Charles Robb

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.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution today expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding a heinous crime affecting a family in Virginia and a growing problem in this country. According to Department of Justice statistics, 114,600 children are the subject of an abduction attempt by a stranger each year, and 12 children are actually abducted by a stranger every day. The statistics on child abductions by non-custodial parents is even more alarming, with 983 abductions each and every day. I believe that we, as members of Congress, as parents, and as concerned citizens of this country, should use all available resources in an exhaustive effort to locate missing and abducted children. Today, through this Sense of the Senate resolution, I seek to bring to your attention the plight of Ms. Maureen Dabbagh of Virginia Beach. Ms. Dabbagh has not seen her daughter, Nadia, in five years. At the age of three, Mr. Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh illegally abducted Nadia and fled the United States. He is wanted on state and federal warrants in connection with this abduction and he has been the subject of an international ``wanted'' notice since 1996. Since the abduction, Ms. Dabbagh has not seen or heard from her child. She has been aided in her ordeal by many caring people, groups and government agencies, however, to this day, Nadia still has not been returned to her mother. Mr. President, I greatly sympathize with the plight of Maureen Dabbagh and other parents facing similar situations. I wish to redouble all efforts to bring Nadia home.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask for 1 additional minute at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Iowa before the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise and dismay about what occurred in the conference committee on the agriculture appropriations bill. During debate on this bill in July, Mr. President, the Senate accepted an amendment I offered to waive the statute of limitations for discrimination complaints filed by many small and minority farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This amendment addresses an urgent and shameful problem, Mr. President, and we worked with farmers, the White House, the USDA, the Department of Justice, and the Congressional Black Caucus to develop language that would protect the legal rights of farmers' and be implementable by USDA. Mr. President, similar language was included in the House bill, but it was drafted more quickly and with less consensus. It was more narrowly defined and had less aggressive time limits for USDA to resolve discrimination complaints. And it cost $5 million less. And even though Representative Maxine Waters, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus lobbied the conferees in support of the Senate version of this amendment, Mr. President, the Senate lost on almost all counts. To give my colleagues some background, the investigative unit at USDA's Office of Civil Rights was abolished in 1983. Farmers whose complaints were pending at the time were led to believe their complaints were still being investigated, when they were not. Farmers who filed complaints after the abolition of the unit were also led to believe that their complaints would be processed and investigated, despite the fact that the USDA had no resources with which to conduct such investigations. The bottom line is that none of these complaints were ever considered--but none of the farmers were told that was the case. When Secretary Glickman learned of this problem, Mr. President, he directed that the complaints be resolved quickly. In fact, I offered an amendment to last year's appropriations bill to fund the investigative unit. But when USDA was finally prepared to enter into settlement agreements on some of these cases, Mr. President, the Department of Justice stepped in to claim that the statute of limitations for the complaints--despite USDA's deception in the matter--had expired. The amendment I offered to this year's appropriations bill eliminates this legal obstacle and allows farmers to pursue their claims of discrimination. It allows them to have their day in court, so to speak. As we approached conference, however, I learned through staff that objections to accepting the Senate version of this amendment were raised based on cost. Our version was scored at $15 million, while the House version was scored at $10 million. Mr. President, there's no question the two amendments were slightly different. But the $15 million in the Senate amendment was to compensate Americans for discrimination perpetuated by their own government. It was a figure determined by CBO, conferring with USDA, about which of the pending complaints would have likely resulted in legitimate and provable cases of government discrimination. It is money that our government owes to farmers who have been treated in such an unjust and morally reprehensible manner. Mr. President, during conference deliberations, I learned that the House conferees objected to the scope of the Senate amendment. As I've alluded to before, the House version addressed only discrimination complaints against the Farm Service Agency. My amendment addressed complaints filed against not only the Farm Service Agency, but also the Rural Housing Service. We know that discrimination has occurred in both agencies, and study after study has clearly illustrated this. Unless we address complaints against both agencies, we allow justice to continue to elude a number of minority farmers in America who deserve at long last to be treated fairly. To my dismay, Mr. President, the conferees accepted the House version of the civil rights amendment, adding only a small portion of the Senate version. The