Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

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 ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, as a cosponsor of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, I am pleased that we are moving forward on this legislation. S. 4 provides the resources to begin to reverse the steady downward spirals we have seen in military retention and recruiting. S. 4 provides significant pay raises, improved retirement pay, and enhanced GI bill benefits. It is an important step--one of several-- that the Congress must take this year to help the military pull out of what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes as ``a nosedive that might cause irreparable damage to this great force.'' It is also a strong signal to our most important military asset--our men and women in uniform, and their families--that we are serious about taking care of them. Being a cosponsor, however, hasn't alleviated my concern that we may be moving too quickly on this legislation. This bill has substantial budgetary implications, many of which we are only beginning to quantify. Specifically, we don't know yet exactly what this bill will cost, nor whether it is structured to best fix ongoing retention and recruiting problems. Moreover, we haven't yet taken the time to assess where any additional defense dollars should be spent in the broader context. For example, if we put some of these additional funds toward new equipment, we could improve our ability to fight in future wars, and by providing our troops with higher quality, more reliable equipment, we also improve recruiting and retention. This is just one of many examples of why I believe--as the ranking member of the committee believes--that it is important to think through any defense budget increases in a strategic and not just a piecemeal manner. Now, one way to improve the bill to ensure that we are improving recruiting and retention in a more direct and cost-effective manner is to closely align any pay increases with problem specialties. Along with Senators Cleland and Kennedy, I intend to offer a ``Special and Incentive Pay Amendment'' to S. 4, which I filed on February 3. This amendment targets certain smaller categories of military service where our retention challenges are particularly daunting, categories where we recruit highly skilled personnel, provide them costly training, and then fight to induce these individuals to remain on active duty when they face uniquely difficult or dangerous missions, coupled with powerful financial incentives to leave the military for the civilian sector. Examples include career enlisted fliers, Navy SEALS, and Navy surface warfare officers. Only 25 percent of our surface warfare officers remain on active duty through their department head tour, which normally comes between the sixth and eighth year of commissioned service. During the drawdown, this wasn't a particular problem, but now with smaller numbers of ships in the fleet, we simply don't have the officers to maintain and man critical at-sea billets. In the Navy SEAL community, attrition has increased over 15 percent in the past 3 years, while demand for these highly trained individuals by our warfighting CINCs has increased sharply. In fiscal year 1998, manning in another category of highly trained and difficult individuals--Navy divers--was below 85 percent. That same year, only about 60 percent of our military career linguists met or exceeded the minimum requirements in listening or reading proficiency. A host of retention problems exist for nuclear-qualified officers and enlisted personnel as well. The amendment does several things. It establishes a special pay for surface warfare officers and Navy SEALS to encourage them to remain in the service at critical points. It provides added incentive pay for our Navy and Air Force enlisted aircrews. Several existing bonuses are increased, including those for divers, nuclear qualified officers, linguists, and other critical specialties. Finally, the enlisted bonus ceiling is increased. These are critical remedies for critical specialties. The Nation simply can't 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. Madam President, this special and incentive pay amendment to S. 4 is exactly the kind of targeted ``fix'' Congress can and should support, and I hope our colleagues will support it when we bring S. 4 up for the votes. I also intend to offer an amendment to modify existing title 37 legislation with respect to the bonuses we pay to our career aviation officers. The impact of poor officer retention has been particularly hard on our pilot communities. For example, overall Navy pilot retention decreased to 39 percent in fiscal year 1997 and further declined to 32 percent in fiscal year 1998. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. While continuation of midlevel officers represents the greatest aviation retention challenge, there has also been an increase in resignations of more senior aviators, particularly due to intense competition from private industry. To address these problems, the services have identified a requirement for greater flexibility with their principal aviation retention shaping tool known as aviation continuation pay, or ACP. The amendment that I have just described would allow the services to do just that. ACP is currently limited to 14 years, and only covers officers in the grades 0-5 and below. This amendment would pay ACP up to 25 years, and expand eligibility one grade to cover officers at the 0-6 level. The maximum aviation continuation payment allowed for each year of additional obligation would go up from $12,000 to $25,000. Finally, the provision recognizes the aggregate retention needs of the services by eliminating the requirement to annually define critical aviation specialties. These refinements to title 37, along with other innovative compensation initiatives this body will consider, should begin to reverse the steady downward trends in aviation retention by allowing each service to tailor compensation programs to meet their specific retention challenges and accommodate their unique career path requirements. I might add that both of these amendments I have referred to have the full support of the Department of Defense. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. Again, I thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado for his courtesy. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I express my appreciation to my colleagues, particularly the Senator from Colorado, for giving me a moment to get over to the floor before he begins his address. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the floor consideration of S. 4, Herb Cupo, a congressional fellow from the Department of the Navy, be granted floor privileges.

