Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

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

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act. I do so because I believe that the legislation is necessary to preserve membership opportunities in these financial cooperatives. Given the Supreme Court ruling limiting membership, it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to pass this legislation to ensure that the requirements for membership in a specific credit union reflect current practices. As my colleagues know, since 1982, credit unions have been able to take in new groups of members outside their original common bond provided that the additional groups brought in shared a common bond. Not only was this done for safety and soundness concerns, but it also has helped individuals maintain their credit union ties through base closings and other employment changes. The bill before us today guarantees that no existing member will be forced to give up his or her ties to their current credit union as a result of the Supreme Court decision. It also allows credit unions to continue to attract new members who are part of an existing membership group as well as new groups provided that the new group has a common bond of occupation or association and has less than 3,000 members at the time they join the credit union. This effectively covers 98% of all businesses in America. I for one have never quarreled with the need for credit unions to continue to attract new members. But with new opportunities come new responsibilities. If credit unions are to have all the rights of a for- profit financial institution, equity requires that they share in their responsibilities. For this reason, I voted to keep the community reinvestment responsibilities in the bill and I also voted to further limit commercial lending activities of credit unions, hoping thereby to keep them to their original focus of consumer lending. In my view, the continuation of their tax-exempt status is threatened by efforts to have credit unions undertake all the rights of a for-profit financial institution. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want credit union members in the Commonwealth of Virginia to know that I am a strong supporter of their institutions and their rights of membership. As a credit union member myself, I will continue to preserve membership opportunities in these important institutions.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended by an additional 15 minutes--I know there is at least one other colleague on the floor and there may be others--so that we might spend a moment in additional tribute to the two officers.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I just want to add my voice to those who have already spoken and those who will. Friday was a difficult day for all of us here as part of the family. That has been more eloquently described than I can describe it both today and elsewhere. Like many of the Members, I happened to be in my office less than 100 yards away from where the shooting took place. I was unaware of the shooting. I heard the sirens and I heard the helicopter when it approached to take the victims to the trauma center. At that point, I tuned in and observed what was happening. There was a sense on the part of all of us that something very tragic had occurred to members of the family. It wasn't until the names were released that we knew which members of the family had been affected. I realized when the names were ultimately released and saw the pictures that Officer J.J. Chestnut was the person who had been on that post any number of times. Many of us who come and go from the Nation's Capitol late in the evening find that is one of the few doors that is open. So we get to know the people who are there, and they are always greeting us with a smile. In truth, I didn't know that I knew or had a relationship with Special Agent Gibson until I found out from my wife and mother-in-law that during a recent visit he had accompanied them throughout a tour of the Capitol, and they had been very grateful for the professional courtesies and kindness that he had extended to them. I found out that he was a resident of Lake Ridge, VA. It just so happens that the other person who was wounded, Angela Dickerson, was a tourist and taking a family on a tour, also happens to be from Chantilly, VA. I noted that J.J. Chestnut was a Vietnam veteran and is going to be accorded full military honors when he is buried Friday in Arlington. These were very, very special people. The initial feeling among many when we heard that there had been gunfire inside the Capitol was that somehow the security system had broken down. I was relieved and pleased, as I think all of our Members were, to know that in this case the system had actually worked, and it had worked superbly. The men who ultimately gave their lives had done so in precisely the way they were trained to protect the Capitol and all who serve in it. I think that is a testament to the professionalism of the Capitol Police and to all of the members of this extended family. I didn't go out and talk to the media on Friday, but two down-State reporters came to my office, unsolicited, and I talked to them for a couple of minutes. One asked me, ``What should we do?'' I said, ``I hope we don't do much of anything. We will take a look at the procedures, but we want to keep the people's house as open as we possibly can.'' I think this is a symbol of democracy, and these two men died in defending that symbol. But we want to be careful not to take the wrong actions. What we can do, and what we ought to do, is remember to thank those who serve us--whose service we sometimes take for granted. On the way out of the Capitol later that evening, I stopped and thanked the Capitol Police officers who were still on duty. They were still doing their duties professionally, although they were grieving. I happened to go to an engagement that I had that evening and I was late coming back. It didn't conclude until almost midnight. I said, ``I want to go back to the Capitol. The midnight shift will have come on now and they are going to take it pretty hard as well.'' I had a chance to quietly visit with some of the other members of the Capitol Police. Many of us are trying to find a way to say to those men and women who serve so ably, and sometimes without the recognition that they