Senate version of the civil rights amendment allowed for the waiver of the statute of limitations for discrimination complaints made against both the Farm Service Agency and the Rural Housing Service. The House version only allowed the FSA claims. While the conference language allows farmers to file suit in federal court if their claims for relief are denied by USDA, the Senate language specified that the federal court shall apply a de novo standard of review. This standard would have allowed a federal court to review USDA's findings and rationales with a fresh eye, so to speak. In other words, a court would not be required to give as much deference to USDA's decisions. This is obviously a protection that would have given aggrieved farmers a degree of legal protection that is imminently justified. Yet no such protection exists in the conference language. To make matters worse, Mr. President, the one protective provision that I was told would be included in the conference language--the expedited review provision--was somehow omitted from the conference report. When the conferees reached a compromise on this amendment, it is my understanding that they specifically agreed to include a provision of my amendment which limited USDA to 180 days in which to investigate complaints, issue findings, and propose settlement awards, where applicable. This provision was supposed to be included, but it was not. Mr. President, I am at a loss to explain why we can't do a better job of rectifying such a grevious history of overt, admitted discrimination for so little money. Our Minority farmers deserved better conference language from this Congress than they got. It just underscores the enormous obstacle we face in resolving this issue--and that is that too few members care enough about this problem to give it the attention and the priority it calls for. Before I conclude, Mr. President, I'd like to share with my colleagues some updated news. Last week, the Office of Inspector General issued a report which lambasted the Office of Civil Rights' handling of the backlog of discrimination complaints. The report characterized the Office's case files as ``too slovenly to ensure the availability of critical documents.'' It further berated the Office for its failure to implement the majority of recommendations made to the Department in a February 1997 report. I am not sure why this Department has had so many problems, not only with eliminating unjust and inexcusable behavior, but also with efficiently resolving complaints of discrimination. These are symptoms of an overwhelming and inexcusable problem. As many of my colleagues know, this is a problem that I have been working to solve for almost two years, from the moment it was first brought to my attention by a group of minority farmers headed by a Virginian. Mr. President, I have heard account after account of inexcusable behavior on the part of various officials at USDA, primarily those in positions of authority who process farmers' applications for loans. Some farmers have had trouble even getting loan applications, much less having their applications processed in a timely manner. Many farmers have cited stories in which their applications have been purposely processed later than those of non-minority farmers. The loan money then, in effect, was dispersed to non-minority farmers first. Then, when many minority farmers checked the status of their applications, the USDA officials responded by stating that there wasn't any money left. Another farmer told me that a USDA official was permitted to keep a noose in his office, despite repeated complaints about the message it sent to minority farmers wishing to do business in that office. I know that Secretary Glickman is committed to stemming this pattern, but ultimately Congress is responsible for overseeing our government agencies. In the two years that I've been working on this issue, talking with farmers, meeting with the Secretary and the President, we, as a Congress, have not taken a sufficiently forceful approach to stem this shameful pattern of discrimination. In my view, that makes us part of the problem as well. When the conferees chose not to accept the Senate language, they made a choice that sends a disquieting message to minority farmers across this country. The message they sent was that they were willing to do the bare minimum for minority farmers who have suffered discrimination at the hands of government officials. It is a message that we, the Congress, are not willing to get fully invested in eliminating discrimination within our own government. The President has indicated that he will veto this bill, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will take another opportunity to look at the differences between the Senate language and the conference language. We will have another opportunity to correct a critical error in our priorities. The farmers deserve our best oversight efforts, and they deserve the strongest civil rights amendment that we can craft. I will continue to push all of our colleagues to do so. A lack of attention to this issue means not only failure on our part, but a perpetuation of a problem for which we should all be ashamed. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that this letter and executive summary from the Inspector General to the Secretary of Agriculture dated September 30, 1998 be included in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, several months ago, one of my constituents, Ms. Llewellyn Hedgbeth of Arlington, Virginia, contacted my office to request my intervention in a matter which has brought considerable anguish and frustration to her family. It so happened that Ms. Hedgbeth's father, Mr. Roger A. Hedgbeth, Sr., a decorated veteran of World War II, and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death, however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to science, and two, that his ashes be placed at Arlington National Cemetery. His widow, now 71, honored the first of those wishes. But in honoring the one, it seemed that the second was precluded. The Hedgbeths learned that due to various legal concerns, no ashes of organ donors who donate their bodies to science are returned to the respective families of these donors. This situation presented an insurmountable obstacle for the Hedgbeth family who were informed by a regretful staff at Arlington National Cemetery, that current regulations prohibit memorializing veterans in the Columbarium unless their remains were actually inurned there. While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to do just that. All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both transplantation and for medical study. Mr. Roger Hedgbeth and other veterans who make this courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at one of our country's most sacred memorials. With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, not withstanding the absence of their cremated remains. Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, several months ago, one of my constituents, Ms. Llewellyn Hedgbeth of Arlington, Virginia, contacted my office to request my intervention in a matter which has brought considerable anguish and frustration to her family. It so happened that Ms. Hedgbeth's father, Mr. Roger A. Hedgbeth, Sr., a decorated veteran of World War II, and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death, however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to science, and two, that his ashes be placed at Arlington National Cemetery. His widow, now 71, honored the first of those wishes. But in honoring the one, it seemed that the second was precluded. The Hedgbeths learned that due to various legal concerns, no ashes of organ donors who donate their bodies to science are returned to the respective families of these donors. This situation presented an insurmountable obstacle for the Hedgbeth family who were informed by a regretful staff at Arlington National Cemetery, that current regulations prohibit memorializing veterans in the Columbarium unless their remains were actually inurned there. While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to do just that. All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both transplantation and for medical study. Mr. Roger Hedgbeth and other veterans who make this courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at one of our country's most sacred memorials. With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, not withstanding the absence of their cremated remains. Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have heard many of the statements made here today and yesterday regarding the defense authorization conference report and, indeed, I had hoped to come to the floor earlier, but I was involved in a meeting in my office with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Yugoslavia in a very serious and protracted discussion about the possible military options that Mr. Milosevic's Government and our Government were considering with respect to the situation in Kosovo, and the readiness of the military forces as well as the ability of those forces to respond to various contingencies was a significant part of our discussion. Many of our colleagues have expressed their concern over the degraded state of readiness of our armed services. Mr. President, I share those concerns, especially as they relate to our fundamental ability to fight and win two major wars as is called for by our national military strategy. Admittedly, the need to fight two such wars has been challenged by many, but until the tense situations in the Middle East and the Korean peninsula are behind us, we do not have the luxury of cutting force structure anymore. Indeed, in the words of the well-known Broadway musical, ``we've gone about as `fer' as we can go.'' Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four service chiefs confirmed that the risk we now associate with fighting in a second theater is high. By ``high risk,'' we mean that the level of troop losses in such a conflict could be unacceptably high. This, Mr. President, is a serious development and one which merits our immediate attention. Many of our colleagues have also expressed frustration that we were made aware of this and other readiness problems only recently. While I share some of these frustrations, I also appreciate the complexity of predicting problems even a few months out. Pilot retention, for example, can be a function of the strength of the economy. Moreover, I appreciate the comments by our service chiefs in a hearing yesterday that reinforced the immense complexity of managing our readiness, especially like a major downsizing unlike anything we have been through since the end of World War II. This having been said, we have a serious readiness problem that threatens to nosedive very quickly. We are already eating our seed corn, and the threat of a hollow force, according to our witnesses yesterday, looms only 5 or perhaps a few more years out. Some fixes can be made in short order; others, such as fielding new equipment that won't consume so much of our resources to maintain, may take years. The obvious solution and one quoted by many of those participating in the hearing and certainly by our service chiefs is more money. While I will support supplemental funding for the Department of Defense, I do so with considerable frustration over this Congress' inability to have the courage to cut wasteful defense spending. While we rail on and on about the administration for underfunded readiness, we refuse to cut bases. One more base closure round should realize around $3 billion a year in