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, sitting in judgment of the President of the United States is not easy for any of us. It is particularly difficult for me because of the personal and political relationship I have had with this President over the last 20 years. We served together as Governors in the early eighties, as several of you did. We traveled together on foreign trade missions. We shared similar priorities for our States. At my urging, he joined the fledgling Democratic Leadership Council, which would later become an intellectual and organizational resource for his Presidential campaign. From our earliest meetings, I recognized in him, as many of you have recognized, gifts of head and heart and a truly extraordinary range of political and communication skills that marked him with a potential for greatness. It was not as a friend, however, but as a U.S. Senator that I took an oath to render impartial justice under the Constitution in this impeachment trial. I was fully prepared to convict and remove the President from office if I concluded that the articles charged met the test of high crimes and misdemeanors as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, and if the evidence convinced me of his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. That is the standard I would require to remove this President or any President from office. As we wrestle with the decisions before us today, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to reflect on the consequence of these decisions tomorrow; for while this trial is about this President, it is also about the future of this Republic. We simply cannot escape the fact that what we do today will affect the strength and stability of our Nation because the actions we take, the precedent we set, directly affects the separation of powers and the independence of the Presidency as an institution. The writings of the framers and the overwhelming consensus of the scholarship that has followed demonstrate that the mechanism for removing a President was central to maintaining the delicate balance of power among the three branches of Government. The Founding Fathers struggled to resolve the tension between making it too difficult to remove a President, thereby creating a king, and making it too easy, thereby creating a weak Chief Executive who would serve at the pleasure of the legislature. As more than 400 scholars concluded last November, the lower the threshold for impeachment, the weaker the President. The resolution of this dilemma--where to set the standard for removal--occupied the brilliant minds of several Virginians who took part in our constitutional debates two centuries ago. When George Mason offered specific language to define an impeachment standard, James Madison worried about making the standard too low. In worrying, he replied that so vague a term would be equivalent to a tenure at the pleasure of the Senate. After much deliberation, our founders finally agreed that the President should be removed only for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States. Thereafter, as we all know, a Committee on Style, which had no authority to make substantive changes, dropped the last four words, considering them redundant. Alexander Hamilton defined impeachable activities as those that relate chiefly to the injuries done immediately to society itself. During the debate, Edmund Randolph, a Virginia Governor, reflected concerns. He stated that the Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power, particularly in time of war when the military force and, in some respects, the public's money will be in his hands. Clearly, our founders created impeachment not to punish the President, but to protect the Republic. They had lived under a king and they didn't want another. History and common sense tell us, therefore, that the threshold for impeachment should be high--very high. It should be difficult, not easy, to impeach a President of the United States because impeachment is the ultimate sanction for protecting the Republic. It is a weapon to be respected and feared, but wielded only under the most compelling circumstances. Similarly, history and common sense tell us that removing a President is not the same as removing a Federal judge. In James Madison's records of the debate at the Federal Constitution, he wrote, ``The judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behavior.'' The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term, like the members of the legislature. Like them--particularly the Senate, whose Members would continue in appointment in the same term of 6 years--he would periodically be tried for his behavior by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust, according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Likewise, removing a President is not the same as removing a member of the Armed Forces for violating the military code of conduct. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is required to maintain the good order and discipline for waging war and securing peace. And all of us who have served in the Armed Forces understood that we swore an oath to obey a code not required of any civilian, even those with the power to send us into harm's way--a civilian Commander in Chief, our Secretary of Defense, and Members of Congress. Finally, removing a President is not the same as punishing a citizen in a court of law. Like any citizen, a President can be fully punished in court after he leaves office, and the failure to convict him in an impeachment trial in no way precludes a subsequent criminal prosecution. If a President is subject to the law, then he is clearly not above it, as some have claimed. Some also argued that since the President's oath requires him to faithfully execute the laws, any violation of those laws should thereby warrant his removal from office. While that argument may be appealing, it simply was not the standard adopted by the framers. Their standard was narrowly confined to treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. And it is against this standard that we are called upon to judge the conduct of this President. I believe the President lied. When he came before the television cameras and addressed the American people, wagging his finger and denying that he had sexual relations with a subordinate employee, he lied. This offensive public conduct, which has caused me the greatest personal anguish, is an act that will be forever seared into our Nation's memory. His deception was calculated, politically motivated, and directed at each and every one of us. Though clearly reprehensible, this lie did not violate any law and was not the subject of any article of impeachment. So, while I am convinced that the President lied to us, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied to the grand jury, which is the sole basis for the first of the two impeachment articles. Despite the apparent strength of the evidence, the House of Representatives defeated an article alleging perjury in the President's civil deposition. They voted to impeach the President for perjury based solely on his testimony before the grand jury. Article I alleges that the President willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury. I listened intently to the arguments presented by both sides, and I have read the President's grand jury testimony carefully. In my judgment, the President's grand jury testimony ultimately boiled down to a few irreconcilable discrepancies, and while often slippery, hair- splitting, legalistic, and, in the words of the President's counsel, ``maddening,'' was not perjurious beyond a reasonable doubt. On article I, therefore, I will vote not guilty. Article II alleges obstruction of justice, a crime difficult to prove because it requires a determination beyond a reasonable doubt about what a person intended by his words or deeds. In this case, it is extremely difficult to determine whether the President's intentions were to obstruct justice in a civil or a criminal proceeding, or whether his intention was to mislead his family and the Nation about an embarrassing personal relationship. While his intent is difficult to prove, the unconstitutional bundling of charges contained in