislation forward. Senator Warner's bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which he sits. Together, these two bills will solve the remaining financing problem facing the Woodrow Wilson bridge. By securing Administration support in advance, we have already travelled a significant distance toward getting a bill that can be signed into law. And it is my hope we can move quickly in the Congress to fill this fiscal pothole. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two bills be printed consectutively in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to introduce the Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act of 1999. As one who has been involved in various reform efforts over the past three Congresses, I can honestly say that the legislation we are introducing today is, in my view, the best product we have submitted to date. I would like to take a moment to talk about the dedication of the members who are here on the floor today. They have all demonstrated a tireless commitment to get this body to take seriously solving the tough issue of financing this program through the Baby Boom generation and beyond. This is not an easy task. Under current law, the program faces a shortfall that would require either an 18 percent payroll tax rate or a 30 percent cut in benefits. Either option would be devastating to the future workers financing the program or the future Social Security beneficiary. This group has united around a common purpose. Instead of trying to dress up so-called lock-boxes as Social Security reform, and instead of undertaking massive Federal borrowing to finance individual accounts on top of the current system, and instead of committing future taxpayers to fix the problem, we have actually sought to solve the long-term financing dilemma in this important program. And I'm proud to say that we have done this without adopting any payroll tax increase. By allowing all workers to take 2 percentage points of their payroll tax into individual retirement savings accounts that workers own, we ensure that not only is today's Social Security surplus being set aside for today's workers who will become tomorrow's retirees, but we also advance fund some of our future liabilities. In addition, we also use some of the surplus to boost contributions for lower income workers, ensuring that these individuals have a comparable opportunity to build wealth in their personal savings accounts. The accumulation in these accounts will supplement future Social Security benefits under the traditional program. While we make some revisions to future benefits to bring down the financing cost of the program, we do so in a way that doesn't affect anyone currently over the age of 62, that increases the traditional Social Security benefit for low income earners, that protects women who have taken time out to raise children, and that increases the benefit for widows and widowers. Mr. President, this is a credible plan that solves the financing challenge presented by Social Security in a truly progressive manner. I hope other colleagues who are serious about tackling the issue will not only take a close look at this proposal, but will also help us make real reform a top priority.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I commend my colleagues from Rhode Island and Florida for their efforts to try to craft a bipartisan compromise. We succeeded in putting together legislation that I believe would have led us to a bill that could become a law. As Senator Chafee indicated, we are in a situation where a bill that is supported by an overwhelming majority of all of the health-related organizations--doctors, nurses, patients, and providers--is not going to enjoy enough votes on this floor to pass. The bill that will pass is going to be vetoed by the President. I hope we can find a way to crawl out of our fox holes and find the common ground that is necessary if we are going to address in a responsible way the issues and the concerns we have been talking about for this entire week. I commend the leadership for sticking to their agreement and giving everyone an opportunity to be heard. I regret there was no sense of compromise on the floor. It is important we do that. I hope we continue with that mission. I appreciate those who have worked hard to achieve that compromise. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I am only responding to the concern there was not adequate time for discussion. We were actively seeking engagement on this question, and it did not occur. I look forward to talking about the merits on my own time. I thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Maine. Yesterday, when we were debating the amendment I had the privilege of offering on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, and others, we had no one from the other side of the aisle here to debate or discuss that during the entire period we were discussing that particular amendment. In a few minutes I am going to address the merits of what was said, but nothing was said, no engagement on the merits of the amendment that we offered was offered by anyone from the other side of the aisle. Was there a decision not to engage this side? Does the Senator know how to respond to that?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a question with respect to the process?

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. I am pleased that the Senator from Tennessee is on the floor. First, let me observe that I see a disturbing trend as we consider the basic proposal to grant patients' rights, however defined. Every time we have a Democratic amendment, we find some small objection to it, technical or otherwise, causing everyone on the other side to have to vote against it with the promise that tomorrow we will resubmit it with a word or two changed so it will be acceptable to our side. If my observation is incorrect, I look forward to being corrected. Yesterday the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, took the floor to say that he supported 98 percent of the amendment I offered on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, and others, but he had just a couple of objections to it. He stated that the problems with our amendment were such that he had to urge all Members to vote against it and it could only be fixed with the alternative that Senator Snowe and Senator Abraham would cover today. At the time my friend from Tennessee was speaking, I asked if he would yield for a question. He declined to do so. That is, of course, his right. But since my friend from Tennessee would not yield during yesterday's debate for a question on his claims, I want to take just a minute to correct the Record. First of all, Senator Frist said he had spoken with the chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Primary Care Committee, Dr. Robert Yelverton. My colleague said Dr. Yelverton told him that OB/GYNs would not qualify as primary care physicians. A number of OB/GYNs took exception to the claim of the Senator from Tennessee that Dr. Yelverton told him OB/GYNs are unqualified, including Dr. Yelverton. I received a fax this morning from Dr. Yelverton which clarified these comments for me and for our colleagues. Let me read part of what he said. He said: I have never spoken directly to Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) or any member of his staff on the subject of OB/GYNs as primary care physicians or on any other subject. The quote that Senator Frist attributed to me on the floor of the Senate today came from an article in the June 13, 1999, edition of the New York Times.) He goes on to say: Senator Frist's misuse of my statement in support of his position that OB/GYNs could not act as primary care physicians because of the ``high standards'' that managed care organizations set for primary care physicians, is regrettably misleading to say the least, and does an injustice to the true intent of my statements. Again, I am quoting Dr. Yelverton. He went on to say: I personally supported then and I support now the amendment sponsored by ACOG to allow OB/GYNs to act as primary care physicians and to allow direct access for women's healthcare and did, in fact, spend a portion of this very afternoon e- mailing my senators and encouraging them to vote in support of the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the doctor's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the same doctor my colleague quoted said the Republican arguments against our amendment are off base. Contrary to the comments of the Senator from Tennessee yesterday, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorses our amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed their letter on this issue.

Mr. ROBB. I ask my Republican friends: What are their objections to the proposal to allow women access to care that they want and need? How do those who voted against our amendment yesterday, which is so important to American women, justify doing so? I want to clarify something my colleague from Tennessee said about our proposal to guarantee that doctors and patients--not insurance companies--decide how long a woman stays in a hospital after a mastectomy. Senator Frist criticized a provision in our amendment that said physicians shall make decisions about the length of stay in a hospital in accordance with ``generally accepted medical standards,'' arguing this standard would be used in determining whether a woman has a mastectomy, a lumpectomy, or a lymph node dissection. I want the record to reflect that our amendment said nothing of the sort. The Robb-Murray amendment simply said that after a woman has had one of these procedures, a doctor and patient can then decide how long a woman stays in the hospital. That is what the amendment actually said. Our Republican colleagues are simply wrong when they say that the amendment would somehow apply to the decision of the kind of surgical procedure a woman undergoes. Mr. President, I know there is a broader issue being debated over the definition of ``medical necessity'' and whether or not this definition is problematic. But that debate has nothing to do with the amendment we offered yesterday. Our amendment specifically said that physicians would be empowered to overrule insurance companies only when deciding how long a woman stays in the hospital after a woman has had a mastectomy, a lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection. Their argument that our amendment had a broader application is simply without merit. The Republican arguments in this case against the mastectomy portion of our amendment were off base. Their argument against guaranteeing better care by an OB/GYN has been discredited by the doctor whom they quoted yesterday. I hope we can come to some truly bipartisan resolution of these issues. They are important. They are important to women. They are important to all of the people in this country who are not currently covered. To restrict the scope of this amendment in such a way that specifically excludes women from having direct access to the type of health professionals with whom they are most comfortable is unconscionable. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. President, while I would concede that most Members of this body are very concerned about issues that have special relevance to women, we all too often leave much of the advocacy on those issues to women who are colleagues in the Senate. In a legislative body with only 9 women and 91 men, the amount of time focused on issues of special concern to women is often skewed. As someone who has always prided himself on standing up for equality of opportunity, that seems profoundly unfair. Women's health--and, specifically, the choices women have in our health care system--ought to be a special concern to everyone. As a father of three daughters, I have come to better understand that the types of health care women need and the way they access it are often very different from the health care needs of men. Unfortunately, our health care system has long ignored some important facts about women's health. During this important debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, I have offered an amendment that would do something to correct that. I rise to explain the amendment which was just sent to the desk which will help women get the medical care they need. The amendment has been crafted with Senators Murray, Boxer, and Mikulski and will remove two of the greatest obstacles to quality care that women face in our current system today: No. 1, inadequate access to obstetricians and gynecologists; and, No. 2, inadequate hospital care after a mastectomy. We know today that for many women, their OB/GYN is the only physician they regularly see. While they have a special focus on women's reproductive health, obstetricians and gynecologists provide a full range of preventive health services to women, and many women consider their OB/GYN to be their primary care physician. Unfortunately, some insurers have failed to recognize the ways in which women access health care services. Some managed care companies require a woman to first visit a primary care doctor before she is granted permission to see an obstetrician or gynecologist. Others will allow a woman to obtain some primary care services from her OB/GYN but then prohibit her from visiting any specialists to whom her OB/GYN refers her without first visiting a standard primary care physician. This isn't just cumbersome to women; it is bad for their health. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, women who regularly see an OB/GYN are more likely to have had a complete physical exam and other preventative services--like mammograms, cholesterol tests, and Pap smears. At a time when we need to focus our health care dollars more toward prevention, allowing insurers to restrict access to health professionals most likely to offer women preventative care only increases the possibility that greater complications and greater expenditures arise down the road. We ought to grant women the right to access medical care from obstetricians and gynecologists without any interference from remote insurance company representatives. This amendment is designed to do just that. I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues because the Republican bill, which has been offered for the purposes of debate by Senator Daschle, will not grant women direct access to care. First of all, their bill only covers a limited percentage of the women who have health care insurance in our country, leaving more than 113 million Americans without any basic floor for patient protections. Then, for the minority of patients that they do cover, the Republicans offer only a hollow set of protections but leave many women without direct access to the care they need. While their bill would allow a woman to obtain routine care from an OB/GYN, such as an annual checkup, the bill would not ensure that a woman can directly access important followup obstetrical or gynecological care after her initial visit. For example, if a woman were to have a Pap smear during a routine checkup at her gynecologist, and that Pap smear came back abnormal, the Republican bill would not guarantee that she could access important followup care from the same doctor. Instead, their bill would allow insurers to force her to go back to a primary care gatekeeper physician to get permission for a followup visit to her gynecologist. This may sound unbelievable, but a recent survey showed that women face this obstacle 75 percent of the time. In addition, the Republican bill will now allow a woman to designate her OB/GYN as her primary care provider. Their provision ignores one of the basic facts about the ways women receive health care in America today. While OB/GYNs have a special expertise on women's reproductive systems, they are also trained at primary care. For women, their OB/GYN is the only doctor that they see on a regular basis. Because many of these women consider their OB/GYN to be their primary care physician, they depend on him or her for the full range of diagnostic and preventative services that are offered by other general practitioners. Statistics show that women are more likely to have had a physical from an OB/GYN in the past year than from any other doctor. One survey from the University of Maryland showed that OB/GYNs provide 57 percent of the general physical exams given to women. In another survey, when asked who they go to for primary care, 54 percent of the women said it is to their OB/GYN. We know how women access primary care and we know that by allowing them to get this care, their health care will improve. Yet insurers often ignore the fact that many women rely on their OB/GYN for primary care, making it more difficult for them to access preventative care and other services. Our amendment will grant women more direct access to health care professionals that they have come to depend upon. The second piece of this amendment will address the inhumane treatment that some women have received after they have experienced the trauma of a mastectomy. Each year, millions of women are screened for cancer by mammogram and, sadly, nearly 200,000 of them are diagnosed with breast cancer. The options women face in such circumstances are difficult, and in a time of great uncertainty, women ought not be forced to face unnecessary additional burdens. Unfortunately, some women have been told by their health insurer that a mastectomy will only be covered on an outpatient basis. Given the trauma that a woman faces with such major surgery, both physical and emotional, it is unconscionable that some insurers refuse to cover proper hospital care after a mastectomy. Much like the restrictions on access to obstetricians and gynecologists, these restrictions on hospital care after such traumatic surgery are simply bad for women's health. After a mastectomy, doctors tell us that hospitalization is often critical to foster proper healing, as well as to provide support to women who have just experienced the emotional trauma of such major surgery. Our amendment will return control over this important medical decision to the medical professionals and ensure that doctors who actually know and examine their patients, not some distant, impersonal insurance company representative, make decisions about the length of stay in the hospital following a mastectomy. It would put into law the recommendations of the American Association of Health Plans, who said in 1996, that: The decision about whether outpatient or inpatient care best meets the needs of a woman undergoing removal of a breast should be made by the woman's physician after consultation with the patient . . . as a matter of practice, physicians should make all medical treatment decisions based on the best available scientific information and the unique characteristics of each patient. Although this commonsense, important provision was included in legislation offered by the other side of the aisle last year, it has inexplicably been dropped from their bill this year. We cannot, however, retreat from our commitment to the health and well-being of the women of America. Finally, this amendment would help self-employed women and, indeed, all self-employed Americans better access affordable health insurance by making the cost of their insurance fully tax deductible.

Mr. ROBB. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. ROBB. Finally, this amendment would help self-employed women and, indeed, all self-employed Americans better access affordable health care by making the cost of their insurance fully tax deductible. The current tax system penalizes self-employed individuals, and this amendment will ensure they are treated equally. I am concerned that the bill offered by the other side doesn't even cover 70 percent of Americans with health insurance. I am even more concerned, however, that the protections they offered to this limited number of Americans doesn't reflect the health needs of half of our population, the women in our population. I know we can do better. We should do better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which recognizes the critical needs facing the women in this country today. With that, I yield the floor, and I reserve any time remaining on my side.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank you. And I thank our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this whole bill. I use this moment to simply commend our colleagues, who happen to be women, who have made the most passionate, persuasive case for this particular amendment that could be made. Frankly, in listening to my colleague from Maryland about the agony women go through before they have to make a decision about a mastectomy, talking about the difficult choices that women have to make, and adding to it the bureaucracy, where we bounce them back and forth, and talking about money--for this particular amendment, I have heard one estimate that it will be 12 cents a year for the increased cost--we will probably, I suggest, save more money in the lack of administration and bureaucracy than it would cost if we allow women to have as their designated primary care provider their obstetrician or gynecologist. This is the person they go to right now to receive their health care, as pointed out so eloquently by the Senator from California. As the Senator from Arkansas has noted, this is a very real problem. Her husband happens to practice this particular form of medicine. She gave us a compelling reason as to why we should not subject the women of America to this kind of burden. I am very grateful to my colleague from Washington, who has long led the fight on this particular issue, and my colleague from Minnesota, and others who have spoken out. I, frankly, do not understand the argument against this particular proposal. There is no one here to make that argument. I am, frankly, surprised. This makes sense for the women of America.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, with that, I yield back my time to the Senator from Massachusetts so we might hear again from the Senator from Washington.

Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senators Jeffords and Landrieu as a cosponsor of this amendment that helps address an issue affecting many lower pay-grade federal employees with young children: affordable child care. Often there are facilities available to fill this need, but the costs puts this option beyond the reach of these families. This amendment addresses this concern by allowing the use of appropriated funds to help these families. Though I am concerned that the House may be uncomfortable with the overall scope of this amendment, I look forward to working with Senators Jeffords and Landrieu to make sure this measure or a reasonable compromise is acceptable to both the House and the Senate.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have not been present for all of the debate this time, but this issue has been before us many times in the past. I stand to oppose the amendment and to speak on behalf of the 1.2 million Federal employees who would be directly affected by the amendment. If this amendment were to pass, it would take away their health benefit rights which have been negotiated. The bottom line is, and I say this as one who represents a disproportionate number of Federal employees, this would make Federal employees, women who are eligible for this health benefit, second-class citizens. It would deny to them a benefit that is available to every other woman under every other private health plan that chooses to offer such coverage. I think it would be wrong. I reserve the remainder of the time, and I thank the Senator from California and the Senator from Washington for their extraordinary leadership, again, on this very important issue.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to submit a resolution honoring our veterans that have earned the oldest military decoration in the world, the Purple Heart. This resolution expresses the Sense of the Congress that the U.S. Postal Service should issue a postage stamp honoring Purple Heart recipients. The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington in 1782 as a badge of distinction for ``meritorious action.'' After the Revolutionary War, however, the Purple Heart was not awarded again until it was revived in 1932, the year marking the 200th anniversary of Washington's birth. Today, the Purple Heart is awarded to members of the U.S. armed forces who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy. Additionally, it is awarded posthumously to next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in combat. This year, the 200th anniversary of George Washington's death, is a fitting time for the Postal Service to honor our Purple Heart recipients with a commemorative postage stamp. They deserve no less.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while most people think of divisions in this body as divisions of party, there are other divisions as well. Increasingly, I'm becoming concerned about the division between those who want to create political issues and those who want to solve problems. From the start of this debate, I realized that the crushing wave of litigation which could accompany the new year threatens to hinder our efforts to achieve Y2K readiness and exacerbate the damage done by the Y2K bug. The prospect of litigation enormously complicates an already complex problem. I have worked with others to try to move all interested parties toward enough of a consensus that we could get a bill that would be signed into law. This effort to develop a consensus bill led to the development of the alternative offered by Senator Kerry. That substitute had the benefit of both addressing the legitimate needs of the high tech community and satisfying the concerns expressed by the Administration. Instead we have voted out legislation which, if unchanged in conference, is heading toward a veto. I have said from the outset that I believe we ought to pass a bill to address this real--and unique--problem. So today I voted for S. 96, to move it to the next stage in the legislative process. But I caution my colleagues that if this bill is not modified--if the conferees are not willing to address the remaining concerns in the upcoming conference-- then we're still faced with a veto, we'll end up where we began, and we'll have wasted valuable time in reaching our goal. With regard to the conference, I have heard that the House may simply adopt the Senate language, sending this bill directly to the White House knowing it would be vetoed. That's pure politics and it's counter-productive. From my negotiations with the White House, I know that they too want to find consensus, but at this point, the only way to find this consensus is to sit down with them in a conference setting. If a conference does not take place, if this bill is sent to the President with the explicit knowledge that it will draw a veto, then the reports on Capitol Hill that some would rather have a Y2K issue than a Y2K solution will be obvious for one and all to see, because there is consensus to be found on this issue, if all parties are willing to negotiate in good faith.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as a Senator from Virginia, with one of the most vibrant high-tech communities anywhere in the country, I am acutely aware of the problems the Y2K bug presents. And I want a bill. I have worked with the high-tech community in Virginia, particularly Northern Virginia, but throughout the State since my days as Lieutenant Governor and as Governor. During the time I was Governor, I created a task force on high technology and they came up with 44 recommendations, the most prominent of which was to create a Center for Innovative Technology, which, for the benefit of our colleagues, is housed in that funny-shaped building very close to Dulles International Airport. Colocated with it was the Software Productivity Consortium, because we wanted to be able to provide a central point for consideration of all the issues and concerns of the technology industry and a way to broker the release of the scientific work on technology-related projects. So, I come with a lengthy background of working with the high- technology community and a specific interest in getting legislation that will address the Y2K problem. The potential wave of litigation which could accompany the turn of the century could, in fact, be crushing, and many businesses have indicated that the threat of litigation could keep them from devoting the necessary resources to addressing their own Y2K problems. A reasonable bill, which would weed out frivolous lawsuits and encourage parties to remediate their Y2K disputes outside the courtroom, would be to everyone's benefit. But while there is general agreement that some sort of bill should pass, regrettably, we do not yet have consensus on exactly what language should be in this bill. Passage of almost any legislation requires some elements of compromise. We have seen that process ongoing. Indeed, I entered this debate several weeks ago--actually, now months ago--to help find the necessary consensus on this issue. Given the rapidly approaching new year, as well as the dwindling number of legislative days left in the Senate, it is important for us to act on this legislation now. Further delay will only make it more difficult to reach the consensus most of us are looking for. With the tight timeline we are facing, I am concerned with the direction the debate still seems to be taking. Notwithstanding my own misgivings about certain provisions in S. 96, the administration strongly objects to the bill in its current form, and the President has promised that if Congress sends S. 96 to the White House without significant modifications, he will veto it. Thus, we are presented with a dilemma. If we want a bill that will solve a legitimate problem, we need a bill that the President will sign or at the very least will not veto, or we need 67 hard votes in order to override a veto. Otherwise, we are just playing with politics. I regret to say I am afraid that is where we are now. We do not at this point, on this language, have the necessary 67 hard votes. The President has promised to veto this bill if it comes to him in its current form. So we are going through an exercise to polarize and politicize an issue instead of providing a solution to an issue. I appreciate the very hard work that my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts has put in trying to find the necessary language that would provide the relief that is legitimate and on which virtually everyone in the Chamber can agree and still get the President to sign. If we continue to approach this legislation with a vehicle we know the President has already promised to veto, we are not giving the industry the relief they so critically need. All we are doing is scoring political and debating points, but we are not coming up with a solution. We have that dilemma. I am, therefore, a cosponsor of the legislation offered by my distinguished friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, because the White House has indicated they will sign that particular legislation if these changes are made. It has line-by-line changes to certain provisions, and they are relatively limited at this point. I applaud the good will that has prevailed on both sides to this point in reaching this particular position, but we are still not there. For this reason, I hope that our colleagues will support the amendment that has been drafted and negotiated by my distinguished partner from Massachusetts because, at that point, we will have a bill. It will not be a perfect bill, but it also will not be a vetoed bill. It is inconceivable to me, given the many demands that have come to this Chamber from all of the interests that are involved, that we could ever come up with a perfect bill, but at least we will have protection from the kinds of lawsuits that the industry is most concerned about, and we will have it in time to make decisions to remediate some of the problems they could otherwise deal with if they were free from the threat of litigation in this particular area. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his patience in working out the amendment which is now before us, and I urge my colleagues to pass this particular amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered today is about accepting responsibility. On February 3, 1998, a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler severed a ski gondola cable near Cavalese, Italy, plummeting twenty people nearly 400 feet to their deaths. We later learned, to our great disappointment, that the pilot and the navigator conspired to destroy evidence of the circumstances leading to the accident. This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Leahy and Kerrey, upholds the honor of the United States Marine Corps and our military both here and abroad, permits the United States to accept responsibility for this tragic accident, and sends an unambiguous message that we will not tolerate efforts to cover-up our mistakes. The Congress has already authorized payment to rebuild the gondola we destroyed. We have not yet authorized payment to help rebuild the lives of the families we destroyed. This amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to compensate the victims' families both for the accident and the effort to hide evidence of the accident. A similar amendment was passed by the Senate during consideration of the Emergency Supplemental. The amendment passed unanimously, but was dropped during Conference consideration. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment and allow the families of the victims to begin healing.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation to assist federal workers seeking affordable care for their young children. Many federal facilities provide child care centers for their employees' use. But for many lower and middle income employees, these services are simply unaffordable--their costs put them beyond the reach of these families. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Warner and Sarbanes, will make this option affordable for these employees. This legislation authorizes federal agencies to use appropriated funds to help lower and middle income federal workers better afford the child care services they need. Let me emphasize that these funds have already been appropriated, meaning no new government spending is involved. This is a modest, cost-effective solution that will certainly ease the minds of parents who are understandably concerned about their child care needs. Our federal employees should not have to choose between their desire for public service and their need for child care services.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation to assist federal workers seeking affordable care for their young children. Many federal facilities provide child care centers for their employees' use. But for many lower and middle income employees, these services are simply unaffordable--their costs put them beyond the reach of these families. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Warner and Sarbanes, will make this option affordable for these employees. This legislation authorizes federal agencies to use appropriated funds to help lower and middle income federal workers better afford the child care services they need. Let me emphasize that these funds have already been appropriated, meaning no new government spending is involved. This is a modest, cost-effective solution that will certainly ease the minds of parents who are understandably concerned about their child care needs. Our federal employees should not have to choose between their desire for public service and their need for child care services.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Michigan for his leadership on this issue, as well as my colleague and friend from Arizona for his leadership on this issue. It is a difficult issue. This year, we have added billions of dollars to improve the readiness of our Armed Forces. It does not take a budget expert to realize how much more we could accomplish for our men and women in uniform if we had the billions in savings that would accrue from just one additional round of base closures in the year 2001. Last year and the year before that, I argued that not giving the Department of Defense the authority it has asked for to close unneeded bases makes the Congress look shortsighted and indecisive. I argued then that every dollar used to maintain excess infrastructure is a dollar diverted from resources we so badly need to modernize our equipment and to improve the quality of life of our hard-working military personnel and their families. Sadly, those BRAC efforts failed for nearly the same reasons the emergency supplemental succeeded last year, reasons that have more to do with politics than with making the right choices when it comes to protecting this Nation's interests, both now and into the next century. Admittedly, the emergency supplemental had plenty of legitimate emergency spending, emergency spending for our troops, for our farmers, and for hurricane and tornado victims. But it threw fiscal discipline out the window by also spending billions in nonemergency spending. In my view, we have acted just as irresponsibly over the past 3 years by refusing to close bases we no longer need. If we fail to pass this latest BRAC proposal once again, we will have failed not only the taxpayer but also the men and women who comprise the finest fighting force the world has ever known. I come back to this point, one I have made time and time again, to ask, who really suffers if we force the Department of Defense to keep open bases it does not need? In the end, we only punish those who most need the benefits of infrastructure savings. First, we punish the Nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best use of the resources with which we are entrusted. Second, we punish today's soldiers, sailors, and marines, because current readiness requires having sufficient reliable resources for equipment, training, and operations. Finally, we punish tomorrow's force, our future readiness, as we continue to mortgage the research, development, and modernization of the platforms and equipment that will be necessary to keep America strong into the 21st century. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified, there is no shortage of legitimate programs to apply BRAC savings towards including Navy shipbuilding. Years of relatively low procurement rates have created a shortfall so significant that the fleet size will shrink to substantially less than the 300 ships of the Navy's stated goal in the 2020s, if procurement rates of 8 to 10 ships do not start materializing now. The Navy is stretched thin enough right now, with 324 ships. Do we really want to risk not having enough ships to meet our commitments in the next century? It does not have to be this way. The 300-ship Navy, the Army after next, and the Air Force and Marine Corps of tomorrow can be funded, at least in part, from BRAC savings. The savings from the first four rounds of base closures alone are estimated to be on the order of $25 billion over the next 4 years. It should come as no surprise that scores of studies and organizations such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Defense Restructure Initiative, the National Defense Panel, and Business Executives for National Security have all concluded that more base closures are crucial to the future of our Armed Forces. It is time to put politics behind us. We have an obligation to change the way we do business and to do what is right for our Armed Forces and what is right for the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support this critically important amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.