steady-state savings, enough to pay for a host of readiness problems. While some attack our service leaders for not being forthcoming, we add hundreds of millions of dollars in military construction projects that, although requested by the military for future years, we rush to build today so we can score points back in our States and districts just before an election. While some claim we have had no indications of a looming readiness problem, the fact is that we have. But despite this, we added over $2 billion in this bill for procurement and research and development projects that were simply not requested by the military. I am not suggesting they are not necessary in the long term, but they were not requested by the military in this bill. Mr. President, I support this conference report. I will support the supplemental funding package. But I hope each and every Member will find the will next year to support substantial infrastructure reductions and stop pushing so many Member interests onto the defense authorization bill so that we can put those limited tax dollars that we do have available for our Nation's defense to work directly and exclusively for the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who are willing to risk their lives for this Nation. With that, Mr. President, there will be more to say tomorrow when the defense authorization report is formally considered by the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent that the previous unanimous consent order be modified to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, may I thank our friend and colleague from Arizona, who has worked for many, many years. He does reflect an ongoing dialog that my distinguished senior Senator and I, and the two distinguished Senators from Maryland, have had with him as well as Senators representing a couple of the other airports that were affected by both flight and perimeter rules. I appreciate very much and take sincerely his offer to revisit the question on noise. I hope he will also include, at least in the spirit of the commitment that he makes, both congestion and diminution in the vitality of Dulles, which is really the other major issue that we are talking about. All of these are in play. But I understand and appreciate very much, as does my senior colleague, both the commitment the Senator from Arizona has made as well as the spirit of that commitment and the spirit with which he has worked with us over a very long period of time, many years, to get to this particular point. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. And friendship.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while we are waiting for what I hope will be a final resolution of one remaining matter on this bill, I would like to speak to the bill itself, with the understanding of my friend and colleague from Arizona, who knows that I am going to be critical of a portion of the bill. I would like to also thank my colleagues from the capital area, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, as well as Senators from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski, for their efforts to make some improvements in an area of this bill that concerns all of us, and many others. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong opposition to interference in our region's airports that is included in the FAA reauthorization bill. I certainly understand that this overall legislation is important for the Nation as a whole, and I fully support most of the bill. We must clearly prepare for the future by investing in aviation infrastructure, safety, and security. This bill provides for those critical investments and, for that, I thank Senators McCain and Ford. This bill also reauthorizes the Airport Improvement Program, which funds the capital needs of our Nation's airports, including millions of dollars for Virginia facilities. Moreover, as the bill's name implies, it reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA monitors aircraft inspections, manages air traffic control, and develops new ways to detect and prevent security threats. Without these efforts, few people would want to travel by air. But beyond all of the good and necessary things this bill does, Mr. President, it also reneges on two important Federal commitments to the citizens of Virginia and this area--the existing flight limits and the existing perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. These two Federal commitments are extremely important to the future strength and stability of both National and Dulles Airports, Mr. President. They are also extremely important to the communities that surround the airports and have relied on the existing rules. Mr. President, as my friend and the author of this legislation is quoted as saying just yesterday--but admittedly in a different context--``a deal is a deal.'' And changing that deal to the clear detriment of the communities and businesses that relied on it--is fundamentally unfair. This Congress should not involve itself in matters that are essentially local and regional, that serve both the airports and their communities well, and that have provided and continue to provide a road map to future economic strength for the people of northern Virginia as well as those throughout the metropolitan Washington area. Mr. President, these changes are bad public policy because they benefit, in some cases, Members of Congress, and certainly a small group of consumers, while harming a far larger group. They wreak serious damage on the interdependence of National Airport and Dulles National Airport. They erode the quality of life for communities surrounding the airports. And they fly in the face of an agreement this Congress made in 1986 to turn those airports over to a regional authority and essentially leave them alone. First, Mr. President, proponents