article II is clear to me. Article I, section 3, of the Constitution clearly requires that in an impeachment trial no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. The rule of law requires concurrence by two-thirds. While article I, in my judgment, violates this constitutional requirement, at least it focuses on a single event. Article II is flagrantly worse. Drafted in the disjunctive and containing 7 subparts each alleging a separate act of obstruction of justice, the bundling of these allegations would allow removal of the President if only 10 Senators agreed on each of the 7 separate subparts. If, for example, 10 Senators voted to convict based solely on subpart 1 and a different group of 10 Senators voted to convict based on subpart 2, and so on, it would be possible to reach a total of 70 votes for conviction. But that total would not have been reached with a two-thirds concurrence on any individual subpart. Such a pleading is not allowed under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and would be thrown out by every Federal court in the land. Surely the founders did not envision removing a President from office if no more than 10 Senators could agree on a given allegation. Trying to justify this unconstitutional bundling by citing a similar approach in the Richard Nixon case is weak because the Nixon charges were not presented to the Senate. Trying to justify this unconstitutional bundling by citing the Senate impeachment rules is no more compelling since our rules cannot conflict with the Constitution. We simply cannot remove a President from office with an article of impeachment that so clearly violates constitutional standards that we are required by law to follow. On article II, therefore, I will vote not guilty. Thus, I will vote not to convict on both articles because the factual, legal, and constitutional standard for removal was not met. I am not prepared to say, however, that perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses, because I believe it would be a mistake to attempt to do that which the founders chose not to do--to define what is impeachable with specificity. For impeachment to remain what our forefathers intended it to be--a deterrent to misconduct and a means to protect the Republic--future generations should be free in each case to examine the facts, apply the law, and follow the Constitution and to render impartial justice. That is the impeachment process we have inherited from those who came before us, and that is the precedent we bequeath to the ongoing chronicles of American history. The legacy of this trial, I believe, is not what becomes of one man. This trial is larger than one man. The legacy of this trial is that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, proved worthy of the faith of our founders to render justice. No matter what judgment is rendered, however, this trial cannot exonerate the President. A vote against conviction is not a vote to condone his lying to the American people, nor does it suggest that any Member of the U.S. Senate believes that perjury or obstruction of justice charges are anything but serious. They are very serious charges. Sadly, the vote we are poised to take on these charges has divided our Nation. In the eyes of too many of our citizens, this vote will represent either a nonmilitary coup attempt against a duly elected President or a victory for those bent on accelerating the moral decline of the Nation. In truth, this vote represents neither. A vote for acquittal indicates nothing more and nothing less than what it says. The case to remove the President from office was not proven. We sit in judgment today not because we are free from human failings--I certainly have my share--but because our forefathers bestowed upon the Senate the responsibility of protecting the Republic by judging the President when articles of impeachment are exhibited by the House of Representatives. In doing so, they carefully and deliberately limited the scope of our judgment. We are judging the President in his capacity as President, and we are called upon to decide only one issue--whether he should be removed from office. The Senate does not have the duty nor the capacity to rule on the broader character of the President. In our limited role, we are not called upon to judge him as husband and father, for that is the province of his family. We are not called upon to judge him as accused citizen, for that is the province of the courts. We are not called upon to judge him as sinner, for that is the province of God. And we are not called upon to judge his legacy, for that is the province of history.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be joined today by several colleagues in introducing legislation that will help with one of the nation's most pressing challenges for the twenty first century-- recruiting teachers for our public schools. The deterioration of our schools is evident. The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) ranked U.S. high school seniors last among 16 countries in physics and next to last in math. We are failing to provide the quality of education that will not only ensure each individual student the skills needed for personal success and fulfillment, but also that the nation can maintain its economic--and intellectual--leadership into the next century. Clearly there are many measures that must be taken to address this national dilemma. Our school infrastructure is literally crumbling. I was joined recently by Senator Lautenberg in introducing the Public School Modernization Act of 1999, which will support building new schools and repair and modernization of old schools to accommodate a growing school population and reduce class size. Many schools have been left out of the information revolution. I have worked hard to help Virginia schools get ``wired'' to the Internet-- indeed I've helped physically wire several schools across the Commonwealth. But ultimately, nothing matters more for the education of our youth than quality teachers. The Department of Education estimates that the nation's local school districts must hire more than two million teachers over the next decade to meet growing enrollment demands. This legislation builds on an existing program--the Troops-to- Teachers program established originally in 1993--to help bring experienced, well-disciplined role models with proven leadership skills into the public school system. Since its authorization, the Troops-to- Teachers program has assisted thousands of military personnel who leave the military to become public school teachers. Troops-to-Teachers offers counseling and assistance to help participants identify employment opportunities and receive teacher certification. It has been a great success, filling school vacancies in 48 states. These professionals are providing what educators say they need the most: mature role models, most of them male and many minorities, often trained in math and science, highly motivated, and comfortable in tough working environments. In fact, over three quarters are men, compared with about 25 percent in the overall public school system. About half elect to teach in inner city or rural schools. A disproportionate share have science, engineering or technical backgrounds. Retention is much higher than the national average. The authority for Troops-to-Teachers expires at the end of this fiscal year. The legislation we are introducing here today reauthorizes the program and makes many refinements to encourage even more of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to enter the noble profession of teaching America's youth. The legislation focuses more resources toward direct financial assistance to cover teacher certification costs for applicants, and creates a bonus for those opting to teach in certain high need schools. Fewer resources are made available for administrative and other overhead costs. The bonus, I believe, will be particularly effective in attracting larger numbers of applicants. A recent offering of a sign-up bonus of $20,000 in Massachusetts public schools led to an explosion in applications from around the country. Mr. President, I urge other Senators to support this important legislation and I look forward to it being brought forward for final passage this year.