Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. (The remarks of Mr. Robb pertaining to the introduction of S. 929 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, when future generations search for ``lessons learned'' from America's 18th, 19th and 20th century military experiences, they no doubt will be accessible through dusty texts, dated documentary videos, or long-forgotten Congressional transcripts. I am concerned, however, that these lessons will not carry forward into the next century as an enduring reminder of the true costs, and the true benefits, of waging wars, on behalf of freedom and democracy. Increasingly, we have seen the gap between the military, and the rest of society, widen. Early in the next century, for example, we expect that less than four percent of the population will be veterans, down from over 11 percent in 1980. This means that fewer and fewer civilians will have a personal understanding of the military, making it more and more difficult to pass on to successive generations, one of our most powerful military assets--our experience. How then do we ensure that we don't ``repeat'' our past mistakes--and that we build on our past successes? Mr. President, I am joined by Senators Hutchison, of Texas, Kerrey of Nebraska, Hagel, Reed of Rhode Island, Smith of New Hampshire, Cleland, Abraham, and Hutchinson of Arkansas in introducing the National Military Museum Act. It will teach visitors about each of the major wars in which America has fought. Finally, it will help build pride, in our military, and the nation. The United States, through the fine stewardship of the Smithsonian Institution, operates over a score of excellent national museums--from the National Portrait Gallery, to the National Postal Museum, yet none of these are dedicated to the armed forces. In fact, the individual military services have many museums--the Army alone, has over 60. We also have military artifacts and battles represented in sections of some of the Smithsonian museums. Yet we do not have a single, prestigious, integrated national museum to tell America's military story and to honor our armed forces. This is an extraordinary shortcoming in the telling of our national heritage. By contrast, many of our key allies have national military museums. The British Imperial War Museum, and the Australian War Memorial, are two fine examples. The United States is a nation that has influenced world events decisively over the last century and will continue to do so for centuries to come. And it is a military power that has sought not to conquer other lands, but to bring freedom, and democracy to the entire world. History shows few if any nations, with such disproportionate means, employing force for such consistently altruistic ends. Yet we have no national place to tell, this extraordinary story. Mr. President, where, would a teenager interested in World War I, World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, go, to learn more about these wars? There really is no museum displaying artifacts from these wars, in a comprehensive fashion. We do in fact have several fine Civil War museums, but the lack of representations of so many other wars is remarkable. The idea of a National Military Museum goes back to the late 1800s. Several attempts to build this museum, (including a concerted effort by President Truman) failed, for various reasons: inadequate funding, post-war disillusionment, or blueprints that were too ambitious. Now, as we enter the 21st century, the time is right to display the enormous inventories of artifacts, that have been accumulated from this century--especially from conflicts since World War II. As now envisioned, the National Military Museum would include display sections for each of the military services as well as separate sections for each of the country's major wars. A spectacular atrium would house large items, from: missiles to ship sections to aircraft. Based on a review of numerous potential sites, this legislation authorizes that the new museum be located on the Navy Annex property just west of the Pentagon. Bounded symbolically, by Arlington National Cemetery, to the north, and offering a commanding view of the capital area, this location is ideal, and one of the last available parcels, in the area, suitable for a museum of this scope and importance. The museum would share a large 55-acre tract of land with an expansion of Arlington National Cemetery and possibly other veterans' memorials. The buildings currently on this land, are slated for demolition around 2015. The National Military Museum Act establishes a National Military Museum Foundation, which will be responsible for the design construction, and operation, of the museum. The Foundation's Board, will consist of 10 members, and their first action will be to conduct a study on the siting, design, environmental impact, and governing of the museum. The Foundation may recommend that the museum, become part, of the Smithsonian Institution. Assuming no Congressional action, upon receipt of both this study, and a General Accounting Office evaluation, the Foundation will proceed with final design preparations, and pursue fundraising. Construction would begin after demolition of the existing Navy Annex buildings. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislative cornerstone, for building, one of the most important, and--I would anticipate--most visited museums, in the world. Let us honor our nation's military with this long overdue museum. Let us safeguard our past, so that future generations will know what has been done before--and what may have to be done again, in the future--to push back the forces of tyranny, and to preserve the freedoms, we are so fortunate to enjoy.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to announce my position on the cloture petition on the so-called Social Security lockbox legislation before the Senate. First, let me say that I am disappointed with our Republican colleagues for making this a political issue. The fact of the matter is that both Democrats and Republicans in this body believe that Social Security surpluses should be protected and, absent extraordinary circumstances, should be used to reduce the public debt. Budget resolutions sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans abided by that rule. In essence, then, the legislation presented to us today is designed as little more than a political show vote that will give a basis for claiming that Republicans alone are committed to protecting Social Security while Democrats are not. Nothing could be more disingenuous. Let me also say that we could use some truth-in-advertising around here. This is not even a true lockbox. There are significant exceptions included in this legislation. No. 1, the so-called lockbox allows for adjustment of its scriptures for emergency spending, with the likelihood that significant defense-related emergency spending will be enacted. As one individual commented, ``if we don't have an on-budget surplus to fund emergencies, then we adjust the debt limits to borrow from the Trust Fund.'' No. 2, it should also be pointed out that the debt limits can also be adjusted for whatever is deemed Social Security reform. That is so open-ended in my view it gives Congress a loophole through which it could easily evade the so-called lockbox altogether. What concerns me most in this proposal, however, is that it gives the American people the false impression that this is the answer to our fiscal problems. Instead of just resisting the temptation to go on a tax-cutting or spending spree, dealing honestly with solving the long- term funding challenges in Social Security and Medicare, and paying down our enormous debt with the entire surplus, we claim that the lockbox, an artificial mechanism which only commits part of the total surplus to reduce the debt, is the most fiscally responsible thing we can do. What makes this proposal all the more disingenuous from our Republican colleagues is that the large tax cut that they hope to enact threatens most our ability to meet the scriptures of the so-called lockbox. In the final analysis, this political stunt isn't worth risking the credit worthiness of the United States. Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of this legislation that the Social Security surplus should be used to pay down the publicly held debt, although I would commit the entire surplus to that purpose. My concern is that the proposal before us is nothing more than an attempt to politicize an issue on which we all agree, and that it has the potential to do more harm than good by risking the credit worthiness of the United States.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, say that I support the Ed- Flex bill, so I particularly appreciate my friend and colleague from Minnesota yielding just a couple minutes to me. But like so many of our other colleagues today, I want to express my condolences to all of those in Littleton who have suffered such a tragic loss in such a traumatic event to the community. I think it was obvious last night when the President was asked after his statement if there was anything we could do to prevent tragic incidents like this from happening, he acknowledged that there aren't any easy answers. But we all know that recognizing the warning signs of stress and depression and substance abuse and violent behavior starts at home and extends well into our communities. Littleton, as other communities, is suffering in ways we can only imagine. My three daughters are now grown, but I cannot imagine the agony of waiting to find out what fate might have befallen them under similar circumstances. I grieve with the families, as all others do. I note to my colleagues that I had introduced legislation in 1993 which I believed would make a contribution to the effort to reduce and prevent school violence. I plan to reintroduce similar legislation sometime in the next week or two. I welcome the work of any colleagues who desire to help. I appreciate the fact that in 1997 we were able to divert money from the Community Oriented Policing Services funds to fund school safety initiatives, and we were able to increase those funds by tenfold in 1998. We can do more, and I hope the legislation I plan to offer will advance that cause. But for right now, I simply join with all of our colleagues here in the Senate in expressing to those families grieving in Littleton, CO, and all over the country, that we understand the agony through which they are hopefully passing at this moment, and we will do our best to work with them. With that, I thank the Chair and particularly thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to use this occasion to honor a long-time friend, Mr. Gerald T. Halpin, who has shown that economic prosperity can go hand-in-hand with public service. Jerry Halpin is the Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of WEST*GROUP, a commercial real estate company based in McLean, Virginia, and he was recently honored as the 1998 Fairfax County Citizen of the Year by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations and ``The Washington Post.'' Jerry Halpin deserves this recognition, not just because he changed the face of Fairfax County as a visionary businessman, but also because of his vast record of quiet and selfless community leadership. Anyone who is familiar with Northern Virginia is also familiar with Jerry Halpin's business accomplishments, although not everyone knows the full range of this self-effacing, public-spirited citizen's contributions to our community. In 1962, Jerry and three partners purchased a 125-acre farm on the crest of a hill in western Fairfax. On that crest he built Tysons Corner, which remains to this day one of the primary commercial centers in the entire region. His WEST*GROUP properties dot the area, and he has been responsible for the development, redevelopment or construction of office, retail, residential, resort, and industrial space for WEST*GROUP affiliates aggregating more than 12 million square feet. In the midst of this time-consuming and successful business career, however, Jerry Halpin made the time to reinvest in his community. His specific contributions to this region are far too numerous to mention, although I would like to highlight a few. Thirty-five years ago, when the Fairfax County Park Authority was unable to secure sufficient funds to purchase land for a park site, he refinanced his home to cover the purchase price and then turned the land over to the Park Authority. Today, that land constitutes Burke Lake Park, one of Fairfax County's finest public recreation areas. As he was developing the WEST*GATE and WEST*PARK Office Parks in Tysons Corner, Jerry ensured that a net gain of trees existed after construction and donated land for a school, a ball park and transit stations. He played a major role in the purchase of various structures for Wolf Trap Farm Park, one of the finest facilities in the area, and dedicated substantial time to the Park as an early Trustee, Executive Committee Co-Chairman and Finance Committee Chairman of the Wolf Trap Foundation. On a more personal scale, Jerry was also involved in the landscaping of Trinity United Methodist Church and the Churchill Road Elementary School playground, both in McLean. A common thread runs through these disparate projects. Knowing him as I do, I am convinced that Jerry undertook each, not to advance his personal ambitions, but to promote the public interest. That's why many who live in the region are familiar with Jerry's commercial work but are less familiar with his public works. That is because Jerry is not a self-promoter, and I know he did not seek the honor that was bestowed upon him by the Federation of Citizens Associations. I am glad, however, that his selflessness has been recognized, not so much because Jerry needs awards, but because he provides the community with such a positive role model. Despite his many years of work and service, Jerry Halpin is still going strong. He currently serves as Chairman of the Grand Teton National Park Foundation, as a Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and as a Director and Chairman of the Finance Committee for the National Capital Bicentennial Celebration. These current activities build on many in the past, such as his service with the American Horticultural Society, the American Museum of Immigration, the National Parks and Recreation Association, the Virginia Museum of Science, the Boarder Baby Project Gala, and the Medical Care for Children Partnership Awards Dinner. Jerry has also volunteered his time and leadership skills to many charitable organizations including the McLean Project for the Arts, United Community Ministries, the Claude Moore Colonial Farm, Hospice of Northern Virginia, Fairfax Hospital and Northern Virginia Community College. Jerry's civic participation has extended to various public boards and commissions. During my term as Governor of Virginia, I appointed him to the Governor's Task Force on Science and Technology and to the Governor's Joint Study Committee to inquire into the practicality of creating a Coal Slurry Pipeline in Virginia. Jerry served as a member of the Governor's Advisory Board on Industrial Development under Governors Holton, Godwin and Dalton. He was also a member of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and its predecessor organizations for over eight years. Jerry Halpin has been a personal friend of mine for many years now. For over forty years, he has provided community leadership not only for Fairfax County, but to all of Northern Virginia and the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations and ``The Washington Post'' could not have selected anyone more deserving than Jerry Halpin to be the 1998 Fairfax County Citizen of the Year. George Hartzog, the former Director of the National Park Service, has called Jerry a ``treasure to mankind''--I couldn't have said it better.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, last week I offered a few comments on two great civil rights leaders, Ms. Rosa Parks and Mr. Oliver W. Hill. Today, as we are on the verge of passing S. 531, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Ms. Rosa Parks, I want to speak again just briefly. As I noted last week, our Nation owes Ms. Parks an immense debt of gratitude. It is gratifying to me that we have been able to move this legislation so quickly, and I think the great speed with which the Senate is acting is testimony in itself to our admiration of Ms. Parks. No matter how eloquent our words or how eloquent we believe them to be, words can never match the simple act of this courageous woman. Ms. Parks herself has become a symbol for the courage and righteousness of the civil rights movement. When we think of her action, we cannot help but think of the consequences --an historic bus boycott by 40,000 people, a decade of principled protests, and legal and legislative victories that helped make America more free. Ms. Parks, an unassuming seamstress who stood up to segregation by sitting down in the front seat of a city bus in Montgomery, AL, now stands like a giant in the history of the 20th century. I thank our colleagues and the leadership for their support for passing S. 531 today. While we still face too long a journey to end discrimination, Rosa Parks and thousands of individual acts of courage have made us more free and have inspired the rest of us to carry on in our own efforts. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support this motion to instruct the conferees to set aside some of the on-budget surplus for Medicare. The Budget Resolution approved by this body in March made the correct decision with regard to Social Security by devoting the off-budget, or Social Security, surplus to paying down the publicly held debt. That was the right thing to do, especially if we are not going to come to closure on a true Social Security reform plan that brings down future liabilities. While the direction on Social security was the correct course, failure to hold some of the on-budget surplus to deal with Medicare takes us down the wrong fiscal path. Medicare's financial problems are not only more acute than Social Security's but also much more difficult to solve. The fact of the matter is that even under the reform plan considered in the Medicare Commission, solvency would not be significantly extended. Given these facts, it seems to me that the smarter fiscal policy over the long-term would be to leave some of the on-budget surplus to address Medicare. Using it all for a tax cut significantly reduces our flexibility to prepare for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation and the demands on Social Security, Medicare, and our overall budget that will result from the doubling of beneficiaries eligible for these programs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct if they are serious about acting in a fiscally responsible way to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, late last summer, a Virginian contacted my office to request my intervention in a matter which had brought considerable anguish and frustration to her family. She informed me that her father, a decorated veteran of World War II and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death, however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to science, and two, that his ashes be placed in the Arlington National Cemetery. His widow, now 72, honored the first of those wishes. But in honoring the first request, she found out that the second was precluded. The family learned that, due to various legal concerns, ashes of organ donors who donate their bodies to science are not returned to the families of the donors. Unfortunately, due to the regulations governing Arlington National Cemetery, veterans cannot be memorialized in the Columbarium unless their remains are actually inurned there. Oddly, it so happens that if his spouse had predeceased him, her remains would already have been inurned in a niche at Arlington, awaiting his remains. While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to do just that. All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both transplantation and for medical study. Veterans who make this courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at one of our country's most sacred memorials. With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, notwithstanding the absence of their cremated remains. Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will correct current calculations of federal retirement annuities that unfairly penalizes federal civil servants who switch to part-time service at the end of their careers. The Congress included provisions in the 1986 Civil Service amendments contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that reformed the part-time service calculations for retirement, so that part-time workers would not receive the same annuities as full-time workers. I believe that was a fair and equitable reform. However, after receiving a letter from one of my fellow Virginians, L. David Jones, it is clear that there have been errors in the interpretation of the provision. Mr. Jones worked for the Naval Research Lab until his retirement in February, 1995. He worked there full-time for 30 years and part-time for five years after his 30 years of full-time service. He elected part-time service at the end of his career to not only to ease into retirement, but to help his colleagues better manage an increased workload. But because of the misinterpretation of the provision, he would have been better off retiring at the end of his 30 years. Instead of being praised for his additional service, his situation now serves as a cautionary tale for others who wish to transition into retirement and help their colleagues: if you switch to part-time service after a long career as a full-time worker, your annuities will be reduced. Clearly, that is not the intent of the provision. Mr. Jones and his wife sought judicial remedies to no avail. He and his family simply want his annuity calculated accurately. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. Mr. President, by passing this legislation we will ensure that federal retirees like Mr. Jones and others are not unjustly penalized for working part-time at the end of their careers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee to ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, late last summer, a Virginian contacted my office to request my intervention in a matter which had brought considerable anguish and frustration to her family. She informed me that her father, a decorated veteran of World War II and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death, however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to science, and two, that his ashes be placed in the Arlington National Cemetery. His widow, now 72, honored the first of those wishes. But in honoring the first request, she found out that the second was precluded. The family learned that, due to various legal concerns, ashes of organ donors who donate their bodies to science are not returned to the families of the donors. Unfortunately, due to the regulations governing Arlington National Cemetery, veterans cannot be memorialized in the Columbarium unless their remains are actually inurned there. Oddly, it so happens that if his spouse had predeceased him, her remains would already have been inurned in a niche at Arlington, awaiting his remains. While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to do just that. All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both transplantation and for medical study. Veterans who make this courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at one of our country's most sacred memorials. With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, notwithstanding the absence of their cremated remains. Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will correct current calculations of federal retirement annuities that unfairly penalizes federal civil servants who switch to part-time service at the end of their careers. The Congress included provisions in the 1986 Civil Service amendments contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that reformed the part-time service calculations for retirement, so that part-time workers would not receive the same annuities as full-time workers. I believe that was a fair and equitable reform. However, after receiving a letter from one of my fellow Virginians, L. David Jones, it is clear that there have been errors in the interpretation of the provision. Mr. Jones worked for the Naval Research Lab until his retirement in February, 1995. He worked there full-time for 30 years and part-time for five years after his 30 years of full-time service. He elected part-time service at the end of his career to not only to ease into retirement, but to help his colleagues better manage an increased workload. But because of the misinterpretation of the provision, he would have been better off retiring at the end of his 30 years. Instead of being praised for his additional service, his situation now serves as a cautionary tale for others who wish to transition into retirement and help their colleagues: if you switch to part-time service after a long career as a full-time worker, your annuities will be reduced. Clearly, that is not the intent of the provision. Mr. Jones and his wife sought judicial remedies to no avail. He and his family simply want his annuity calculated accurately. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. Mr. President, by passing this legislation we will ensure that federal retirees like Mr. Jones and others are not unjustly penalized for working part-time at the end of their careers. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee to ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words today about two civil rights leaders to whom this nation owes an immense debt of gratitude. Ms. Rosa Parks and Mr. Oliver W. Hill, both, in very distinct ways, took action that has helped make our children more free, our society more enlightened, our culture more enriched. I was pleased to add my name to the list of cosponsors of S. 531, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Ms. Rosa Parks, who as everyone knows stood up to segregation by sitting down in the front seats of a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. It is difficult to adequately put in words the courage it took on the part of Ms. Parks to oppose decades of institutionalized racism. It is also hard to describe the pride we feel today in Ms. Parks' action, and in how our nation's conscience grew, although too slowly, in response to the bus boycott that followed. Ms. Parks' action set off a 382-day bus boycott by 40,000 people, which in turn led to a federal court challenge and the end of Montgomery's segregated buses. The decade of peaceful protests that followed brought us a string of liberating Supreme Court decisions and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today, Ms. Parks, an unassuming seamstress, stands like a giant in the history of the 20th century. Mr. Oliver W. Hill, an aggressive attorney for the Civil Rights movement, is less well known. But Mr. Hill is no less courageous, and the contributions he made to this country deserve much greater recognition. For that reason, I've asked the President to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I describe Mr. Hill as ``aggressive'' because he trained as a warrior in the cause of justice: he went to law school specifically to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. His training paid off. He prevailed in Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk to grant equal pay for African American teachers. And he defended the rights of African American students in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, which was one of the five cases decided as part of Brown v. The Board of Education. Sadly, all this success was not without cost. Mr. Hill remembers the terrible telephone calls to his home, and the cross that was burned on his yard in Richmond. The courage and accomplishments of this man and this woman are truly historic and important to our nation. I hope we can pass S. 531 quickly to recognize Ms. Parks, and I hope the President will decide very soon to reward Mr. Hill with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, through his work on the Medicare Commission, Senator Breaux has offered some very strong recommendations to deal with our long-term problems in Medicare, and I hope that the Finance Committee will act expeditiously in considering these and other reform elements. While I share many of the sentiments expressed in this amendment, I don't believe it will bring us closer toward finding common ground on the Medicare question. Realization of comprehensive Medicare reform will require a genuine bipartisan effort from all parties involved, and we ought to be working to keep the political tension surrounding this debate to a minimum. I'm concerned that the wording of the amendment offered by Senator Roth will further divide us rather than bring us together on this important issue. For this reason, I will oppose it.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to strike section 204 of the budget resolution, as well as the reconciliation instructions to cut taxes by $778 billion over the next 10 years without offsetting their costs. I move to eliminate these provisions because they strike at the very heart of the fiscal discipline that has brought about the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. In 1993, in President Clinton's first budget, we introduced a new pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. This rule provided for a 60-vote point of order in the Senate against legislation that would increase the deficit over 10 years. That has served to keep the Senate and the Congress on a course of fiscal responsibility by requiring Congress to pay for any changes in revenues or direct spending. The budget resolution before us, however, abandons the pay-go rule and allows Congress to spend the projected onbudget surpluses without offsetting their costs. While supporters of this language promote this as a simple clarification of existing principles, arguing the pay-go rules were not to apply in times of onbudget surpluses, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees. In my judgment, it would be irresponsible to abandon the very pay-go rules that brought us to this point when we still face a $3.7 trillion debt held by the public, and a total debt of over $5.5 trillion. But, Mr. President, regardless of one's views on whether these rules were meant to apply in our current fiscal circumstances, I believe it is in our interest not to abandon the pay-go rules at this time. They have been instrumental in imposing fiscal discipline on this body, something that has been sorely lacking in previous years. Paying for new spending or new tax cuts forces legislators to make tough choices. If we abandon this rule, we are saying, in effect, we don't have to make tough choices anymore. And that is particularly troubling when we make long-term decisions based only on projections, as we do today. Mr. President, those who support this change are using it to pass a tax cut that would otherwise be subject to a point of order under the current pay-go rules. But I want to ask our colleagues, which is the more fiscally conservative position? Supporters of this new language may think of themselves as fiscal conservatives. In my view, the fiscally conservative position demands paying for other priorities and using the total surplus, not just the off-budget surplus, to pay down the publicly held debt. By ridding ourselves of this debt, we dramatically increase our flexibility to solve some of our long-term funding challenges in Social Security and Medicare. The budget resolution before us is short shrift to Social Security and Medicare by abandoning the pay-go rules and using the onbudget surplus for tax cuts. Once again, it puts short-term political interests ahead of long-term planning. As long as the only window we are looking through faces the next election rather than our economic strength in the next century, we will continue to put our focus on feel-good tax cuts at the expense of preparing for the future of Social Security and Medicare. Bottom line, Mr. President, the responsible position is to maintain the current budget rules and pay down the debt, and that is the proposition that Americans support. We have a responsibility to the next generation to reduce the debt that clouds our Nation's future prosperity, and the way to remove that debt is to stick to the pay-go rules that have served us so well. With this amendment, cosponsored by Senator Graham of Florida, we will keep the pay-go rules, we will pay off the debt, and we will ensure that any tax cut doesn't threaten to plunge us back into the large deficits from which we have so recently been delivered. With that, Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that the clerk report the amendment.

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this is the third time this year that I've come to the floor to express my strong support to help states and localities build and repair our children's schools. I am concerned that this budget resolution, which often serves as our roadmap throughout the appropriations process, does not adequately take into account the urgent need that school districts are facing throughout the country. Not only do we have old schools in desperate need of repair, we also have a growing student population. States and localities simply cannot keep up with their school construction and repair needs. They cannot pay for major infrastructure projects without our help. Mr. President, this is what we know. We know that the average school building in the country is 50 years old. We know that GAO estimates that we need $112 billion just to repair old buildings to make them safe. And Mr. President, we know that over the last ten years, public school enrollment has increased 16.4% and that GAO estimates that it will cost an additional $73 billion to build the new schools we need to accommodate this surge in enrollment. Mr. President, in Virginia, there are over 3,000 trailers in use. These trailers are not wired to the Internet; they're not even wired to their own schools network. Over the last two years, 38% of our school districts have been forced to close at least one building in each district due to facility-related problems. The most commonly reported problem was the insufficiency of air-conditioning and ventilation. In fact, our students have lost 38 days of instructional time--that's seven weeks--because of problems with the air conditioning. But these problems are not unique to Virginia. School infrastructure problems exist everywhere. In Alabama, it is reported that the roof of an elementary school collapsed just after the children had left for the day. In Chicago, teachers place cheesecloth over air vents to filter out lead-based paint flecks from getting into their classrooms. In Ohio, there are even some children who use outhouses instead of modern- day restrooms. Roughly forty percent of New Mexico schools have inadequate electrical wiring, and fifty percent of Delaware schools report inadequate plumbing systems. The list goes on and on. Developing a budget is about setting priorities. I have long believed that we have three basic priorities which should come before all others: we should provide for our citizens a strong national defense, we should provide quality education for our children, and we should not pass on debt to the next generation. When we consider the federal role in education, we should focus on helping states and localities to meet their pressing needs. And Mr. President we have pressing needs when it comes to the condition of our schools. It is a pressing need when we see children fainting in school because the building has no air conditioning. It is a pressing need when we see a child attending class in a trailer. It is a pressing need when we see leaky, unsafe roofs. I don't believe that any parent would deny that their children's needs come first. We should not procrastinate in finding a solution to this problem. This amendment is broadly worded. It doesn't target the money to any particular population. It doesn't impede stats' efforts to begin their construction projects. Where there are disagreements on how to allocate federal funds to the states, or whether or not to target a certain portion of those funds, or whether to have more private sector involvement, or what amount of federal dollars we can afford, let's talk about those issues. But let's at least agree that we in Congress do have an important role to play. This amendment is merely an attempt to determine whether this Congress is going to recognize our national school construction crisis. Our states and localities have recognized the crisis and are reaching out for our help. Mr. President, last session Congress recognized another infrastructure need--our national transportation need--and appropriated $216 billion for roads and transit projects. If we can recognize this national need, come together on a bipartisan basis, and pass legislation to build roads, surely we can come together to build schools. Schools are more than just classrooms, they're community centers. Schools provide more than just classroom instruction, they provide the keys to the future. Mr. President, this amendment is a starting point. Let's at least send the right message to this Nation: that we see the leaking roofs, that we see the cracked walls, that we see all the trailers--and that we are willing to help. I thank my friends, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Harkin, and all those who have co-sponsored this amendment and I urge its adoption. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I hope I may have the 60 seconds, even though I am going to have a voice vote, and I know the result of that vote. Mr. President, may I simply say pay-as-you-go has served this institution and this country well. It has helped reduce deficits, and it has helped us not to spend money we did not have. Senator Graham and I thought it would be appropriate to continue that discipline. Regrettably, in an effort to spend money that we do not have, it is being withdrawn in this amendment. I yield to my distinguished friend from Florida to use up any time that I have not used.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the fiscally responsible vote is yea. With that, Mr. President, I yield.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senate Resolution 53, which declares March 24, 1999 as ``National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day.'' As a number of my colleagues noted, the past year has been a grim one for educators, parents, and students. The tragic events in schools in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oregon shocked the conscience. I'm thankful that in my home state of Virginia, no one was killed at school in 1998. But this past summer in Richmond, a volunteer and teacher were wounded by gun fire from a fourteen-year-old student. All of these events were terrible blows to families and friends in each community. I hope today's resolution will give some solace to those communities, who will know that the Congress has not forgotten them. For the nation as a whole, these events were a terrible blow as well, and I believe Congress has an obligation to follow up with a commitment to preventing future school violence because while schools are a relatively safe place for our children, the events of the past year have shaken our confidence. School children have written to me expressing the fear that they will be attacked, and I know their parents have similar fears. We cannot expect our children to achieve their best in such an environment. We've already taken a number of steps that I hope will help allay these fears. Later this year, more than $165 million in school safety grants will be awarded by the Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services program. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Gregg and Hollings, for supporting efforts last year to increase funding for this program, which I initiated in 1997. I ask my colleagues to support funding for this important program again this year. Later this year, as we consider juvenile justice reform legislation and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, I will be looking at other ways to help make our schools safer, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that effort as well. Students should worry about their next test, not about their safety. Fear should not be a part of any school's curriculum.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may take up an amendment which I believe has been or will be cleared on both sides.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today not only in my capacity as a U.S. Senator but also as a former U.S. Marine and as a father. Along with Senators Snowe, Leahy, Feinstein, Kerrey, Bingaman, and others, I am offering an amendment that will permit the United States to shoulder unambiguously its responsibility, uphold the honor of the U.S. military, both at home and abroad, and begin to ease the grieving of 20 families who lost their loved ones in a tragic accident near Cavalese, Italy, last year. On February 3, 1998, a U.S. Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler was flying low and fast through the Italian Alps on a training mission. Just minutes from its scheduled return to base, the pilot suddenly caught a glimpse of a yellow gondola off to his right at eye level. A split second later, he spotted the two cables that carried the gondola, and, fearing for his life, he put the plane into a dive. His action probably saved the lives of the four-member crew, but it was not enough to prevent the wingtip from clipping the cables. Unaware of the devastation left in his wake, he completed his mission and returned the damaged plane to Aviano Air Base. The plane's wing had stretched and then snapped the cables supporting the gondola, which was then 307 feet above the valley floor. Inside were 20 people; among them, a Polish mother and her 14-year-old boy, seven German friends, and five Belgian friends, including an engaged couple. I am told that those 20 people had just 8 seconds to live from the time the cable was struck. Eight seconds doesn't seem like a long time, unless you know you are going to die. [Pause.] That was eight seconds. The next day in Cavalese, Italy, a lone bell tolled. Shops ``closed for mourning,'' a memorial mass was planned and skiing was halted out of respect for the dead. And the families of those dead spent their first day of grief. One year later, Cavalese is once again teeming with tourists. The cable car has been rebuilt, and a memorial stone erected. One year later, however, the United States has not yet acted to accept full responsibility for those twenty deaths. Following a lengthy court martial, the pilot of the jet was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing. President Clinton reacted by stating that the United States would ``unambiguously shoulder the responsibility for what happened.'' We need to follow those words with deeds. We need to accept our responsibility by compensating the families of the victims, quickly and fairly. While many factors contributed to this accident, and we may never know exactly which one was the proximate cause, we do know that it was our fault. They were our air crew. It was our plane. Because there is no question whether the United States is responsible for the accident, the only question is whether we have the will to act honorably and settle the issue of compensating the families quickly-- doing everything we can to not prolong their agony--for they have already suffered unspeakable grief. Since last summer, I have repeatedly urged the Department of Defense to develop a mechanism that acknowledges our responsibility and allows the families to begin putting their lives back together. And I believe every official in the Department associated with this matter shares this desire to put the tragedy behind us. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense does not believe it has the authority to resolve these claims on its own. This belief stems from the Department's conclusion that this case is governed solely by the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, which regulates the relationship among the military forces of NATO allies. Following an accident in a host country involving a NATO ally, the SOFA requires injured third parties to file claims in the host country and pursue them as if the host country itself had caused the injury. Then, the claims are litigated or settled as the host country determines. Once a level of compensation is decided, the host country pays the claim and seeks reimbursement of 75% of that claim from the country at fault. The Department of Defense has informed me of its belief that the SOFA provides the sole remedy in this case and that therefore the DoD does not have the authority to settle the claims of the families arising from this accident. While I disagree with that conclusion, this amendment resolves the question. My amendment specifically grants the Department the authority they believe they presently lack, rather than forcing the families to wait to resolve this question in a judicial process that could take many years. The amendment allows the Secretary to settle the claims and sets aside $40 million for that sole purpose. It leaves to the Secretary the discretion to determine an amount of compensation, but limits the Secretary to offering no more than $2 million for any single claim. Further, it requires the Secretary to move quickly and resolve the claims within 90 days after enactment of this legislation. Finally, my amendment explicitly avoids interfering with the ongoing SOFA process. This is an important point. The SOFA allows civil claims to be decided in the host country but criminal allegations to be decided in the country at fault. This structure protects local citizens in the host country from having civil claims decided on the ``home turf'' of the wrong-doer, while also protecting our troops from criminal prosecutions in another nation. Some have suggested that if we adopt this amendment, we put at risk this entire structure of the SOFA. I fail to see the logic of this assertion. I doubt any country would move to scrap the SOFA and begin trying members of our military in their courts simply because we offered a supplemental payment to own up to our responsibility for a tragic accident. In fact, I believe such an act of acknowledgment would have just the opposite effect, and reduce the tensions that the acquittal in this case have created. My belief is based in part on the fact that three of our NATO allies who lost citizens in this accident support this amendment. In fact, the ambassador from Belgium wrote to me that his country ``would welcome each initiative that might contribute to a quick settlement of the claims of the victims' families. In that spirit, we fully support your proposed amendment to S. 544, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, and hope that your proposal will gain the necessary support in the U.S. Senate.'' He goes on to state his belief that this ``legislative initiative is not incompatible with the SOFA-procedure.'' The German and Polish governments share this view. I've been sensitive to the concerns of the Department of Defense regarding the importance of the SOFA, which is why the amendment speaks in terms of supplementing the SOFA, not displacing it. The SOFA has worked well for over forty years and I have no intention of disrupting that process with this amendment. But we also need to consider the purpose of that process. In 1953, when the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was considering the SOFA, they wrote that the structure of the claims process was ``calculated to reduce to a minimum the friction that almost inevitably arises from [injuries caused by members of a foreign military] against members of the local population.'' In this case, however, I believe blind adherence to the perceived requirements of the SOFA is causing friction with our NATO allies, not reducing it. The procedures established in the SOFA are designed to do justice. In this case, under these circumstances, justice is best served by having the United States take responsibility for the harm we've caused. Last July, the Senate adopted unanimously a Sense of the Senate I offered stating that ``the United States, in order to maintain its credibility and honor amongst its allies and all nations of the world, should make prompt reparations for an accident clearly caused by United States military aircraft'' and that ``without our prompt action, these families will continue to suffer financial agonies, our credibility in the European community continues to suffer, and our own citizens remain puzzled and angered by our lack of accountability.'' Since last July, each of our predictions have sadly been realized. Our allies, especially Italy where we have strategically important basing agreements, are outraged by our lack of accountability. They feel angry and betrayed. Americans everywhere cannot understand why we don't act to accept responsibility for the deaths of these 20 people. Editorial writers from the New York Times to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Cleveland Plain Dealer to the Atlanta Constitution have called for prompt and adequate compensation to the families of those who were killed. Finally, I have met with many of the family members. Some have been pushed nearly into poverty, having lost their primary means of financial support. Last September, I met with three of the Belgian families, as well as the Polish doctor who would have been in the gondola with his wife and son if he had not strained a leg muscle and decided not to take the final run of the day. Last Thursday, I met with families of the German victims. Having met personally with the families, I can tell you they are not angry with the United States, but they don't understand. They are grieving, but they are not greedy. They want accountability, but they are not vindictive. They simply want someone to be held responsible for the deaths of their children, their husbands, their wives. That is what my amendment is about--responsibility. It is not about money. Compensation is no substitute for the companionship of a lost loved one. By resolving these cases now, however, the United States can clearly and unambiguously acknowledge its undeniable culpability in the deaths of these twenty people, something the families have so far sought without success. In speaking with the families following the first court-martial, I have been struck by a single seemingly incomprehensible fact regarding its outcome. They were not so much determined that the pilot spend his life in jail. They simply sought closure on the question of who was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones so they could begin to cope with the loss. They also wanted the chance, at sentencing if it had come to that, to talk about those who had died. I invited them to do that when I met with them. As they described their children, I thought of my own. Last week, I asked the mother of one of the victims if she had a picture. She removed the locket from around her neck, with the photos of her dead son and his wife she keeps near her heart. The Belgian families also shared pictures with me last September. I wanted to show those to you. Stefan, aged 28, shown here with his mother; and Hadewich, aged 24; and Rose-Marie, also aged 24. In an interview late last year, Rose-Marie's father said he drove by the graveyard every day, and said hello to his daughter. He explained why he did this: ``It's easy. We have lost our daughter, but she is still a little bit alive there. To say hello to her is a way for me to ease the stress a little bit. And it is also a tribute to her. I say: Rose- Marie, you gave us so much love and joy, I am trying to give it back to you as much as possible.'' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and set aside $40 million for these families. To put that into some perspective, the plane involved in this accident cost some $60 million, and fortunately for us neither the plane nor the crew were lost. In the Defense Appropriations bill last year, the Congress set aside $20 million to enable the town to rebuild its gondola, a project which has cost nearly $18 million to date. In fact, my amendment is modeled after Section 8114 of the bill we adopted last year, which set aside the $20 million from the Department of the Navy's Operation and Maintenance account to pay for ``property damages resulting from the accident.'' The President has acknowledged that our willingness to set aside these funds has helped ``speed the economic recovery process'' of the town. Here is a picture of that new gondola. Last year, the Congress passed an amendment to help rebuild the gondola our aircraft destroyed. This year, the Congress should pass an amendment to help rebuild the lives of the loved ones our aircraft destroyed. Let us show the world we care as much about loss of life as we do about loss of property. I urge adoption of my amendment. The honor of the United States is at stake. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his effort to resolve this so that we can go forward. I very much appreciate that. We have been working with the Department of Defense and many others, but I particularly appreciate his willingness to accept the amendment at this point. I have no additional debate, and I yield the floor.