argue that this bill would marginally assist air travelers by increasing the number of daily flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. But when we increase the number of flights to benefit a few people, we increase the congestion for everyone, and we add to the overall delays of all who fly in and out of National Airport. In weakening the perimeter rule, we allow a few select people to take long-haul flights out of National. But what about consumers who may lose their short-haul flights to make room for flights to California, Nevada, and Arizona? I am concerned that once we breach the perimeter rule we will eventually lose small-haul flights to smaller communities altogether. This would be brought about in a bill intended to assist travelers to underserved communities. Second, adjusting the perimeter rule at National will fundamentally shatter the carefully crafted interdependence between National and Dulles airports that has proven so effective in fostering growth at both airports. Today Dulles flourishes as an international gateway for our region. National thrives, providing convenient regional service. The history of both airports shows us that this constructive, vibrant interdependence is not by accident. National first opened in 1941, before the advent of large commercial jets such as the DC-8. And Dulles was built in 1962 because larger jets could not land on National's short runways. Medium-sized jets arrived on the scene in 1966, and National soon became overcrowded. Jets were forced to circle, and delays were considerable. In 1966, the airlines agreed to limit the number of flights at National. They also agreed to a perimeter rule to further reduce overcrowding. But these were voluntary limits and did not provide the security or the stability needed to maximize the potential of either airport. So during the 1970's and early 1980's, improvements were negligible or nonexistent at both National and Dulles, for two reasons. One, National drained flights from Dulles. And so improvements at Dulles were put on hold. Two, improvements were also on hold at National. Extensive litigation and public protest over increasing noise lead to this freeze. And there was even some discussion of shutting down National completely. Congressional legislation in 1986 solved these problems by codifying the perimeter and slot rules that the airlines themselves had agreed upon, and by creating an independent authority to manage the airports. This statutorily limited the number of flights at National, along with the accompanying delays and noise, and increased the business at Dulles providing what we thought was long-term stability to both airports. Mr. President, there is no way around the fact that weakening the perimeter rule will bring long-haul flights to National at the expense of Dulles. This marriage between National and Dulles--along with the stability that accompanies most strong unions--has been extremely lucrative for both airports. Billions of dollars have been invested by businesses in the area near Dulles Airport based on the assumption that Dulles would remain the region's major international gateway. And the public represented by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has made significant investments in Dulles, including more than $1.6 billion in bonds. Investments in Reagan National Airport have also grown under the stability provided by local management and the slot and perimeter rules. Since the airport was transferred to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, more than $940 million has been invested in the airport. The new terminal is well designed, and represents our Nation's capital well. But the new terminal at National and the substantial investments at Dulles would not have occurred, Mr. President, without the perimeter and slot rules. In 1986, Congress was sensitive to community outrage as well as the need to improve service. In hearings on the legislation, Congressman Hammerschmidt asked how the Congress could be sure residents would support improvements at National. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole stated: With a statutory bar, to more flights, noise levels, will continue to decline, as quieter aircraft, are introduced. Thus all the planned projects at National, would simply improve the facility, not increase, its capacity, for air traffic. Under these conditions, I believe that National's neighbors, will no longer object, to the improvements. Mr. President, as a result of this understanding between the local community and the Congress, we have had enormous benefits to air service in this region--benefits that we shouldn't imperil by changing rules that have worked so well. Third, Mr. President this exchange between Secretary Dole and Congressman Hammerschmidt illustrates that there was some concern about the effect of the transfer legislation on the people who live in the communities around National Airport. We need to be sensitive and respectful of their concerns and wishes today. Increasing the number of flights at National Airport will increase the noise level for local citizens, will exacerbate the congestion for residents, will increase delays for those who fly in and out of National, and could also pose safety risks for surrounding communities. Weakening the perimeter rule could wreak economic hardship on Dulles, which would threaten the countless businesses and families who settled around the airport expecting it to remain our Nations regional international gateway. By focusing on the few travelers who may benefit from increasing the flight limits at National, this bill ignores the harm it will cause to the many northern Virginia families who are neighbors to National Airport. Local communities and local businesses surrounding both airports are in opposition to changes in the flight