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be joined today by several colleagues in introducing legislation that will help with one of the nation's most pressing challenges for the twenty first century-- recruiting teachers for our public schools. The deterioration of our schools is evident. The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) ranked U.S. high school seniors last among 16 countries in physics and next to last in math. We are failing to provide the quality of education that will not only ensure each individual student the skills needed for personal success and fulfillment, but also that the nation can maintain its economic--and intellectual--leadership into the next century. Clearly there are many measures that must be taken to address this national dilemma. Our school infrastructure is literally crumbling. I was joined recently by Senator Lautenberg in introducing the Public School Modernization Act of 1999, which will support building new schools and repair and modernization of old schools to accommodate a growing school population and reduce class size. Many schools have been left out of the information revolution. I have worked hard to help Virginia schools get ``wired'' to the Internet-- indeed I've helped physically wire several schools across the Commonwealth. But ultimately, nothing matters more for the education of our youth than quality teachers. The Department of Education estimates that the nation's local school districts must hire more than two million teachers over the next decade to meet growing enrollment demands. This legislation builds on an existing program--the Troops-to- Teachers program established originally in 1993--to help bring experienced, well-disciplined role models with proven leadership skills into the public school system. Since its authorization, the Troops-to- Teachers program has assisted thousands of military personnel who leave the military to become public school teachers. Troops-to-Teachers offers counseling and assistance to help participants identify employment opportunities and receive teacher certification. It has been a great success, filling school vacancies in 48 states. These professionals are providing what educators say they need the most: mature role models, most of them male and many minorities, often trained in math and science, highly motivated, and comfortable in tough working environments. In fact, over three quarters are men, compared with about 25 percent in the overall public school system. About half elect to teach in inner city or rural schools. A disproportionate share have science, engineering or technical backgrounds. Retention is much higher than the national average. The authority for Troops-to-Teachers expires at the end of this fiscal year. The legislation we are introducing here today reauthorizes the program and makes many refinements to encourage even more of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to enter the noble profession of teaching America's youth. The legislation focuses more resources toward direct financial assistance to cover teacher certification costs for applicants, and creates a bonus for those opting to teach in certain high need schools. Fewer resources are made available for administrative and other overhead costs. The bonus, I believe, will be particularly effective in attracting larger numbers of applicants. A recent offering of a sign-up bonus of $20,000 in Massachusetts public schools led to an explosion in applications from around the country. Mr. President, I urge other Senators to support this important legislation and I look forward to it being brought forward for final passage this year.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the men and women of the Armed Forces are being asked to do more and more with less and less, to the point where it is becoming difficult to recruit and retain the best and brightest. Looking at just two salient examples, last year the Navy's recruiting efforts fell short by over 7,000 sailors, and last year Air Force first-term aircrew reenlistment was only 61 percent. To help meet these and other personnel challenges, the Armed Services Committee recently approved S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmens' and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. S. 4 authorizes significant pay raises, improves retirement pay, and enhances GI Bill benefits. This legislation will be brought up soon for consideration by the full Senate. It is an important step--one of several--that the Congress must take this year to help the military pull out of what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs described as a ``nosedive that might cause irreparable damage to this great force.'' But I believe S. 4 missed some excellent opportunities to directly improve recruiting and retention--opportunities recognized by the Administration in their FY 2000 defense budget submission. In particular, certain categories of military service present our most difficult retention challenges because they involve recruiting highly skilled personnel, providing costly training, and retaining these individuals in the face of uniquely difficult and dangerous missions coupled with powerful financial incentives to leave the military for the civilian sector. Examples include aircrews, Navy SEALs, and Navy Surface Warfare Officers. Only 25 percent of Surface Warfare Officers remain on active duty to their Department Head tour. In the Navy SEAL community, attrition has increased over 15 percent in the past three years. FY 1998 Navy diver manning was below 85 percent. That same year, only about 60 percent of military career linguists met or exceeded the minimum requirements in listening or reading proficiency. A host of retention problems exist for Nuclear-Qualified Officers. This amendment which I am filing today along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Cleland does several things. It provides bonuses for Surface Warfare Officers and Navy SEALs to encourage them to remain in the service. It provides added pay for enlisted aircrews. Several existing bonuses are increased, including those for divers, Nuclear Qualified Officers, linguists and other critical specialties. Finally, the Enlistment Bonus Ceiling is increased. These are critical remedies for critical specialties. The nation simply can't afford to pay so much 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. Mr. President, I look forward to offering this amendment to S. 4 when it is taken up by the Senate. I also want to thank Senators Cleland and Kennedy for their help in developing this provision and for their unequivocal commitment to the uniformed personnel who serve our nation so ably.