deserve, that we are grieving with them, that we appreciate what they did, what they continue to do. I suggest to people who might not be a part of the extended family here in the Capitol that all of us feel that if you want to find a way to express your appreciation, stop your local policeman on the street and say ``thank you'' because they, too, are providing a kind of service that, in many cases, we end up taking for granted; yet, it is critically important. When the chips are down, these folks respond. And as my distinguished colleague from Connecticut noted a minute ago, when many seek cover, that is the time they put themselves directly in harm's way to ensure that access to our Nation's Capitol and the freedom to move about for all of us who benefit from their services goes uninterrupted. With that, I will close. I just wanted to say to all of those who continue to serve: Thank you. We don't always remember to say that. To the families of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson, in particular, we share your loss. You are in our thoughts and prayers, and to all who serve us in ways too numerous to count, we do appreciate what you have done for us and what you continue to do for us. We will continue to remember the extraordinary service and the ultimate sacrifice that was made by these two fine officers in defense of our Nation's Capitol. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Our Hearts Go Out to the Families of the Slain Officers

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I concur with the assessment just rendered by the distinguished Senator from Utah. My distinguished senior Senator, Senator Warner, and I are both very much opposed to this amendment. It is a delaying tactic that simply benefits the status quo and costs money. For the benefit of Senators, I will quote from a couple of the reports that were referenced indirectly by the Senator from Utah, if I may. The Appropriations Committee, July 2, committee report: The committee has reviewed the reports submitted by the Secretary, and does not object to the Secretary's direction that the competitive procurement process should continue. An independent report dated May 15, 1998, by Jefferson Solutions, Inc., BTG, Inc., Economics Research Associates: The PTO has used a sound methodology and valid reasoning in defining its need for new space, in researching its current and future functional needs, and in managing its consolidation and space acquisition process. With respect to this, the Department of Commerce inspector general report in March 1998 in terms of its fiscal prudence: Long-term cost savings should be realized because the current leased PTO space is more expensive than the $24 per square foot authorized by the Congress. An independent report, May, 22, 1998, by Deva & Associates: The conclusion of this business case analysis . . . is that the PTO should proceed . . . because the agency will incur, over the 20-year lease period, $72,395,278 less in costs. A Department of Commerce inspector general report with respect to necessity, dated March, 1998: Most of PTO's current leased facilities . . . are in need of alterations to comply with fire, safety, and handicapped accessibility laws. PTO has a growing workload and is currently occupying noncontiguous space that is operationally inefficient. The new facility should promote the collocation of various working groups, thereby improving efficiency and productivity. From an independent report by Jefferson Solutions and others, dated May 15, 1998: The proposed PTO amenity package is not ``gold plated,'' and is consistent with other recent federal and private sector office projects. A point that was made earlier by my distinguished senior colleague, it is the customers who pay the fees. And here is what they have to say, the executive director of the Intellectual Property Owners: We are at a loss for why anyone would want to keep the PTO in outdated facilities at higher cost . . . The executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association: Further delaying the procurement would likely result in an additional loss of interest. The result would be to award, by default, a sole source lease extension to the existing landlord. Moreover, a new competitive process would almost certainly have to open up the area of consideration to a larger geographic territory, with additional costs and dislocations for [current] PTO employees and [their] users. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that to the extent that there are any excess costs--first of all, I believe that is a worst case scenario. Second, it can be addressed by the amendment that is going to be offered by Senators from Idaho and Kansas. And I will support that amendment, as the Senator from Idaho has indicated he will support it. But the bottom line is, this is designed to save $72-plus million. Delay will simply continue the inefficiency and cost more money. If there is a concern--and I would share the concern that the Senator from Arizona expressed about any unnecessary costs--we can address that, but do not stop the process that has been ongoing for years, which simply will increase the costs in a very significant way. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished senior Senator. And I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, support for education has been at the top of my priorities since I began my career as a public servant. I've worked for many years, and on several fronts, to strengthen our public schools and universities, and I've focused as well on an essential prerequisite for improving educational opportunities--a safe learning environment. Unfortunately, not all students share the privilege of attending a safe school. Over the past year, tragic murders at schools across the Nation have chilled parents' hearts. Perhaps even more chilling are figures from a spring 1998 Department of Justice study, which indicates just how many schools, and schoolchildren, are at risk. In the past year, nearly 60 percent of all elementary and secondary schools reported at least one incident of criminal activity to the police. Roughly 20 percent of schools reported six crimes or more. One out of every ten schools reported a serious violent crime during the past year. Mr. President, crime in school is a double threat--a threat not just to safety and property, but to our entire educational system. Parents should worry about their children dodging homework, not dodging bullets. Teachers should be able to devote their energy to promoting academic achievement, not counseling victims. And students should be focused on their next exam, not on making it safely to the next class. While the States have the primary responsibility for both education and criminal justice, and the Federal Government cannot give every neighborhood crime-free schools, I believe the Congress should do more. The Federal Government can help by supporting innovative efforts by local communities and law enforcement to improve safety, by sharing insights gained from these efforts with communities across the Nation, and simply by focusing attention on this problem. During past Congresses, I supported prevention programs to assist local communities, including drug resistance education, school security grants, and the Gun Free School Zones Act. In 1993, I worked to create a Commission on Violence in Schools to study school safety. I've also voted for additional deterrence measures, including adult prosecution of armed juveniles who commit violent crimes, and increased funding for juvenile prisons. Last fall, I proposed an amendment to permit funds available under the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) to go to school safety initiatives. COPS funding has been restricted in the past to hiring new police officers. The amendment I proposed, and the Senate adopted, expanded the use of COPS funding to reward innovative crime- reduction efforts by communities and law enforcement, to share knowledge about successful school-safety programs, and to raise public awareness about school crime. Thanks to the support of Senators Gregg and Hollings, $17.5 million in grants were made available in fiscal year 1998. The grants will be awarded later this fall to communities across the Nation. This spring, I spoke with Senators Hollings and Gregg and urged them to continue and expand this program in fiscal year 1999, and I am grateful for their generosity and their commitment to the cause. The chair and ranking member provided more than $210 million for a Schools Safety Initiative. Under this initiative, $10 million will support research in technology to improve school safety, such as weapons detection equipment. Another $25 million will fund community efforts to promote nonviolent dispute resolution, to train teachers and parents to recognize troubled children, and to strengthen families. The bulk of the School Safety Initiative, $175 million, will be administered under the COPS school safety program that I initiated last fall. I believe this funding level is a strong statement to students, parents, teachers, and law enforcement. This program indicates that school safety is a national priority, and I hope schools and communities across the Nation will respond. A number of schools in Virginia have already taken action. Some have set up anonymous crime tip lines for their students. Police in Richmond work with students to promote peaceful conflict resolution and drug resistance education. Other communities, such as Pulaski County, have actually placed police officers in schools. One remaining concern I have is the attention to this issue will receive from future Congresses. In my view, the matter of school safety deserves sustained attention, and continuing support from the this body. There are several juvenile justice reform bills pending before the Senate, and I'd like to move forward on legislation in this area this year. Unfortunately, that appears unlikely. Therefore, I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to schedule a full debate on juvenile justice issues, as a well as to provide continued support for school safety through the appropriations process during conference with the House this year and next.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to one of the international organizations being funded by the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriation bill, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As many of my colleagues areaware, the OECD has its origins in the Marshall plan. While its original mandate was to help rebuild post-War Europe, over the years, the OECD has taught us that nations through economic cooperation can take charge of their own destinies. Article 1 of the OECD Convention clearly states its mission, which is to have its member nations achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment, to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member nations, and to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis. These goals are as relevant today as they were when the OECD was founded. The current work of the OECD spans the horizon. A few issues that are important to this Congress that the OECD is working on are the Asian economic crisis, the Anti-Bribery Convention and crytography policy. OECD economic surveys, its twice-yearly Economic Outlook and its countless statistics on a wide range of economic activities are important sources of information for us as we meet the challenges of the global economy. But the OECD has also understood that in today's tough budgetary environment, there is a real need to make cuts. And organization officials have taken these necessary steps. The OECD is decreasing its budget which to date includes a reduction of 180 staff, more than 10% of its total. Clearly, the OECD gets the message and deserves credit for its efforts. I urge the committee and the administration to fully fund the OECD. It continues to make a valuable contribution, and is willing to implement the kinds of reforms that should only increase its efficiency and productivity.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas for their long-suffering understanding and help on this amendment. I add, lest anyone be concerned--or to add to the discussion which was right on the money--that any claims that exceed $75,000 will actually be reviewed by the Justice Department. So in addition to the claims being reviewed by the Department of Agriculture, the Justice Department would review a claim in excess of that particular amount. This gives an additional screen for claims that might be viewed as excessive in any way, shape or form. But the bottom line is, as both Senators have suggested, this removes an impediment that otherwise would bar a meritorious claim. And it does nothing more than that.

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

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

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. Amendment No. 3177 (Purpose: To waive the statute of limitations barring certain discrimination complaints against the Department of Agriculture)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, for over a year now I have been working with many minority farmers to address the problem of discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that we have finally found a way to provide relief to these farmers. I thank, in particular, the Senator from Mississippi for his efforts and commitment to work out the details of this important amendment. This amendment will provide long overdue relief for many minority farmers who were the victims of systematic and egregious discrimination by USDA officials--discrimination which has been acknowledged by Secretary Glickman and the USDA. This amendment, which is very similar to language which has already passed in the House, seeks to remedy this problem by imposing a new statute of limitations for farmers who experienced discrimination between 1981 and 1996 and who filed complaints to seek redress. As I discovered about a year or so ago, many farmers were denied credit opportunities and were discriminated against when seeking housing loans, and obtained no relief from USDA when they complained of such discrimination. These farmers filed discrimination complaints with the USDA's Office of Civil Rights in the early 1980's. However, they were never told that, in 1983, the Office of Civil Rights at USDA was abolished. Furthermore, they had no notice that their claims were not even being investigated despite being led to believe otherwise. These farmers are barred, only by the statute of limitations, from obtaining relief from this mistreatment. Whether it is a racial slur or a denial of credit opportunities, discrimination is unconscionable and it is intolerable, and it is particularly appalling when such discrimination is exhibited by Government officials--officials employed by our Government to serve all Americans, as was the case with the USDA. Studies, reports, and task forces in 1965, 1970, 1982 and 1990, have all documented the same inherent problems at USDA--continued discrimination and mistreatment of minority and socially disadvantaged customers. It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that the relief for these farmers' claims is approximately $15 million in fiscal year 1999 and $42 million over the next 3 years. That means that the Congressional Budget Office believes that the Government legitimately owes $15 million in order to provide relief to farmers who were discriminated against by our Government officials. The statute of limitations is now the only obstacle standing in the way of these farmers getting the relief they deserve. And this amendment simply removes that obstacle. Inexplicably, the discrimination that many minority farmers suffered at the hands of USDA officials still has not been punished or mitigated. This amendment will mitigate for the farmers who were discriminated against. Too many farmers and communities have been affected by this travesty, Mr. President. I am pleased that the U.S. Senate has chosen not to remain silent. In reaching a resolution, I particularly thank Senator Cochran, Senator Bumpers, Senator Grassley, Senator Lugar, and their staffs, and my staff for their hard work. I also thank Secretary Glickman and his staff at USDA and the staff at the Department of Justice for their commitment and hard work on this amendment. Finally, I especially acknowledge and thank the White House for its unwavering support of this amendment and of these farmers. While it has been a challenge to work on the spending issues, and reach agreement on the offsets, I believe the result was well worth the effort. What we have done today, Mr. President, is right, just, and long overdue. With that, I yield the floor and seek action on the amendment. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3176

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, one of my constituents, Rabbi Israel Zoberman of congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, VA, has recently published some thoughts arising from the release of a Vatican document. I would like to bring them to the attention of my colleagues, and ask that they appear in the Congressional Record at the appropriate juncture. The article follows: [From the Southern Virginia Jewish News, May 22, 1998] Saving Memory: A Rabbi's: Response to the Vatican (By Rabbi Israel Zoberman) The recent release of the long awaited Vatican document on the connection between the Holocaust and the Catholic Church almost coincides with the annual observance this season of the Shoah's tragedy, the enormity of which has turned it into the most defining event of the soon concluding 20th century, the bloodiest of all times. Whie the document acknowledges a measure of Christian culpability for Jewish suffering, it falls short of a full apology, for the over-a-decade study of the trying theme is fraught with painful and embarrassing confrontations for the church, touching upon the historical rejectionist attitude by Christianity of Judaism and the Jewish people. No wonder that there were high expectations that the reached conclusions would fully reflect and respect the record of a troubling past reality in light of the subject's magnitude, as well as the breakthrough conciliatory accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council in the 60s and the unparalleled contribution of Pope John II, building upon the foundation laid by his great predecessor Pope John XXIII in dismissing Jewish responsibility for Jesus' execution and honoring Abraham's descendants. At stake was also the church's own need to come to grips with a burden weighing upon its conscience in a way demanding absolution from sins of both commission and omission, allowing for a renewed sense of integrity and reconciliation in an era of an unprecedented ecumenical spirit, where no longer can any faith claim an imperialistic role. It seems that the controversial document could not escape internal political pressure and compromise along with vestiges of pre-Second Vatican thinking. Perhaps some of us within both the Jewish and Christian communities got a bit carried away in believing that the significant victories of the past several decades were free from roadblocks and unforeseen detours. How else explain the skirting of two central issues that the authors were surely aware of their persistent presence, that now more than ever will beg an unequivocal response. The fact that traditional anti-Semitism has its origins in two millennia of the church's anti-Jewish teachings, demonstrates contempt in word and deed for both the spiritual heritage from which ironically Christianity emerged, and the people who bore witness to the covenant they refused to abandon when threatened with expulsion, forced conversion and death itself. Is there any doubt that the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are intimately interwoven? The second bone of contention is the role of Pope Pius XII whose silence during the Nazi slaughter was far louder than his intervention in saving individual lives. While there is no surprise that the church would want to defend her ``infallible' 'leaders, it is the failure to exercise the vast moral authority invested in the Pope's high office which should serve as a cardinal yardstick in evaluating the legacy of any Holy Father, particularly under critical circumstances testing and mantle of true spiritual greatness. The related concern of the Vatican's alleged involvement in aiding the escape of Nazis at the war's end to South America and elsewhere, deserves an honest investigation and disclosure. Only when past ghosts are finally laid to rest, can memory be cleansed to serve the future. I trust that the contested official statement is not in its final form, for history and our common God expect more from us and we can deliver in this generation of unfathomable lows but also dazzling heights, a gift of healing hope for those to follow. I ought to know for during 1985 to 1995 my congregation benefitted from generosity of the most gracious Church of Ascension in Virginia Beach, where we found a loving home in the only such Catholic-Jewish sharing bond in the world, a direct outcome of a radically changed climate. The Polish Pope, John Paul II, with his unique personality and past, did more than all other pontiffs combined to bring the two faith groups closer to one another, coming as he does from the vineyard turned graveyard of European Jewry, experiencing and resisting the German occupation, and being particularly close to a surviving Jewish childhood friend. His heartfelt embrace of the Jews, beginning in an historic first visit by a Pope to a synagogue, in 1986 in Rome, addressing them as ``our dearly beloved brothers'' and ``our elder brothers,'' culminated in establishing diplomatic relations with the State of Israel in 1994. Before his extraordinary papacy comes to an end, he may yet surprise us with further bold steps to reassure us all that there is no retreat from the visionary path he so compassionately bequested to a suffering and expectant humanity.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, with the permission of the Senator from Delaware who stepped off the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, let me say that I think the debate this afternoon has been instructive, particularly with respect to the impact of sanctions, because we are acknowledging, perhaps for the first time in a forum and debate like this, the fact that sanctions clearly have limitations and all too often the target of the sanctions ends up being less impacted by the sanctions that are actually put in place than the country that enacts those particular sanctions. Senator Brownback spoke a few moments ago of a trip that he and I took to the Asian subcontinent just over a week ago. We had very good meetings with Prime Minister Vajpai and his key officials within his Government, including Interior Minister Advani, Defense Minister Fernandez, and others. We spent another day in Pakistan with Prime Minister Sharif, Foreign Minister Khan, and a number of key officials. We went up to a line of control and not only observed the positions there but did observe the fact that the fighting in the Kashmir area continues to inflict far more casualties on civilians than it does on actual combatants. But for a very different reason than my good friend and colleague from Ohio, I am pleased that section 3 was removed because it was less than, I believe, we need to do in terms of taking congressional fingers off of the ability to waive sanctions that we currently employ. I believe it is important that we continue to focus on our oversight role and make the administration not only responsible for the conduct of foreign policy, but for defending foreign policy choices. But ultimately, if we prescribe sanctions and act, in effect, as 535 Secretaries of State in too many instances, we make it virtually impossible for the administration to carry out the functions of any administration--whether it be Democratic or Republican--to carry out the functions that we expect an administration to carry out on our behalf. So taking section 3 out of this particular legislation, which would have had a limited waiver authority, and working to provide the kind of complete waiver authority and comprehensive treatment that I believe this subject deserves, in my judgment, it is the right thing to do. Given the statement just made a few minutes ago by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, it may be that we will have extended debate on that particular topic. But it is important that we do so. In this particular instance, much like fast-track authority and others, the Congress of the United States can play a role, but frequently its most important role is as the ``bad cop'' to provide an opportunity for the administration to get concessions and to make progress in areas that, but for the possible effect of sanctions or other activities that the Congress might impose, the President working directly with the other country with singular decisionmaking authority can achieve results that we simply could not obtain if we were reliant solely upon the actions of the Congress of the United States. So I am pleased to be supportive of this legislation. I think that food is the right place to draw the line in the near term. I support the amendment that will be offered by my distinguished colleague from Virginia, and I believe the Senator from Connecticut, with respect to adding medicine to that list--I think that is an appropriate addition. Next week, we will begin to consider, in a more comprehensive fashion, the kinds of authority that we ought to provide to the Chief Executive of the United States, whatever party he or she might be in at any given time, the authority to negotiate directly with foreign governments and not have the prospect of having to then bring whatever negotiation that took place back to the Congress, where it might be amended or changed. With that, again, I salute those who were involved. I thank Senator Brownback for making a very exhaustive 96-hour trip to visit those two countries and to get directly engaged in some of the problems that confront us. I thank all of our colleagues for the effort they have put into trying to find an equitable solution to a very serious problem confronting not only the United States and the South Asian Continent, but the international community and sanctions that we might employ in the future have the kind of effects that we may not have intended them to take. With that, I yield back whatever time I may have and I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, very briefly, every single Member of this Chamber understands that eventually we will have to have the intestinal fortitude to reduce infrastructure if we are going to support force structure. This amendment moves us in precisely the opposite direction. If we don't have the fortitude to make those choices, let's at least let our commanders have the flexibility so they can make the choices for us in the interim. Mr. President, virtually every Member of this body knows that another one or two rounds of base closures will not only save money, but will save billions. But many in the Congress have concluded unequivocally that preserving jobs and infrastructure in their states and districts is more important than military readiness and modernization. Some are in fact determined to punish the Administration for its actions related to privatization-in-place at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. But who is being punished? We punish the nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. We punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines whose readiness depends on adequate funding for equipment, training and operations. 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 amendment before us takes our parochialism and so-called punishment of the Administration even further. The amendment seeks to make it even more difficult for DoD to shift personnel among bases, to allocate resources as efficiently as possible, to align our infrastructure in the best manner for supporting the warfighter. Rather, this amendment represents a flagrant attempt to frustrate the legitimate efforts of our service leaders to reduce and realign their personnel and facilities to meet changing security requirements and save money. The standards for allowable realignment and adjustment of people and facilities are already significantly limiting for the services. Greater limits on service authority to adjust its infrastructure, reassign individuals and units, move forces and capabilities to where they are needed when they are needed--does nothing but harm national security. I urge my colleagues to reverse this insidious trend of raw parochialism, of protecting jobs and land and buildings at the expense of our nation's security. With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, the Senator from Alaska. I simply remind our fellow Senators that the force structure and end strength of our armed services have been cut 30 percent in recent years. Our overseas commitments have increased significantly. Our funding for procurement is down 70 percent. If we are going to support the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who protect this country, we need to make certain that we provide for the kinds of priorities that will support them. And I join my friend from Arizona in being a scold on this particular issue. I know it is popular, but we are not doing enough to provide the kind of support that we need for our services today. This is popular, but it is not the right kind of priority. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. ROBB. If the Senator from Alaska would be kind enough to yield me 30 seconds.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank you. I understand the concerns that have been expressed by our colleague from Indiana and that undoubtedly underlie the concerns expressed by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I, too, had occasion recently to visit the marines who were training in Parris Island. And I talked with the women marines who were completing their training, completing the crucible. I do not think there was a more inspiring experience that I have had in recent years than being with them at the first light in the morning as they marched out with their separate training under those circumstances. As a former marine, I could not have been prouder. And I do not want to see us do anything to attempt to change either the culture or the success of the training program that the Marines engage in. But I do not want to see us change the culture or the success of the Army program or the Navy program or the Air Force program at this point either. I also had occasion to visit Fort Jackson and talked to the young women and young men who were undergoing training at both Fort Jackson and at Parris Island. I talked to the drill sergeants and the drill instructors. And neither program is entirely without some challenges, and indeed there was a significant challenge at Fort Jackson with respect to separation. That has been addressed by the Secretary of Defense. And many of the recommendations that were made by the Kassebaum-Baker commission were good and have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. But the bottom line is, we established a commission, as mentioned by Senator Kempthorne, to review those recommendations. I personally believe at this point, although I was skeptical at the outset, that I would prefer to see us take a step back and let the services make these determinations. But at the very least, I do not want to see us prematurely require the services to make changes that the service chiefs, the senior enlisted members of those services do not believe are in their best interests. And the kind of training and esprit which was clearly evident at Parris Island, but also evident at Fort Jackson, and in talking to the young women in training, as well as the drill sergeants--they liked the kind of training that they were engaged in. They thought it was successful. I hope that this Senate will consider the amendment that we dealt with last night by Senator Snowe from Maine. I think we made the right decision on that occasion. I hope this evening it will be the pleasure of the Senate not to pass this particular amendment, and allow our commission to make their report. Then we can take the actions that are appropriate under the circumstances. With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report, but let me say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia and others that I appreciate the bipartisan effort and spirit that has gone into it in an attempt to formulate a bill that could receive bipartisan support. Indeed, it is evident on the floor today that it has some bipartisan support and will pass by a significant margin. Let me say also, I agree with the concerns mentioned by the Senator from Florida with respect to some changes that took place in the conference. The Senator from Florida and I served as Governors of our respective States in the early eighties, along with the current President, the current Secretary of Education and others, and all of us had education as the very top priority in terms of things that we were doing. Let me say with respect to this bill, though, it is, again, about priorities. It is not that this bill does bad things. I continue to support many of the things, and certainly encouraging parents to save for education, but if you only have $1.6 billion to spend in terms of the Federal participation, it seems to me it makes more sense than to spend it on a tax cut that would be about $7 per family to those who are in the public schools and $37 a family in private schools, to spend it where it is most needed. If 90 percent of our public schools are either in need of repair or overcrowded, we ought to spend that money in terms of building or repairing schools. We ought to spend that money to hire more teachers, and if technology is as important in the world economy today as we know it to be--indeed, as we speak, the World Congress on Information Technology is concluding just across the river with nations throughout the world that are here to discuss information technology--we ought to be spending the money to try to assist schools in connecting to that information technology that is going to be so critical to their future. I believe if we want to continue to support public education, which I believe is our principal responsibility, then we ought to spend it on those most critical needs, notwithstanding the fact that this bill, as it currently exists, does some good things for education, but it doesn't do the kind of things that, if we only have $1.6 billion to spend, I believe we ought to do. With that, Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the distinguished Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes off time chargeable to the minority leader.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in 25 seconds let me thank the Senator from Idaho. I agree with the points he has made. I have visited the training in Fort Jackson and Parris Island and examined these specific issues. I have asked for some reports from the GAO. That is coming in. But we established the commission to give us specific information to help make these decisions. I think the Senator from Maine has adopted the approach that makes sense. Let's wait for the commission to make its report and act on the basis of that information. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.