limits and the perimeter rules. It is their quality of life, their economic strength, their ability to plan for a secure future, that is at risk with this portion of the legislation. We have a system in place that works for this region. We have a careful balance between two airports that needs to be preserved. Finally, Mr. President, with this bill we are again meddling in the affairs of two airports that Congress transferred to a regional authority which we created because we thought airports could be managed better by the authority than by Members of Congress. The 1986 transfer legislation signed into law by President Ronald Reagan embodied two important concepts that are demolished by the bill we are considering today: That local authorities--not the Federal Government--should decide local issues; and, that the two airports work together in tandem, and with BWI, to serve the national capital region. As I mentioned earlier, the operation of one airport cannot be changed without affecting the operation of the other. As the Senate Commerce Committee report noted at the time: [I]t is the legislation's purpose, to authorize the transfer under long-term lease of the two airports ``as a unit, to a properly constituted independent airport authority, to be created by Virginia and the District of Columbia, in order to improve the management, operation, and development of these important transportation assets.'' Let me quote from Congressman Dick Armey, who has the following to say about transferring the airports from Federal to local control: The simple fact is that our Federal Government was not designed, nor is it suited, to the task of running the day- to-day operations of civilian airports. Transferring control of the airports to an ``independent authority'' will put these airports on the same footing as all others in the country. It gets the Federal Government out of the day-to-day operation and management of civilian airports, and puts this control into the hands of those who are more interested in seeing these airports run in the safest and most efficient manner possible . . . Rather than throw limited federal funds at the airports and tell them to do what they can, this legislation will allow the type of coordinated long-range planning necessary to keep the airports safe and efficient into the future. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has engaged in the type of long-range coordinated planning that Mr. Armey encouraged. Essential to that long-range plan is to balance the operations of the two interdependent airports. National is designed to handle short-haul flights inside the perimeter, and Dulles is designed to handle long- haul flights which are essential to maintaining Dulles as an international gateway. Yesterday, I heard one of my colleagues comment on the bustling activities surrounding Dulles. The current robust growth at Dulles results directly from the balance between the two airports. The legislation we are considering today begins to tip that balance in a way that will harm both of the airports as well as the communities that surround them. As Senator Dole said during debate on the 1986 legislation: Mr. President, I would like to take just one moment to reaffirm my support for passage of the regional airport bill. Continuing to quote Senator Dole. ``There are a few things the Federal Government--and only the Federal Government--can do well. Running local airports is not one of them.'' Finally, Mr. President, in making these changes to the flight limits and the perimeter rule, proponents argue that we are just following the wisdom of the free market. I am aware that the slot and perimeter rules are limits on the market, and I am also aware that GAO studies have criticized the rules as anticompetitive. Moreover, I believe in the free market. But Government has a role in checking the excesses that can flow from an unfettered free market. The market won't educate children, the market won't protect workers, the market won't check monopolies, and the market won't safeguard our natural resources. So our charge as policymakers in a capitalist economy is to allow individuals and entrepreneurs and businesses the freest rein possible while safeguarding society's other concerns. Defining those concerns and implementing those safeguards without destroying the benefits we achieve from the free market is one of the most difficult tasks we face. Mr. President, the free market doesn't care if Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is unnecessarily congested, but we do. The free market doesn't care if there are flight delays, but we do. The free market doesn't care if there is excessive noise in Alexandria or Arlington, but we do. The free market doesn't care if Dulles Airport is harmed, but we do. We seek a balance here between the free market and the strength of our airports and the quality of life of our people. That balance is embodied in the flight limits and perimeter rule. They should not be sacrificed to the free market in this debate. And perhaps more egregiously, Mr. President, this legislation applies an adherence to free market principles on an inconsistent and selective basis. This bill, for example, contemplates restricting air flights over both small and large parks. The report on the bill states that the Commerce Committee ``intends that the [Federal agencies] work together to preserve quiet in the national parks.'' The report goes on to say that while ``natural quiet is not an important attribute for all national parks, such as historic sites in urban settings,'' preserving quiet in some parks ``may require banning commercial air tour operations over the park altogether.'' I agree with the committee, Mr. President. We should work to preserve the pristine nature of our national parks for the public to enjoy. But how can we abandon