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Robb pertaining to the introduction of S. 329 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combat Veterans Medical Equity Act of 1999, legislation which will serve to codify America's obligation to provide for the medical needs of our combat-wounded veterans. Although we have long recognized the combat-wounded vet to be among our most deserving veterans, and although we have long distinguished the sacrifices of these veterans by awarding the Purple Heart medal, remarkably, there is nothing in current law that stipulates an entitlement to health care based upon this physical sacrifice. In fact, I believe most Americans would be surprised to learn that a combat- wounded Purple Heart recipient could be denied services for which a non-combat veteran, with a non-service-connected disability, would be eligible. This legislation would seek to remedy that situation. Specifically, this bill establishes for VA hospital care and medical services based upon the award of the Purple Heart Medal. It also gives Purple Heart recipients an enrollment priority on par with former Prisoners of War and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated between 10 and 20%. Mr. President, as a Vietnam Veteran who has been privileged to lead marines in combat, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a keen appreciation for the sacrifices made by all of our men and women in uniform. At the same time, in the face of tighter budgets and greater competition for services, I believe strongly that Congress should ensure equity in disbursing of medical services for our most deserving veterans--the combat wounded. These veterans, who have shed their blood to keep our country safe and free, deserve no less. Mr. President, I salute them, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last year I joined Senators McCain and Levin in introducing legislation authorizing another base closure round. I argued then, as I do today, that failing to enact another BRAC round only makes the Congress look short-sighted and indecisive. I argued then that if we don't bite the bullet quickly, the cost of excess infrastructure will continue to drag down the readiness of our forces today and rob us of the resources so badly needed to modernize our forces for tomorrow. For the first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering significantly. Ships are undermanned, pilots are flying too many missions, reservists are being asked to leave family and job over and over. It doesn't take a budget expert to realize what we could do for the troops with billions in savings from cutting excess infrastructure. This year we in the Congress will almost certainly add billions of dollars to the defense budget. This is a mixed blessing. While these adds will help resolve problems across the board, from recruiting to modernization to preparing for the future, they will also undermine any incentives to better manage the Department of Defense and to eliminate the wasteful assets and administrative inefficiencies that we the Congress are so determined to preserve. BRAC failed in the past for reasons that have much to do with politics, but little to do with ensuring our every defense dollar is spent for maintaining and equipping our armed forces for the battlefields of the next century. Those politics are behind us now. We must move forward and authorize more BRAC rounds. Keeping excess military posts open won't bring more firepower to bear in the next war. Keeping an unneeded R&D lab open won't recruit more talented young men and women to serve as the foundation for the world's finest fighting force. Keeping an underutilized training range open won't buy modern equipment so badly needed to replace systems now often older than the men and women using them. Mr. President, I reemphasize a point I've made time and time again in the past--who suffers from Congressional inaction? In the end, we only punish those who most need the benefits of infrastructure savings. First, we punish the Nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. Second, we punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness depends on sufficient, reliable resources for equipment, training and operations through the year. Finally, we punish tomorrow's force as we continue to mortgage research, development, and modernization of equipment necessary to keep America strong into the 21st century. The bill we're introducing calls for a base closure round in 2001 and another in 2003. Like the provision we offered last year and the year before that, the bill should answer concerns over the politicization of future BRAC rounds. Language is included to allow privatization-in- place at a facility only if the BRAC Commission explicitly recommends privatization-in-place. The long-term savings from the first four base closure rounds already are generating substantial savings--about three billion dollars a year. Each new round will save another 1.5 billion dollars per year. It is no surprise that scores of studies and organizations such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Restructure Initiative, National Defense Panel, and Business Executives for National Security have all concluded that more base closures are crucial to the future of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for our armed forces, what is right for the taxpayer, and support this legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last year I joined Senators McCain and Levin in introducing legislation authorizing another base closure round. I argued then, as I do today, that failing to enact another BRAC round only makes the Congress look short-sighted and indecisive. I argued then that if we don't bite the bullet quickly, the cost of excess infrastructure will continue to drag down the readiness of our forces today and rob us of the resources so badly needed to modernize our forces for tomorrow. For the first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering significantly. Ships are undermanned, pilots are flying too many missions, reservists are being asked to leave family and job over and over. It doesn't take a budget expert to realize what we could do for the troops with billions in savings from cutting excess infrastructure. This year we in the Congress will almost certainly add billions of dollars to the defense budget. This is a mixed blessing. While these adds will help resolve problems across the board, from recruiting to modernization to preparing for the future, they will also undermine any incentives to better manage the Department of Defense and to eliminate the wasteful assets and administrative inefficiencies that we the Congress are so determined to preserve. BRAC failed in the past for reasons that have much to do with politics, but little to do with ensuring our every defense dollar is spent for maintaining and equipping our armed forces for the battlefields of the next century. Those politics are behind us now. We must move forward and authorize more BRAC rounds. Keeping excess military posts open won't bring more firepower to bear in the next war. Keeping an unneeded R&D lab open won't recruit more talented young men and women to serve as the foundation for the world's finest fighting force. Keeping an underutilized training range open won't buy modern equipment so badly needed to replace systems now often older than the men and women using them. Mr. President, I reemphasize a point I've made time and time again in the past--who suffers from Congressional inaction? In the end, we only punish those who