Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, whatever frustrations many of us may have right now regarding our bilateral relations with China, including allegations of Chinese espionage against our national labs, the deteriorating human rights situation in that country, the ballooning trade deficit, and more, we need to be careful about micro-managing the Executive as it conducts comprehensive negotiations over the terms of China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Congress' voice ought to be heard on this subject, and it will be. The Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 precludes granting unconditional MFN (permanent normal trade relations status) without a Congressional vote. By law, we will have the opportunity to carefully review and pass judgment on whatever agreement the Administration reaches with China, whenever that may occur: during Premier Zhu Rongji's visit next month, later this year, or perhaps years from now. Ambassador Barshefsky and the other USTR officials negotiating directly with the Chinese deserve credit for appropriately consulting with Congress. Just yesterday lead negotiator Bob Cassidy reviewed in great detail with our staffs all aspects of the negotiations. Active consultations at this stage make sense, but the Senate directly intervening in the process by requiring a congressional vote on a WTO agreement with China--on the front and back ends of the protocol negotiations--is redundant, unnecessary, and tramples on Executive branch prerogatives. On those grounds, I support the tabling motion.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I support a national missile defense. I have voted--repeatedly--to fund research and development that would make such a defense not just a theoretical hope but a reality. In the past, however, I have also opposed legislation identical to S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 as it was introduced. I voted against it when it was reported from the Armed Services Committee. I did so, even though I unequivocally support providing our nation a real defense against missile attack, because I believed that as introduced the bill would not advance that objective and could possibly move us in the opposite direction. While it is imperative for the United States to deploy a defense against missile attacks by North Korea and other rogue nations, it is equally imperative that we consider affordability, operational effectiveness, and treaty implications when determining how best to proceed on such a major acquisition program. Mr. President, the Department of Defense, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, has made it very clear that we can't accelerate the national missile defense program beyond what we're doing right now even if we spend significantly more money on it. Yet the original legislation implied that money is no object, that we should forgo our basic responsibility of getting the best defense possible for the taxpayer's dollar. I am concerned--as are many of our colleagues-- about numerous, severe problems our military faces today, that can be resolved with proven technologies. Our forces are operating at OPTEMPOS unheard of even during the Cold War. Their equipment is often older than the operators, and spare parts are regularly in short supply. It is no wonder that we are facing one of the most pressing recruiting and retention challenges since the hollow force of the seventies. Passing blank check legislation is not, in my view, responsible, and not in the best interest of our military. Fortunately, changes were made to the original legislation that addressed some of my concerns. The Cochran amendment subjects national missile defense deployment to the normal authorizing and appropriating process, allowing us to retain fiscal control over the program. This reinforces the need to ensure that any system we approve be affordable and operationally effective before deployment. Mr. President, the bill in its original form was silent on arms controls. It is clear from hearing the comments of several Senators in support of this bill that they believe the ABM Treaty is of marginal consequence when compared to deploying a missile defense capability. The virtual certainty that the Russians will retain thousands of nuclear warheads if we undermine the ABM Treaty has been brushed aside as a minor annoyance. No matter that the existence of these thousands of additional weapons greatly increases the likelihood of the kind of accidental launch that a national missile defense would defend against. No matter that, by undermining the strategic arms control process, we prompt China and other nations--including so-called rogue regimes--to develop or expand their nuclear arsenals and create the very kind of threat that our limited missile defense is supposed to protect against. The Landrieu amendment, by reinforcing the need for continued arms reduction efforts with the Russians, addressed this short-coming in the original legislation. As a result of these modifications, I am now willing to support this bill. I caution, however, that this legislation really accomplishes nothing that will have a meaningful, positive impact on the pace and quality of our missile defense development efforts. While it is appealing to declare a policy, such a declaration doesn't move us closer to the goal, and may in fact cause the American people to gain a false sense of security. We should acknowledge the risk that we could be giving the American people the false impression that by passing this legislation we are somehow approving deployment of a protective shield to safeguard them from nuclear missile attack. At best we'll get a very limited defensive capability. At worst, we will have spent tens of billions on top of the $40 to $80 billion already spent on missile defense since 1983, our troops will continue to struggle with a high OPTEMPO and inadequate equipment due to inadequate funding, the Russians will not honor START II limits--even after ratification of the treaty, and we will have a system that is not operationally effective. Regardless of the outcome of the vote on this legislation, we will continue to develop a missile defense to protect our