free market principles to preserve the sanctity of our parks and use free market principles to damage the sanctity of life here in our Nation's Capital? It would be wrong, Mr. President, to force Virginians and those who live in this area to endure more noise from National Airport. There is a second significant inconsistency in this bill, and that involves service assistance for small communities. On the one hand, the bill attempts to expand service to underserved communities. It creates the Community-Carrier Air Service Program which seeks to develop public/private partnerships with commercial airlines and the local State and Federal governments. These partnerships will offer service previously unavailable. In addition, the bill maintains the Essential Air Service Program which now subsidizes air service in communities such as Kingman, AZ; Rockland, ME; and Seward, AL. On the other hand, we jeopardize short-haul service from National. This legislation weakens the perimeter rule which was created to both improve service to underserved airports and to expand service at Dulles Airport. Again, if we weaken the perimeter rule, we weaken more than Dulles Airport. We begin a dangerous journey that could jeopardize consumer access to smaller airports across the Nation that currently benefit from the perimeter rule. Fortunately, Mr. President, the bill before us does not erase the perimeter rule altogether. Unfortunately, it does damage to the rule, and I believe it contemplates doing away with the rule completely, which embodies its own threat to the economic performance of our region. Before I conclude, I want to ask that Members of this body step back for just a moment and recommit ourselves to honoring the commitment that we made to our regional airports in 1986. Those of us who represent this region have spent enormous time and energy over the last decade trying to keep the Congress from breaking its commitment to communities that we serve. We need to stop wasting valuable time micromanaging these airports. Let's put out a moratorium, if you will, on legislating changes that are in the purview of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Let's give the Authority, say, 5 years to continue to develop a strong, vibrant air transportation system we want and need for this area at the dawn of a new millennium. I understand that Senators McCain and Lott will express their commitment not to interfere further in the slot and perimeter rule should this bill pass. I welcome that commitment. But let's acknowledge that the existing rules we change with this bill were carefully crafted, are based on sound public policy, and should not be altered. And let's oppose this Federal intervention in the operation of two airports that are doing just fine without us. Mr. President, I know this bill will pass, and it should for the reasons I stated at the outset. But in opposition to yet another broken promise by this Congress to the citizens of Virginia and this region, I will vote no on final passage and hope that my concerns, shared by so many of our colleagues, will be addressed in conference. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB. If my colleague will yield just for a comment, I was indeed and, as a matter of fact, had an opportunity to come up and work with the distinguished senior Senator and with others on this legislation. Before I left the Governors' office, I appointed the first two members of the board.

Mr. ROBB

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

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

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

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I understand that a number of Senators could conceivably benefit from the additional flights at National. Current language in the bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to award new flights for service outside the perimeter if those flights will provide ``network benefits beyond the perimeter'' and ``increase competition in multiple markets.'' I believe this proposed test tilts the Secretary's decision in favor of consumers flying beyond the perimeter and away from considering the benefits to all consumers using this region's airports. For that reason, I am proposing an amendment to provide a more balanced approach. Consumers using the airports are not just worried about the availability of long-haul service, they are also worried about timely service and the availability of service to smaller airports. The amendment I am offering would simply require the Secretary to consider those factors in awarding any new slots at National. Senators Gregg, Smith of New Hampshire, Graham of Florida, Snowe, and Collins have agreed to cosponsor this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Graham of Florida be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. ROBB. Again, Mr. President, I believe very strongly--and will have more to say later this afternoon--that it is wrong for the Congress to retreat from its promise to the citizens of this region, and I believe the changes in this bill will be harmful to the capital area's economy as well as its quality of life. If we are going to meddle in the rules governing service at National, however, we should do so in a way that is fair to all consumers. I understand that this amendment has been accepted by the managers on both sides, and I thank the managers for their assistance. I am prepared to move it or set it aside, whichever would be the preference of either manager at this time.

Mr. ROBB. I understand. With that, I ask unanimous consent that it be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I understand that the managers are now prepared to weigh in on this particular amendment. I yield to the managers of the amendment for any comments they might like to make.