most need the benefits of infrastructure savings. First, we punish the Nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. Second, we punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness depends on sufficient, reliable resources for equipment, training and operations through the year. Finally, we punish tomorrow's force as we continue to mortgage research, development, and modernization of equipment necessary to keep America strong into the 21st century. The bill we're introducing calls for a base closure round in 2001 and another in 2003. Like the provision we offered last year and the year before that, the bill should answer concerns over the politicization of future BRAC rounds. Language is included to allow privatization-in- place at a facility only if the BRAC Commission explicitly recommends privatization-in-place. The long-term savings from the first four base closure rounds already are generating substantial savings--about three billion dollars a year. Each new round will save another 1.5 billion dollars per year. It is no surprise that scores of studies and organizations such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Restructure Initiative, National Defense Panel, and Business Executives for National Security have all concluded that more base closures are crucial to the future of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for our armed forces, what is right for the taxpayer, and support this legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Lautenberg to introduce the Public School Modernization Act of 1999. I was gratified that so many Members of this body recognized last year that the need for school construction and modernization is vital. The legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing is designed to help States build new schools and repair and modernize outdated ones, so that our children will have a better, more modern and safe environment in which to learn. A few weeks ago, the Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design at the University of Virginia issued a devastating report detailing the alarming condition of many of Virginia's schools. Over 3,000 trailers are being used to hold classes. Two out of 3 school districts have held classes in auditoriums, cafeterias, storage areas, and book closets, and 53 percent of Virginia school districts had to increase the size of their classes in order to accommodate their divisions' growing student populations. We know that smaller class sizes do, in fact, have a dramatic impact on student learning, especially in the first 3 years. So in order to give our children the learning environment they deserve, we have to fix the leaky roofs, build the additional classrooms, and build more schools to accommodate our growing student population, and to reduce class size. This is a constructive role for the Federal Government to play. In fact, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who proposed a massive $1.1 billion school construction initiative in 1955. Our States need our help, Mr. President. This legislation does not usurp local control of education or hinder States and localities from developing their own solutions to the problem of improving the academic performance of our children. Rather, this bill is intended to complement the efforts of the many State legislatures that are now wrestling with the questions of how to repair and equip old schools and how to build new schools. Mr. President, no child should be forced to go to a school without heat, or have to wade regularly through standing water to get to class, or be expected to learn in a trailer with poor ventilation. Our children and their parents need our help. I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his work on this issue, and I look forward to working with him on this effort to bring it to a successful conclusion. I also thank Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, Torricelli, Edwards, and Bingaman for joining us today. I urge all of our colleagues in the State to recognize the urgent school construction needs of all of our States and to work with us in passing this particular legislation.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. I'm pleased to be joined by my long- time colleague and tireless fighter for budget sanity, Senator Hollings of South Carolina. As former governors, we both understand the importance of line-item veto authority in prioritizing spending. The legislation we introduce today is similar to that passed by the Senate in 1995, which is patterned on the separate enrollment process that we both supported with former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. I have been a long-time supporter of various line-item veto measures because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to reconcile spending priorities in the best interest of the nation. Recognizing that Congress has been unable or unwilling to seriously address our problems with special interest tax provisions and spending for members' pet projects, as last year's appropriations process attests, some form of additional veto authority should be given to the President. Otherwise, the President continues to have to approve items in bills which he doesn't support to approve those that he does. As my colleagues know, the Separate Enrollment Line Item Veto legislation we passed in 1995 in the Senate was ultimately changed in conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. The end product of those negotiations was an enhanced rescission line item veto process, giving the President the ability to strike items from bills after signing them into law. Because that approach was struck down by the Supreme Court, I believe the line item veto is an important enough fiscal tool that we ought to put forward other alternatives. The separate enrollment process contained in this bill presents few constitutional concerns. This process doesn't give the President the ability to strike items from bills he otherwise approves. This approach breaks down bills into their individual parts that are then passed again as separate bills, making sure each provision can then stand on its own merits. In closing, let me acknowledge that this line item veto legislation, like the previous experiment, won't solve all the nation's fiscal problems, but that it is a needed step if we are interested in pursuing good public and budget policy.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my support to the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. For the first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering significantly. We are now paying the price for asking our people to do much more with less and less. As the Service Chiefs have testified, the feedback from our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is clear and unambiguous. Low pay, the 40 percent retirement system, military health and education benefits that could stand a shot in the arm--we now have plenty of evidence these things are keeping us from retaining our best and brightest. Equally troubling, our recruiting picture across the services is dismal. These downward trends cannot continue. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns that ``there is no more shock absorbency left in the system,'' and further that if the trends continue, we will ``find ourselves in a nosedive that might cause irreparable damage to this great force.'' The Army and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps all agree that we are only five years away from a hollow force. Put simply, we are placing at risk the future readiness of the finest fighting force in the world. Mr. President, this bill provides the resources to begin to reverse the steady downward spirals we've seen in military recruiting and retention. It is also a strong signal to our most important asset--our men and women in uniform and their families--that we are serious about taking care of them. In my view, it is nothing more than adequately compensating our people for the job they are already performing. And it is exactly the kind of ``fix'' we in the Congress can, and should, support. I would like to make one additional point. While we have many pressing longer-term concerns, such as modernizing and recapitalizing our forces for the next century and doing something about the billions of dollars of excess infrastructure the services continue to carry, we simply can't afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes to taking care of our people. To do otherwise places at risk our future readiness and everything we've worked for, like the ability to mount an operation like ``Desert Fox'' and execute it brilliantly. We can't let that happen.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the majority leader's concern, and I thank my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on the omnibus appropriations bill that we approved this morning. It was roughly a $500 billion omnibus appropriations bill. And I would like to begin by saying that I am thankful that we did not shut down the Federal Government to resolve our spending differences this year. That was clearly a failed approach that disillusioned our Nation and unjustly punished the dedicated Federal employees who serve the American people. But I also have to say I have enormous concern with how we got here, and with some of the consequences of the road we traveled. Like every one of our colleagues, I am pleased with many aspects of this bill, but disappointed with other aspects. I am pleased that we finally achieved justice for farmers who face racial discrimination at the USDA, that we have acted decisively to strengthen our Nation's defenses, that we have invested substantially in improving the education of our children, that we have refrained--for now at least-- from interfering in the local operation of our region's airports, and that we were able to eliminate some of the most egregious anti- environmental riders. I'm disappointed that we abandoned fiscal discipline and avoided, once again, making the tough choices to pay for our priorities. Instead, we spent $21 plus billion of the so-called ``surplus,'' which we should be saving to protect Social Security, and we failed to enact another round of base closures to help fund needed military readiness improvements. I'm also disappointed that we couldn't make the cuts necessary to find the funds needed to help localities that are struggling to modernize their schools. Mostly I'm disappointed by the process that led us to an up or down vote, with virtually no debate, on eight separate annual spending bills consolidated into a giant roughly $500 billion package that funds nearly one third of our government. Mr. President, we have a obligation to debate our priorities in the open and make the tough decisions, just like American families are required to do every day. I believe this process amounts to a dereliction of our duty as representatives of the people. While I appreciate the hard work of the appropriations committees, this all-encompassing appropriations bill has ultimately been the work product of too few people with no realistic opportunity for amendment. Members were left to hope that their interests, and the interests of those they represent, were being advanced. This is heavy burden to ask the appropriations committee and the leadership to bear, and we shouldn't be placing them in that position. We should be able to debate, and vote, about whether funds should be spent on improving our system of education, and about how they should be spent. We should be able to debate, and vote, about how to remedy racial discrimination in the federal government. And we should able to debate, and vote, about the best way to protect the environment. But instead of the open debate we need, instead of the careful consideration by each and every member of the public policy consequences that affect our states and nation, we have what amounts to a take-it-or-leave-it appropriations bill that will, again, fund nearly one-third of the federal government. There's no question, Mr. President, that there are times when a take- it-or-leave it approach is necessary. I support, for example, the base closure process because it is the only mechanism we have devised which forces members of Congress to vote for the politically unpopular closure of unnecessary military facilities. And in order to maintain our role as the world's sole remaining superpower, the need to undertake another round of base closures to increase funding in critical areas will become an imperative. I also support take-it-or- leave-it fast track trade authority to promote free trade because it's the only way other governments will negotiate with us that can achieve meaningful results. But when it comes to deciding our priorities in federal spending, we need a more open and rational process. Each year that we proceed in this fashion, I become more convinced that we should follow the lead of many states, like my own, Virginia, and undertake biennial budgeting. We should alternate a year of appropriations with a year of oversight. Just today, I signed onto an effort by Senator Domenici to institute biennial budgeting. Due to our failure to pass a budget resolution this year, we have been guided in large part by the balanced budget agreement we reached two years ago. I supported that agreement, because when I came to the Senate in 1988, one of my highest priorities was fighting for fiscal responsibility. But the problems we've encountered this year in passing our appropriations bills stem directly from the unrealistic goals we established in the balanced budget agreement. We all but ignored the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the room--entitlement spending--and instead focused on reducing our investments through future cuts in discretionary spending. I certainly support weeding out unnecessary discretionary spending, which is why I support the line-item veto, but effectively lowering discretionary caps in real terms, without regard to where those cuts might fall, is not the wisest approach. The discretionary caps we established in 1997 did not require that tough decisions be made. It merely left to a future Congress the difficult choices in dividing a shrinking pie. We are now that ``future Congress'' and we're having a difficult time reaping what we have sewn. So we cut ``phantom'' future investments to preserve current consumption spending. But to reduce federal spending, and to someday reduce the national debt, we really need to reform entitlement programs. And the longer we wait, the more difficult the task will become. So while I'm pleased that we reached our destination, I'm extremely disappointed with the road we took to get here. And I hope that during the next Congress, we will work to improve the appropriations process, to get our fiscal work done on time and in the open, and to begin the enormous task of reforming entitlement programs and saving Social Security by making the tough choices. Mr. President, I reluctantly supported the appropriations bill today because, while the process that produced the bill is a terrible one, the failure to enact the bill would have been far worse. Without this bill there would have been another government shutdown, and the funds wouldn't be there to bolster our military, improve the education of our children, and render long-denied justice for those who've suffered discrimination. Despite all the benefits this bill will provide, however, I strongly object to violating our fiscal discipline and spending $21 billion of the surplus, which will ultimately make the job of saving Social Security more difficult. Next year, we've got to do better. With that, Mr. President, I wish our departing colleagues well during our adjournment and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I appreciate the consideration of my colleague, the Senator from Ohio. I had planned to yield to the majority leader. He had said that he was going to return to finish his wrapup. And, indeed, if he is ready to do so now, I will yield; otherwise, I will take advantage of this opportunity to make a few comments about the vote that we concluded this morning.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the Senate's attention to a matter of concern to the government of the District of Columbia and to commuters in the capital area. Each workday, about one thousand people a day use an informal carpool system to get in and out of the nation's capital. These commuters gather in ``slug lines'' at unofficial pick up points to catch rides with others driving into the District. At the end of the day, these ``slugs'' catch rides home. Nearly everyone benefits from this system. The drivers get to work more quickly because they get to use the carpool lane. The ``slugs'' get a free ride. Other drivers benefit from reduce traffic. And all of us benefit from less pollution due to increased carpooling. Not everyone is happy with the slugs however. The District of Columbia police have raised concerns that drivers picking up slugs will slow traffic or create a safety hazard. As reported in recent articles in the Washington Post, city police officers have ticketed these drivers and considered forcing the commuters to find a new pick up point. Fortunately, District Police Chief Ramsey has decided against his approach. Instead, he will study the traffic situation along 14th Street to see how we can improve the flow of traffic. I welcome this approach. We may be able to address the District's concerns about safety and traffic congestion while preserving the slug lines. I've asked the managers of the legislation to consider this problem during conference, and if possible, to include language directing the Department of the Interior and the District of Columbia Department of Public Works to study the feasibility of providing commuter pick-up lanes to serve commuters in the busy 14th Street Corridor south of Constitution Avenue. The Interior Department and the District would report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on their joint recommendations to address this matter. Even if conference report language could not be included, I believe the idea of the study, with recommendations would be helpful. I would like to emphasize that many of these commuters are Federal employees, and so I think it's appropriate to get the federal government involved. I am certainly willing to work with the District Government to seek federal funds or easements to create commuter pick up lanes, and I hope the District will look closely at this option. I think it could be a triple play--a win with respect to the District's safety concerns, a win for drivers on our congested highways, and of course, a win for the slugs. Mr. President, I would appreciate hearing the comments of the joint managers on this issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will help clean up and restore our nation's waters. This bill, the National Clean Water Trust Fund Act of 1998, creates a trust fund from fines, penalties and other monies collected through enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The money deposited into the National Clean Water Trust Fund would be used to address the pollution problems that initiated those enforcement actions. Last year, a highly publicized case in Virginia illustrated the need for this legislation. On August 8, 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Smith issued a $12.6 million judgement, the largest fine ever levied for violations of the Clean Water Act, against Smithfield Foods, Isle of Wright County, Virginia, for polluting the James River. The Judge wrote in her opinion that the civil penalty imposed on Smithfield should be directed toward the restoration of the Pagan and James Rivers, tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, due to current federal budget laws, the court had no discretion over the damages, and the fine was deposited into the Treasury's general fund, defeating the very spirit of the Clean Water Act. Today, there is no guarantee that fines or other money levied against parties who violate provisions in the Clean Water Act will be used to correct water problems. Instead, some, if not all, of the money is directed into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury with no provision that it be used to improve the quality of our water. While the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement activities are extracting large sums of money from industry and others through enforcement of the Clean Water Act, we ignore the fundamental issue of how to pay for clean up and restoration of pollution problems for which the penalties were levied. To ensure the successful implementation of the Clean Water Act, we should put these enforcement funds to work and actually clean up our nation's waters. This legislation will establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund within the U.S. Treasury to earmark fines, penalties, and other funds, including consent decrees, obtained through enforcement of the Clean Water Act that would otherwise be placed into the Treasury's general fund. Within the provisions of the bill, the EPA Administrator would be authorized, with direct consultation from the states, to prioritize and carry out projects to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds collected from violations of the Clean Water Act. This legislation, however, would not preempt citizen suits or in any way preclude EPA's authority to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part of settlements related to violations of the Clean Water Act and/or other legislation. The bill also provides court discretion over civil penalties from Clean Water Act violations to be used to carry out mitigation and restoration projects. With this legislation, we can avoid another predicament like the one faced in Virginia. Mr. President, it only makes sense that fines occurring from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to clean up and restore the waters that were damaged. This bill provides a real opportunity to improve the quality of our nation's waters. I recognize that no action can be taken on this legislation this session. I introduce it today in order to give my colleagues, the Administration and others an opportunity to examine the ideas contained in the legislation. I will introduce this legislation early in the next Congress and hope we can include it in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act when it is taken up next year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.