nation. The issue surrounding missile defense is not that we don't want such a system-- the problem is we don't yet know how to build one we can afford. I remind my colleagues of the Pentagon's dramatic claims of success by our Patriot missile batteries during the Gulf War. It was only after the war that we learned that there were very few if any effective intercepts of the Iraqi Scuds. The technology wasn't here then and it has a long way to go today--especially when it comes to ICBMs. And we should not let our focus on providing such a defense divert our attention away from the other crucial element in protecting America from missile attack: reducing the number of missiles aimed at our nation. A number of colleagues shared my concern about the effect of this legislation on our efforts to reduce the Russian arsenal through the START II process. Mr. President, I will support this legislation because we have addressed the largest potential down-sides and because I support the objective of providing our nation with an effective missile defense, but we still have a long way to go before we actually solve the challenges we face and we ought to be up front with the American people in describing where we are in this process.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Arizona. And he is, indeed, my friend. On most issues we are as one, particularly as it relates to our Nation's defense, and many other areas, sometimes taking on some tough issues. This is one of those areas where we disagree. We have a fundamental disagreement with respect to the scope of the legislation that we passed some 13 years ago, and whether or not Congress should still have its hands in and control of the local regional airport authority. But I thank my friend from Arizona for not offering an amendment that I was told about an hour ago he was going to offer which would in effect have told the local airport authority not only that they could not have their nominees approved, that they had to have additional slots and change the perimeter, but tell them exactly how to spend the money that they were going to get. I thank my friend from Arizona for not doing that because that, frankly, would be an additional insult to the authority that Congress granted to the local authority some 13 years ago. We are going to have a significant discussion about the wisdom of Congress meddling in the local airport authority's jurisdiction to determine its own fate and make its own decisions with respect to the number of flights, the impact that the number of flights has on noise pollution, on safety, on the convenience of customers, and a number of other factors that are involved, and whether or not we ought to allow the two airports, working together, to work out a plan that helps both of them grow and both of them to serve the greater Metropolitan Washington area. But for now, recognizing that there is a longstanding, legitimate need to release some of the airport improvement funds, I thank my friend from Arizona for at least allowing us to get what I understand-- and I haven't still read the entire amendment--is about $30 million, which is $10 million more than we had a little while ago and with less strings attached. For increasing the number--it is not the $200 million that the airports are owed, but it is $30 million that will allow them to get started on much delayed, very important projects, particularly out at Dulles International--I thank my friend from Arizona for this modified amendment. I join not only my friend from Arizona, but the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia and urge its passage as soon as it is the will of the Senate to do so. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and, again, I thank my friend from Arizona. We will have more opportunity to discuss the full merits of this legislation at a later time.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from Arizona, I thank him for his compliments. I do have enormous personal respect for him. It has not been personal. I disagree with him not on the basis of whatever motivation he has, but on the impact that it has on the regional authority that this institution authorized some 13 years ago and on which I worked during the end of my term as Governor with then former Governor Holton, then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, then-Senator Warner, then other members of the local delegation, and others. But it is a merit-based discussion, and I do look forward to having that with Senator McCain at the appropriate time. But for right now it is important to have the $30 million available to us. Again, I thank my friend from Arizona. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. unanimous consent agreement

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend from Nevada for yielding. I will be very brief. Mr. President, I happened to be serving in the Republic of Vietnam at the time that this particular act of heroism was made. I am more than a little familiar with the criteria for the particular award that was given. Almost any major award for gallantry is subject to some degree of subjectivity. This is the one that is clearly proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have been awarded meritoriously under any and all circumstances. I join all of my colleagues who are here, including those veterans who served in Vietnam with our distinguished Senator, and I thank my colleague for yielding. This is one that makes all of us proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I think this is a terribly important issue in that we understand that the bottom line is that threats undermine the peace process. It is that simple. Autonomy has to be determined through the process of negotiations. We are not talking about statehood. I applaud all of the Members who have joined in cosponsoring this resolution. I hope it will be passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this bill as well. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate our colleagues, Senators Frist and Wyden, for their efforts to provide States and localities with greater opportunities to be innovative in their use of Federal funds. This bill provides States and localities with the flexibility and freedom from Federal regulations that is often necessary for States to best serve their children and parents in providing top-notch educational services. As a former Governor, I am particularly sensitive to the argument that too many Federal strings and regulations make Federal assistance seem more like a Federal burden. This legislation, while not a panacea for all of our educational needs, returns flexibility to the States in a way that is effective and helpful, but that still requires States to be accountable for positive results as they provide public education to our Nation's children. I thank the Senators for their insight and their sensitivity to the concerns of our Nation's Governors, legislatures, and school officials, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill--on final passage--if and when we get there. And I hope we will get to that point as soon as possible if we can reach some agreement on relevant amendments. Mr. President, I also thank Senators Harkin, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and many others for the opportunity to talk about an amendment that we still hope we will be able to offer in due course which recognizes a sad reality faced every schoolday by too many children and teachers across the country. We all say--here in Washington, in every State capital, and in every county, city, and town--that education is important. Indeed, it is critically important. But those words must ring hollow to the millions of children who walk through the doors of their schools to find leaky roofs, crowded classrooms, and woefully inadequate heating and air- conditioning systems. The state of too many of our schools is deplorable. Mr. President, in spite of the relatively good economic times, many States are experiencing, many local governments are experiencing just the opposite, and they have not been able to meet the school construction and renovation challenges that are facing our Nation. This is an area where the Federal Government can and we believe should play a pivotal role without interfering with the longstanding preference for local control of education. The Federal Government can be a meaningful partner in contributing to the vital national interest that our students receive a good education in an environment that is conducive to learning. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office estimates our national school infrastructure repair needs total some $112 billion. That same GAO study also estimates that we, as a Nation, need $73 billion to build the new schools that are required to accommodate the rapid growth in our public school enrollments. In addition to all of the findings in the amendment that we still hope to have an opportunity to be able to vote on, I have similar data from my own State of Virginia which indicates not only tremendous infrastructure needs exist, but our State and local governments simply cannot afford to foot the bill by themselves. A 1998 report on school infrastructure, requested by the general assembly, found that while localities estimate that school construction investments of $4.1 billion will be made in the next 5 years, school construction needs in Virginia could exceed $8.2 billion. Virginia Governor Gilmore and the members of the general assembly approved a school construction repair plan this year which I applaud, but which only meets 3 percent of that unmet burden. While there is no question that every dollar counts, and helps, I have heard from students, parents, teachers, administrators, school board officials and legislators about the need to complement Virginia school modernization construction efforts. Earlier this year, the Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design at the University of Virginia issued a report which not only echoed the need for more school construction funds, but also detailed the alarmingly unsafe or inadequate condition of many schools in our Commonwealth. Classes are being held in over 3,000 trailers; 2 out of 3 school districts have held class in auditoriums, cafeterias, storage areas, and book closets; and 3 percent of Virginia school districts had to increase the size of their classes in order to accommodate their growing student population. While I don't let public opinion polls determine how I vote on issues I believe it is appropriate to note that there is overwhelming public support for Federal help in the area of school construction funding. In a recent poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, 83 percent of Americans surveyed supported significant Federal school construction spending and indicated that it should be a top priority of Congress. Still, some believe that our nation's infrastructure needs in other areas are just as compelling as our school construction and repair needs. In a statement made to the Finance Committee last week a Public Finance Specialist with the Congressional Research Service concluded that the ``condition of America's school facilities may or may not be worse than the condition of other capital facilities of other State and local public services.'' This statement would seem to imply, Mr. President, that the Federal Government should not attempt to prioritize infrastructure needs. Last year, however, Congress approved $216 billion in road and transit funds. We were obviously willing to concentrate on transportation needs during our last session. Why shouldn't we concentrate on school infrastructure needs this session, particularly in light of the 1998 Report Card for America's Infrastructure issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which rates our public schools as being in the worst condition among all public infrastructure. The simple fact Mr. President, is that prioritization is our responsibility. Many years ago, when faced with enormous transportation needs as well as a large growth in our nation's student population, President Eisenhower proposed a massive national infrastructure project in his 1955 State of the Union Address. This project resulted in the building of many of the nation's schools in existence today. Mr. President, Loudoun County in Northern Virginia has determined that, because of the enormous growth of their student population, they need to build 22 new schools. That figure doesn't even address their repair needs. And just down the road, at Chantilly High School, which I visited last spring with Education Secretary, Dick Riley, students are sharing lockers, attending classes in over a dozen trailers that have poor ventilation, and are so crammed in the hallways when they change classes that school officials were actually considering banning bookbags and backpacks. Mr. President, I received a compelling letter from the Superintendent of Schools in Caroll County, VA, about that county's school construction needs. Superintendent Oliver McBride outlined that the average age of the school buildings in Carroll County is 45 years. Carroll County school officials estimate that their school construction needs total $61 million. Mr. McBride wrote, We have been particularly pleased with the interest and response of the members of the Virginia General Assembly and Governor Gilmore who have and are seeking to make additional funds for school construction available to localities in the State. We certainly would encourage the U.S. Congress to become a participant in this effort as well . . . Simply stated, we need your help. Mr. President, our efforts to help States and localities build and renovate schools in no way jeopardizes their autonomy with respect to education. It merely acknowledges the need for the Federal Government to complement the efforts of many States and localities that are now wrestling with the question of how to repair and equip old schools, and how to build new schools. Mr. President, it is our children who pay the price if we fail to acknowledge that Federal school construction funding is both imminently appropriate and critically important. And if my colleagues want to debate how we allocate school construction money, whether we target any funds to specific districts, how we avoid creating too many Federal strings, or how we can make it easy for States to take advantage of this type of funding mechanism, I am more than willing to do that. But the point is we need to engage in that discussion. And we need to begin now. Our children, their parents, and our States need our help. I urge my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate amendment if we are permitted to offer it. 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. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank again my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Robb and Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 533 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor to the resolution just introduced by the Senator from Florida.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done on two previous occasions, to introduce legislation to stem the flow--actually flood-- of trash into Virginia and other States that have been affected. I am pleased to be joined, in doing so, by my senior colleague from Virginia, who will be joining us very shortly, Senator Warner. We have witnessed a virtual explosion in legislation in Congress focussed on rights. In recent months, Congress focused on the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Soldiers' Bill of Rights and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. These are just a few recent examples. The bill I am introducing today, along with my colleague, Senator Warner, could be called a Bill of Responsibilities. It recognizes the responsibilities of the various levels of government to manage the huge volumes of trash we are generating. The primary responsibility for taking care of trash lies with local governments. They are responsible for picking up the trash and they are responsible for finding a place to put it down. Local governments are also charged with the responsibility of making local land-use decisions and should be allowed to decide for themselves whether a community should be subjected to a large landfill that takes garbage from out of State. Recognizing the responsibilities vested in local governments, the legislation we are introducing today allows localities to ban unwanted out-of-State trash. States have a responsibility for ensuring that the State's environment is protected and that its highways and waterways are safe. This legislation recognizes that responsibility, allowing States to override local government approval of out-of-State imports if local decisions on trash affect the State as a whole. To help States fund this responsibility, the bill allows States to assess up to a $3 per ton fee on out-of-State trash. This fee is similar to the out-of-State tuition that States charge students to come to their States to take advantage of host State's colleges and universities. In addition, the legislation allows States to cap the amount of trash that can accumulate in landfills that have local approval. By allowing States to impose such a cap, this legislation strikes what we believe is the right balance between localities' desires to generate revenues by accepting waste and States's responsibilities to protect State resources, to provide a safe network of highways, and to ensure that State regulatory agencies are not overwhelmed by the influx of new waste. This legislation also addresses the responsibilities of States that have refused to face the obligations of siting their own refuse. States that export huge amounts of waste are imposing a burden on those States that have created new capacity. The bill we are introducing sends a very strong message to States that ship more than 6 million tons a year to other States, although no State yet meets that threshold. The bill allows importing States to ban the garbage coming from such superexporting States. If the importing State chooses not to exercise this prohibition, the bill allows the State to impose large and escalating fees on those superexporting States that have not had the political will to site their own excess capacity. While large regional landfills are becoming more common because of the expense of building modern and environmentally sound facilities, those landfills should accept waste on the basis of a region's cooperation rather than on the basis of a single State's abdication of its responsibilities. Finally, this legislation recognizes the responsibility of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court has determined the garbage is commerce, like any other commodity, States and localities have been powerless to halt the disposal of out-of-State waste within their borders. While some States have attempted to limit out-of-State trash on their own, unless Congress acts to grant States and localities the ability to ban or limit out-of-State trash, those State laws are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional. This legislation overcomes that constitutional hurdle by granting States and localities the right to restrict interstate trash disposal. If we again fail to pass legislation that protects localities from being buried under out-of-State garbage, we are abdicating our own responsibility to protect the quality of life of communities in each of our States. The bills I have introduced in past Congresses focused on protecting localities from unwanted garbage. The bill Senator Warner and I introduce today builds on that foundation. It reflects Virginia's most recent experience with importing garbage and addresses both the problems we have seen and the lessons we have learned. We now have enough history to examine the benefits and the possible burdens of host community agreements, and how they can best be used to develop state- of-the-art landfills. We also understand better the hardships that trash traffic can impose on communities that do not benefit from another community's decision to host a large landfill. Finally, it addresses a problem that has festered for too long, the inability of States to summon the political will to site their own capacity. I encourage the Senate to move quickly to consider this particular legislation.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my senior colleague, Senator Warner, in introducing legislation to put an end to the strangulation of the Capital region's airports. As Senator Warner just indicated, more than $200 million in airport improvements are on hold, and have been on hold since October 1, 1997, as part of an effort to strong-arm the region into accepting more flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I believe this tactic is outrageous. It is bad enough that the Congress is trying to micromanage local airports. As Governor of Virginia, I worked with my now colleague and senior partner, Senator Warner, and then-Secretary of Transportation Dole to pass this legislation in 1986 designed to get the Federal Government out of the airport management business altogether. The legislation that was enacted shifted control of the Washington airports away from the Federal Government and to a regional authority so they could effectively and efficiently manage their own airports, just like they do in every other State in the Union. Even at that time, though, I was not particularly sanguine about the prospect that the Federal Government would not be able to resist the temptation to meddle with our local airports for its own ends. So I was not surprised at the efforts to add flights to National, and it is no secret that, notwithstanding a strong personal friendship that I and my senior colleague have with the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, we sharply disagree on this particular issue. But to block airport improvements and hurt this region's consumers in an attempt to force a policy change is simply wrong. The Senate has the power to delay airport improvements at National and Dulles, because it must approve nominees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that manage both--both--Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Without the nominees, the airports cannot obtain grants under the Airport Improvement Program or use the passenger facility charges to fund projects. These two programs are the lifeblood of airport funding. So Senate inaction on the nominees keeps Dulles and National from making improvements that can truly make a difference to consumers. Proponents of more flights at National argue they are helping consumers. But blocking the nominees blocks major improvements that would also help consumers. These improvements include easier passenger access between the terminals and parking, better access among terminals, improved baggage handling, and the renovation of aging facilities. We should resolve the issue of the number of flights and the distance of flights at National with open debate and not through coercion. The legislation Senator Warner and I are proposing today severs the link between action on the nominees and action on airport improvements, and we urge our colleagues to support this effort. Our proposal retains the Senate's role in approving the nominees. So if Members have concerns about airport management, those concerns can be addressed. But it is simply wrong to hold airport improvements hostage. It is time to rescue Dulles and National. We shouldn't allow the critical improvements at both airports to remain captive any longer. I am very pleased to join my senior colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I can assure my senior colleague, like a stone wall.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done on two previous occasions, to introduce legislation to stem the flow--actually flood-- of trash into Virginia and other States that have been affected. I am pleased to be joined, in doing so, by my senior colleague from Virginia, who will be joining us very shortly, Senator Warner. We have witnessed a virtual explosion in legislation in Congress focussed on rights. In recent months, Congress focused on the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Soldiers' Bill of Rights and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. These are just a few recent examples. The bill I am introducing today, along with my colleague, Senator Warner, could be called a Bill of Responsibilities. It recognizes the responsibilities of the various levels of government to manage the huge volumes of trash we are generating. The primary responsibility for taking care of trash lies with local governments. They are responsible for picking up the trash and they are responsible for finding a place to put it down. Local governments are also charged with the responsibility of making local land-use decisions and should be allowed to decide for themselves whether a community should be subjected to a large landfill that takes garbage from out of State. Recognizing the responsibilities vested in local governments, the legislation we are introducing today allows localities to ban unwanted out-of-State trash. States have a responsibility for ensuring that the State's environment is protected and that its highways and waterways are safe. This legislation recognizes that responsibility, allowing States to override local government approval of out-of-State imports if local decisions on trash affect the State as a whole. To help States fund this responsibility, the bill allows States to assess up to a $3 per ton fee on out-of-State trash. This fee is similar to the out-of-State tuition that States charge students to come to their States to take advantage of host State's colleges and universities. In addition, the legislation allows States to cap the amount of trash that can accumulate in landfills that have local approval. By allowing States to impose such a cap, this legislation strikes what we believe is the right balance between localities' desires to generate revenues by accepting waste and States's responsibilities to protect State resources, to provide a safe network of highways, and to ensure that State regulatory agencies are not overwhelmed by the influx of new waste. This legislation also addresses the responsibilities of States that have refused to face the obligations of siting their own refuse. States that export huge amounts of waste are imposing a burden on those States that have created new capacity. The bill we are introducing sends a very strong message to States that ship more than 6 million tons a year to other States, although no State yet meets that threshold. The bill allows importing States to ban the garbage coming from such superexporting States. If the importing State chooses not to exercise this prohibition, the bill allows the State to impose large and escalating fees on those superexporting States that have not had the political will to site their own excess capacity. While large regional landfills are becoming more common because of the expense of building modern and environmentally sound facilities, those landfills should accept waste on the basis of a region's cooperation rather than on the basis of a single State's abdication of its responsibilities. Finally, this legislation recognizes the responsibility of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court has determined the garbage is commerce, like any other commodity, States and localities have been powerless to halt the disposal of out-of-State waste within their borders. While some States have attempted to limit out-of-State trash on their own, unless Congress acts to grant States and localities the ability to ban or limit out-of-State trash, those State laws are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional. This legislation overcomes that constitutional hurdle by granting States and localities the right to restrict interstate trash disposal. If we again fail to pass legislation that protects localities from being buried under out-of-State garbage, we are abdicating our own responsibility to protect the quality of life of communities in each of our States. The bills I have introduced in past Congresses focused on protecting localities from unwanted garbage. The bill Senator Warner and I introduce today builds on that foundation. It reflects Virginia's most recent experience with importing garbage and addresses both the problems we have seen and the lessons we have learned. We now have enough history to examine the benefits and the possible burdens of host community agreements, and how they can best be used to develop state- of-the-art landfills. We also understand better the hardships that trash traffic can impose on communities that do not benefit from another community's decision to host a large landfill. Finally, it addresses a problem that has festered for too long, the inability of States to summon the political will to site their own capacity. I encourage the Senate to move quickly to consider this particular legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my senior colleague, Senator Warner, in introducing legislation to put an end to the strangulation of the Capital region's airports. As Senator Warner just indicated, more than $200 million in airport improvements are on hold, and have been on hold since October 1, 1997, as part of an effort to strong-arm the region into accepting more flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I believe this tactic is outrageous. It is bad enough that the Congress is trying to micromanage local airports. As Governor of Virginia, I worked with my now colleague and senior partner, Senator Warner, and then-Secretary of Transportation Dole to pass this legislation in 1986 designed to get the Federal Government out of the airport management business altogether. The legislation that was enacted shifted control of the Washington airports away from the Federal Government and to a regional authority so they could effectively and efficiently manage their own airports, just like they do in every other State in the Union. Even at that time, though, I was not particularly sanguine about the prospect that the Federal Government would not be able to resist the temptation to meddle with our local airports for its own ends. So I was not surprised at the efforts to add flights to National, and it is no secret that, notwithstanding a strong personal friendship that I and my senior colleague have with the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, we sharply disagree on this particular issue. But to block airport improvements and hurt this region's consumers in an attempt to force a policy change is simply wrong. The Senate has the power to delay airport improvements at National and Dulles, because it must approve nominees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that manage both--both--Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Without the nominees, the airports cannot obtain grants under the Airport Improvement Program or use the passenger facility charges to fund projects. These two programs are the lifeblood of airport funding. So Senate inaction on the nominees keeps Dulles and National from making improvements that can truly make a difference to consumers. Proponents of more flights at National argue they are helping consumers. But blocking the nominees blocks major improvements that would also help consumers. These improvements include easier passenger access between the terminals and parking, better access among terminals, improved baggage handling, and the renovation of aging facilities. We should resolve the issue of the number of flights and the distance of flights at National with open debate and not through coercion. The legislation Senator Warner and I are proposing today severs the link between action on the nominees and action on airport improvements, and we urge our colleagues to support this effort. Our proposal retains the Senate's role in approving the nominees. So if Members have concerns about airport management, those concerns can be addressed. But it is simply wrong to hold airport improvements hostage. It is time to rescue Dulles and National. We shouldn't allow the critical improvements at both airports to remain captive any longer. I am very pleased to join my senior colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I can assure my senior colleague, like a stone wall.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. The Senator from Virginia is delighted to yield to the ranking member for a unanimous consent request. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 8 (Purpose: To increase the amount of certain bonuses and special pay and to authorize payment of certain additional special pay and bonuses)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 8 previously filed at the desk.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer the special incentive pay amendment to S. 4. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, Senator Cleland from Georgia, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico. Yesterday, Mr. President, a number of our colleagues, among them Senator Allard, described the acute challenges that are faced by the Navy as it struggles to retain sufficient numbers of critical personnel like Navy SEALS, surface warfare officers, nuclear-qualified officers, and career enlisted fliers. While S. 4, with its significant pay raises, improved retirement and enhanced GI bill benefits is an important step in the right direction, we still have big problems in these smaller categories of military service where we have been only marginally successful in our retention efforts. This amendment begins to address the downward retention trends the Navy is experiencing in these areas by aligning pay increases with problem specialties. S. 4's compensation approach begins to address the services' broad recruiting and retention concerns, but it won't assure that the undermanned, highly skilled warfare specialists that Senator Allard described so eloquently yesterday will get well any time soon. Special incentive pay and bonuses have been the shaping tools of choice to fill the breach. The experience of the military services is that historically targeted kinds of bonuses have proven highly effective and very cost efficient in attacking retention problem areas within specific communities. This year, the Navy and Air Force would like to make even greater use of this proven strategy. They have fully funded in their budgets, and have asked us to support, establishing two new bonuses and expanding authority for four others. This amendment to S. 4 provides these targeted fixes. Specifically, it addresses enlisted recruiting and retention shortfalls by increasing the maximum authorization of the enlistment bonus, or EB as it is referred to, and selective reenlistment bonus, or SRB. And it addresses the critical shortfalls in the unrestricted line communities by providing two new continuation bonuses, one for surface warfare officers, and another for special warfare officers. Finally, several existing bonuses are increased, including those for divers, nuclear-qualified officers, linguists, and other critical specialties. These pay increases will target specific job skills at experience levels to cost-effectively attract, retain, and distribute highly trained personnel at critical points in their career. The Nation simply cannot afford to continue to pay as much as we do to recruit and train these talented individuals only to see them leave the service out of frustration over the inadequacies of their pay and benefits and the promise of better compensation in the private sector. Mr. President, as I stated yesterday, the special incentive pay amendment to S. 4 is exactly the kind of targeted fix Congress can and should support. I hope our colleagues will join us in sending a signal to our men and women in uniform that we have listened to them and that we understand their needs. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask for its adoption.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, if I may, I thank the ranking member for his kind words and his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. I join in paying tribute to my fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator Hagel from Nebraska. It was for all of us who shared that experience a distinct pleasure to have a fellow warrior, comrade in arms, with us who not only understood the causes for which we fought and the trials and tribulations of those who wear the uniform of our country, but was willing to continue to stand up and be counted in those particular instances where it really matters to those we ask ultimately to place themselves in harm's way for our country's benefit. So I join in the tribute that the Senator from Colorado made and commend him, as well, for the eloquent speech he made yesterday in underscoring the need to address the critical concerns about retention, particularly in some of the critical MOSs. Amendment No. 15 (Purpose: To amend title 37, United States Code, to improve the aviation career officers special pay)

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