Mr. ROBB. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, chargeable to the Democratic manager.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to urge colleagues who had the courage to oppose this legislation when it was considered by the Senate last year to demonstrate again that same courage by voting to sustain the President's veto of the so-called partial-birth abortion bill. There is no question that this is a gut-wrenching issue. I know how passionately most of those feel who gather at the Capitol today and tomorrow to support a ban on this medical procedure and want us to override the President's veto. Those who have been telephoning, writing, and e-mailing us in such overwhelming numbers are equally emotional in expressing the depth of their feeling in opposition to abortion generally and to this procedure in particular. This will be a very tough vote. But, as a matter of sound public policy, it is the right vote, and it is consistent with our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If this legislation were to become law, the Congress would be telling physicians how to practice medicine, and Senators, with one exception, are not trained or certified to do that. In fact, the only Member of this body who is a physician made a comment during an interview on HMO reform recently about who should, and, more important, who should not be practicing medicine. He said that ``[Congress] should not be practicing medicine. . . . Doctors should be practicing medicine. That's very clear.'' Mr. President, it is important that everyone understand what is really at issue here. This debate is not about whether or when to terminate a pregnancy, because this bill will prevent not a single abortion; it is only about how to terminate a pregnancy. If it is otherwise lawful for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, this bill will only require that she and her doctor choose another medical procedure, even though her doctor may believe that procedure is less protective of her health. In some States, it is legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, even when the life or health of the mother are not at issue. This bill does not address that situation at all. It is appropriate to note, however, that some of us supported a tough ban on third-trimester abortions when this bill was considered last year, but our efforts were defeated by proponents of this bill in an effort to keep a very politically potent issue alive. But I ask those who want to keep abortions safe, legal, and rare, as I do, and who are disturbed by this procedure, as I am, to stop for a moment and think: What specific abortion procedure would you prefer? Because this legislation will necessarily encourage the use of some other procedure that I believe, if we focus on the specific details of the alternative procedure, we would find equally disturbing. In truth, this debate is really about how an abortion is performed and, more essentially, about who chooses. It is about whether Congress chooses or whether American women and their doctors choose. I believe American women and their doctors should choose. I am troubled that at the heart of this legislation is an incredible presumption, the presumption that this Congress is more concerned or better qualified to judge than expectant parents about what is best for their families. In matters this personal, what is best for American families should be decided by American families based on their individual beliefs and faith. Most opponents of this ban have very strong convictions about when life begins. But ultimately, Mr. President, the very question of when life begins is also a matter of belief, a matter of faith, a matter between individuals and their God. Some denominations believe life begins at conception. Others believe life begins at birth. Still another believes life begins 120 days after conception, at the time the soul enters the fetus. My point here is that we must be very careful when legislating matters of faith, ours or someone else's. And in the absence of knowing, rather than believing, when life begins, we are forced to draw some very difficult lines. That is what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. The Court said that in the first trimester, the decision to continue a pregnancy is solely within the discretion of the mother; in the second trimester, the Government may impose reasonable regulations designed to protect the health of the mother; and in the third trimester, the rights of the unborn child are recognized, with the rights of the child weighed against the rights of the mother to escape harm or death. The Court has been clear in protecting a woman's life and health, both before and after viability, even striking down a method-of-choice case because it failed to require that maternal health be the physician's paramount consideration. Proponents of this bill frequently cite the American Medical Association's support for this legislation, but not the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' opposition to it. In fact, the ACOG has told us ``the intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous.'' Again, Mr. President, we are a Congress of legislators, not a Congress of physicians. There are places we should not go and decisions we should not make. A respect for the judgment of physicians, a respect for the rights and needs of families in often excruciatingly difficult circumstances, and a respect for our Constitution ought to lead us to conclude that this bill should not pass. Let me conclude by saying that I am pro-choice, I am not pro- abortion. I respect those who believe that abortions should never be performed, for religious or moral or personal reasons, and I believe that those individuals should follow their faith and choose not to have one. I particularly admire the convictions of those who choose life, even in the most difficult circumstances. But in choosing life, they choose. They choose life, just as families that make different and sometimes agonizing choices should also be allowed to choose. I believe that, as legislators, we have an obligation to protect the rights of all those who live in our States. We all believe in freedom. We all understand that with freedom comes responsibility. Yet, at its heart, this legislation says to the women of America: We don't trust you with the freedom to choose; we don't trust you to do what we think is right; so we will take away your freedom to search your hearts, to follow your conscience, to rely on your faith and the judgment of your physicians and to make a very personal decision that affects your lives and your families. That is why I will vote to sustain the President's veto, and I hope at least those who opposed the bill last year will do so again. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment has been converted to a sense of the Senate. It simply recognizes an obligation of the United States to compensate the victims of the Marine Corps jet incident involving a jet aircraft flying out of Aviano. At this point, the Ambassador of the United States to Italy has already agreed that, under the Status of Forces Agreement, that the United States would pick up the 25 percent normally assigned to the host nation. We were going to try to present an arrangement where this could be worked out more expeditiously. At this point it is simply a sense of the Senate. Instead, it ought to be resolved as quickly and fairly as possible. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote