Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in these last few weeks of this Congress, there is much to be done. I would like to focus this morning on our constitutional responsibility to confirm judges. Virginia is one of the five states covered by the Fourth Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Today, one third of the seats on the Fourth Circuit are vacant. One seat on the bench has been vacant for ten years--longer than any other seat in the country. The U.S. Judicial Conference has called filling that seat a ``judicial emergency,'' and Chief Justice William Rehnquist has warned that ``vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been associated with the federal judiciary.'' One reason for the high number of vacancies on the Fourth Circuit is the claim that the appellate court doesn't need any more judges. Those who oppose filling the vacancies argue that having more judges will make decision-making more cumbersome and difficult, and that keeping the number small leads to more efficient deliberations. The problem with this argument is that it substitutes ``efficiency'' for ``justice'' in our judicial system. Certainly it would be more efficient to have criminal cases decided by one juror instead of twelve, but our Founding Fathers wisely determined that a variety of views in the jury room would be more likely to yield a result that was ``right,'' and ``fair''. It's the same reason our Supreme Court is made up of nine jurists, instead of one. And it is difficult to believe that justice is being served fully in a circuit that hears oral argument on only 23 percent of its cases--the lowest percentage of any other circuit--and dismisses 87 percent of its appeals in brief, unsigned opinions according to the Washington Post. While efficiency is laudable, justice is the goal. On June 30, 2000, the President nominated Roger Gregory to fill the vacancy on the Fourth Circuit that has been open for a decade. Roger Gregory is a highly qualified and well respected attorney from Richmond, Virginia. He graduated summa cum laude from Virginia State University and received his J.D. from the University of Michigan. He has an extensive federal practice, is an accomplished attorney, and was described by Commonwealth Magazine as one of Virginia's ``Top 25 Best and Brightest.'' When he is confirmed, Roger Gregory will fill the longest-standing vacancy in the nation. He will bring energy and insight to the Fourth Circuit. In addition, as an African-American, he will bring much-needed diversity to the bench. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals does not look like America, and it never has. No African-American has ever served on the Fourth Circuit. In fact, it is the only circuit court in the nation without minority representation. This should trouble all of us. Justice cannot be served without a diversity of views and experiences expressed in the rooms where decisions are made. As the Supreme Court noted when it barred discrimination in the selection of juries, the exclusion of minorities or women from the deliberative process removes ``qualities of human nature and varieties of human experience, the range of which is unknown or perhaps unknowable.'' The absence of minority representation on the Fourth Circuit is especially troubling, however, since the Fourth Circuit has the largest percentage of African-Americans of any circuit in the nation. In our circuit, twenty-three percent of our population is African-American. Yet not one of the judges on the Fourth Circuit is African-American. Mr. President, it's time for a change. In fact, it's past time. There have been several efforts in the past to integrate this circuit, but these efforts have been blocked. The Administration has tried since 1995 to integrate this circuit, but the ``blue slips'' for these nominees simply weren't returned, effectively thwarting those nominees. I have argued for years that Virginia deserves another seat on the bench. Finally late last fall, we in Virginia were given an opportunity to fill one of the vacancies. We seized the opportunity and after an extensive and thorough search and vetting process--including time- consuming ABA screenings and FBI background checks--Roger Gregory was nominated by the Administration. We now have a chance to correct this gross inequity on the Fourth Circuit. Roger Gregory has the support of both Senators from Virginia. There is time to move this nominee. Immediately before we began our August recess, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing and three judges were voted out of the Committee just six days after they were nominated. Of the last 12 judges confirmed by the Senate, 11 were confirmed within three months of nomination. In 1992, another presidential election year in which the White House was controlled by one party and the Senate by another, Senate Democrats confirmed 66 nominees to the federal bench. Eleven of those were Circuit Court judges, and six of the Circuit Court judges were confirmed later than July of that year. Three were confirmed in August, two in September, and one in October. And presidential candidate George W. Bush has called on the Senate to approve judicial nominees within 60 days. The sixty days for Roger Gregory passed on August 30. It is time to grant Mr. Gregory the courtesy of a hearing. The late, renowned Judge Spotswood Robinson integrated the D.C. Circuit in 1966. He, too, came from Richmond, Virginia. It is time for another Richmonder, Roger Gregory, to break another barrier. We have already waited too long. I urge the Judiciary Committee to move the nomination of Roger Gregory, and grant him a hearing. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today simply allows for a land exchange between the National Park Service and the Central Intelligence Agency. This exchange will enable the CIA to address security issues at the entrance to their complex, while preserving access to the Federal highway Administration's Turner- Fairbanks Highway Research Center. The exchange is currently the subject of an Interagency Agreement between the National Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway, and the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a simple exchange that I am sure can be acted on in short order. I ask unanimous consent that the bill in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new legislative proposal to help level the playing field for small businesses that try to provide health insurance for their employees and make health insurance more affordable for all Americans. While our economy is the strongest it's ever been, the number of uninsured Americans has gone from 32 million in 1987 to more than 44 million today. And that number is rising. While our nation continues to forge ahead in improving the world's greatest health care system, we face the increasing problem of having a significant percentage of our population that has no way to access it. One of the largest sectors of the uninsured is employees who work for small businesses. While small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, they also face some of the greatest challenges--particularly when it comes to providing health benefits for their employees. While the number of uninsured among employees who work for companies with more than 500 people is 1 in 8, that number soars among companies with fewer than 25 employees--to 1 in 3. This is because large employers can spread the costs of providing health insurance among their multitude of employees, while smaller companies have a much more difficult task. We need to help small business owners--and the employees who work for them--better afford quality health insurance. Today, I propose that we lend a hand to the hardworking small businessmen and women of America, and their employees, to help them erase the gap in coverage between large and small businesses. The legislation I am introducing--the Health Insurance Equity Act--will give small businesses with less than 50 employees a 20% tax credit toward the cost of buying health insurance for their employees. To encourage small businesses to pool together and take advantage of the same benefits that their larger counterparts have, the credit will increase to 25% if the businesses join new ``qualified health benefit purchasing coalitions'' that can help them easily administer their new health plans and negotiate better rates with insurers. In addition, this legislation makes a change in the tax code to ensure that these new coalitions can enjoy the full benefit of charitable contributions from private foundations. While some private foundations have indicated that they are willing to help fund some of the start-up costs of health purchasing coalitions, current law does not specify that these sorts of contributions would qualify as a charitable donation. For this reason, private foundations have been reluctant to make grants or loans to these coalitions. The bill I am introducing today will clarify that aid to qualified health benefit purchasing coalitions are entirely tax-deductible, which can help encourage private foundations and other interested parties to help the coalitions with their important duties. By helping people get better access to basic health insurance--before they get very sick--we can save money for both hospital and patient, while helping millions of Americans live more healthy lifestyles. With that Mr. President, I send my legislation to the desk, and ask that it be appropriately referred. I also ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last month, the Finance Committee reported a bill by voice vote to provide treatment for low-income women identified as having breast or cervical cancer through a federal screening program. I rise today to urge the Senate to expeditiously take up and pass this legislation. In 1990, the Senate unanimously approved establishment of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, a CDC program which has expanded screening for these diseases to over one million women. Unfortunately, after receiving diagnosis, many of these women find themselves without health insurance and with no one to turn to for treatment. This is unconscionable--it's time to finish the job. Earlier this summer, I hosted women's health forums in Virginia to discuss with women health concerns of priority. Breast and cervical cancer survivors asked me to come to you and my distinguished colleagues and urge your support for swift passage of this legislation. I was pleased to support the bill in Committee, and I am happy to echo their words to you. 73 Senators have cosponsored this proposal and the House of Representatives, in May, passed companion legislation with overwhelming support. Mr. President, on behalf of all women, I urge the Senate to take up and pass this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am supporting the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act with a very mixed sense of frustrated resignation and expectant hope for the way we are resourcing our national defense. A major source of frustration this year is that we will have missed yet another opportunity through the decision made in the budget process to meet our new, growing or neglected national security requirements. We should have been able to fix our military medical health care system and keep our promise of health care to thousands of military retirees who feel they have been cheated by the nation. We should have been able to raise the pay of our service members to bring it more in line with the private sector faster. We should have been able to fund our dangerous ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs. We should have been able to lay the foundation for increasing our ship construction rate to ensure we keep our 300-ship Navy strong and ready. We should have been able to increase our funding of basic science and technology to set the conditions for the rapid development of the next generations of ships, aircraft, and land combat forces. It is a source of continuing disappointment to me that there is still too much parochial, pork-barrel spending in the defense appropriation process. Last year, the Defense Appropriations bill was so overburdened with pork, I voted against it in protest. Increasing defense spending, so necessary to the demands of our national security today and into the future, will not improve our military capability and readiness if money is funneled into projects that serve parochial interests, not the national interest. My views on the need to increase defense spending and my objections to pork-barrel spending are well known and I regret the missed opportunity this appropriation represents. Yet, having said that, there are many elements of this defense appropriations act that are critically important and which I fully support. This appropriation continues the trend and our commitment in the Congress to increase spending for our national defense--$15 billion above last year's appropriation and $3.3 billion above the President's request. Most importantly, it does more to take care of our most important national security resource--people. This appropriation increases pay for our service men and women by 3.7 percent, increases housing allowances for military families, increases quality of life enhancements, and increases enlistment and retention bonuses to deal with critical challenges in personnel. This appropriation supports important ship construction and maintenance requirements to keep our Navy strong and ready. It provides full funding, $4.1 billion, for our next aircraft carrier CVN-77 and $1.7 billion for procurement of a third Virginia Class for New Attack submarines. Very importantly, this appropriation increases the President's request for ship depot maintenance by $142 million, and appropriately makes these funds immediately available to the Navy as a matter of emergency to deal with a critical ship repair backlog. We need to take a lesson from this session's consideration of how Congress provides for the common defense. We need to take advantage of historic budget surpluses to objectively and aggressively deal with the challenges of defending America's interests in a still very dangerous world. We need take advantage of a political and popular willingness to invest in today's and tomorrow's security and ensure that we fully resource our armed force's requirements for a good quality of life, training, equipment, maintenance, and modernization. Finally, Mr. President, we need to take advantage of an opportunity to keep our promise of health care to the thousands of military retirees who gave the best years of their lives to the defense of this nation. I regret we missed this opportunity, but on balance, this bill satisfies many of our national security requirements, and merits support.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000, which is designed to strengthen and revitalize low and moderate income communities across America. Because we made some tough choices to balance our budget, we have the first federal surplus since Lyndon Johnson was President. And now is the time to give some back, particularly to those who have missed out on so much of our economic prosperity. This legislation would pump new capital into our nation's inner cities and isolated rural communities-- areas that have had a difficult time building up from within. The legislation contains three ``New Markets'' initiatives designed to attract and expand new capital into low to moderate income areas. First, a New Markets Tax Credit would infuse $15 billion in investments over the next 7 years through a 30 percent tax credit for businesses who provide capital to lower income communities. Secondly, the bill authorizes the designation of America's Private Investment Companies (APIC's) which would receive federal matching funds for private investments made in lower income areas. This provision would allow $1 billion in federal low-cost loans to match $500 million in private investment. Thirdly, the bill would create a new class of venture capital funds to assist with the operation and administration of ongoing businesses in lower income areas, who have growth potential, so they can continue to expand. The bill also requires mandatory funding for Round II Empowerment Zones (EZ's) and Enterprise Communities (EC's) and creates a new set of Round III EZ's. Mr. President, the mandatory funding of Round II Empowerment Zones is critically important to the citizens of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. The Federal Government made a commitment to these two communities--they need and deserve the funding--and I am determined to get the check in the mail to them. With this legislation, the Norfolk- Portsmouth Empowerment Zone would be guaranteed the remaining $94 million it was promised when it competed for the Empowerment Zone designation. The legislation I'm introducing today also creates 40 Renewal Communities--which reflect the agreement between President Clinton and Speaker Hastert--along with a host of tax provisions to expand and revitalize housing. Very important to my home state of Virginia, this bill contains legislation I introduced earlier this year (S. 2445) to assist communities affected by job loss due to trade. The Assistance in Development for Communities Act (AID for Communities Act) both assists communities in developing a plan to retool their economies and offers financial assistance and tax incentives to help communities implement those plans. Mr. President, the AID for Communities Act is immensely important to the people of Martinsville, Virginia--who have suffered economic devastation from the recent closing of a Tultex plant. This bill would give the citizens of Martinsville the urgent assistance they need to strengthen their economy and create a more vibrant future for all who live there. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation includes two new initiatives to help religious and other community organizations better participate in federal grant programs. Specifically, it requires the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to provide assistance in a manner similar to HUD's Office of Community and Faith-Based Organizations to assist faith-based and community organizations in applying for federal grant funds to provide substance abuse treatment. It would also require the IRS to provide guidance and make information available to assist religious and community organizations in establishing tax-exempt entities that can be used to operate social services. Many of these organizations are unfamiliar with the process necessary to set up a tax-exempt organization and are, therefore, unable to participate in federal grant programs. This provision would provide them with the necessary information and assistance. Mr. President, the ``Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000'' will spur economic growth in low to moderate income communities across our nation. As such, it will improve the lives of countless Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000, which is designed to strengthen and revitalize low and moderate income communities across America. Because we made some tough choices to balance our budget, we have the first federal surplus since Lyndon Johnson was President. And now is the time to give some back, particularly to those who have missed out on so much of our economic prosperity. This legislation would pump new capital into our nation's inner cities and isolated rural communities-- areas that have had a difficult time building up from within. The legislation contains three ``New Markets'' initiatives designed to attract and expand new capital into low to moderate income areas. First, a New Markets Tax Credit would infuse $15 billion in investments over the next 7 years through a 30 percent tax credit for businesses who provide capital to lower income communities. Secondly, the bill authorizes the designation of America's Private Investment Companies (APIC's) which would receive federal matching funds for private investments made in lower income areas. This provision would allow $1 billion in federal low-cost loans to match $500 million in private investment. Thirdly, the bill would create a new class of venture capital funds to assist with the operation and administration of ongoing businesses in lower income areas, who have growth potential, so they can continue to expand. The bill also requires mandatory funding for Round II Empowerment Zones (EZ's) and Enterprise Communities (EC's) and creates a new set of Round III EZ's. Mr. President, the mandatory funding of Round II Empowerment Zones is critically important to the citizens of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. The Federal Government made a commitment to these two communities--they need and deserve the funding--and I am determined to get the check in the mail to them. With this legislation, the Norfolk- Portsmouth Empowerment Zone would be guaranteed the remaining $94 million it was promised when it competed for the Empowerment Zone designation. The legislation I'm introducing today also creates 40 Renewal Communities--which reflect the agreement between President Clinton and Speaker Hastert--along with a host of tax provisions to expand and revitalize housing. Very important to my home state of Virginia, this bill contains legislation I introduced earlier this year (S. 2445) to assist communities affected by job loss due to trade. The Assistance in Development for Communities Act (AID for Communities Act) both assists communities in developing a plan to retool their economies and offers financial assistance and tax incentives to help communities implement those plans. Mr. President, the AID for Communities Act is immensely important to the people of Martinsville, Virginia--who have suffered economic devastation from the recent closing of a Tultex plant. This bill would give the citizens of Martinsville the urgent assistance they need to strengthen their economy and create a more vibrant future for all who live there. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation includes two new initiatives to help religious and other community organizations better participate in federal grant programs. Specifically, it requires the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to provide assistance in a manner similar to HUD's Office of Community and Faith-Based Organizations to assist faith-based and community organizations in applying for federal grant funds to provide substance abuse treatment. It would also require the IRS to provide guidance and make information available to assist religious and community organizations in establishing tax-exempt entities that can be used to operate social services. Many of these organizations are unfamiliar with the process necessary to set up a tax-exempt organization and are, therefore, unable to participate in federal grant programs. This provision would provide them with the necessary information and assistance. Mr. President, the ``Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000'' will spur economic growth in low to moderate income communities across our nation. As such, it will improve the lives of countless Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I want to join my senior colleague today in introducing legislation that will establish a Federal commission to commemorate the founding of the English colony at Jamestown nearly 400 years ago. Jamestown, the first permanent English Colony in the new world, holds enormous significance for us as a nation. We are an English speaking nation and our laws are based on English law. The history of Jamestown is the earliest history of the United States, and our culture still reflects those beginnings. Jamestown was the capitol of Virginia for 92 years and was the center of cultural activity for the new colony. The celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown is important to Virginia, and the Nation. In order to ensure that the celebration be conducted in a way that all Americans can appreciate and share in the history of Jamestown, we propose to establish a federal commission that will assist in developing federal activities that will complement those programs and activities undertaken by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently the Commonwealth of Virginia and the federal government, through the Department of Interior, work together at Jamestown to tell the story of the early colonial times. The commission will provide additional assistance, and coordination and will provide support for the scholarly research that is ongoing at the Jamestown site. The commission can help ensure that the celebration of our earliest history is accessible to a broad range of Americans, and not just those in the immediate vicinity of the original colony. The authority for the Commission will terminate one year after the Jamestown celebration in 2007 and after completing a report on its activities. The report will not only tell the story of the Jamestown celebration, but will provide guideposts and information for national celebrations in the future. Having an end to the commission's work will ensure that the organization will not outlive its usefulness. The planning for this wonderful celebration has already begun, and so I ask for quick consideration of this legislation so that we can move forward together.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act of 2000 with Senators Grassley, Daschle and Collins. This important legislation will correct several imperfections in our Tax Code that unfairly tax the victims of civil rights violations at a time when they are most vulnerable. I'm pleased that it accomplishes this in a fashion that has bi-partisan Congressional support and has been endorsed by civil rights organizations as well as the business community. The Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act contains several provisions. The first section excludes emotional distress awards received in discrimination cases from the gross income of the recipient. Due to a change in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, damages received for emotional distress in civil rights cases are taxable, while those received in slip and fall accidents are not. There is no defensible reason for this disparity and it must be changed. The bill would also allow employees who receive lump sum awards for back wages for civil rights violations by their employers to take advantage of income averaging. Currently, if an employee receives a large award it will generally push that person into a higher income bracket for that year due to the income spike from the damages. The result is that the victim may be taxed at a higher rate than they would if they had received the income as wages in the normal course of business. This is the wrong tax treatment and should be corrected. Finally, this legislation ends the double taxation on attorney's fees that are awarded to a victim in a discrimination case. Mr. President, even though the attorney ultimately gets the fees, not the victim, present law not only taxes the attorney on the fees that they receive when they take them into income, but also requires that the victim include them in computing their gross income. Even though they are supposed to be able to take a corresponding deduction, due to limitations on miscellaneous deductions and the alternative minimum tax, in most cases the victims cannot get the entire amount. This is not fair and cannot be the intended effect. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from Iowa in getting this bill signed into law. It is time to bring our Tax Code into the 21st Century. We must implement tax policies that help to eradicate discrimination.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I want to join my senior colleague today in introducing legislation that will establish a Federal commission to commemorate the founding of the English colony at Jamestown nearly 400 years ago. Jamestown, the first permanent English Colony in the new world, holds enormous significance for us as a nation. We are an English speaking nation and our laws are based on English law. The history of Jamestown is the earliest history of the United States, and our culture still reflects those beginnings. Jamestown was the capitol of Virginia for 92 years and was the center of cultural activity for the new colony. The celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown is important to Virginia, and the Nation. In order to ensure that the celebration be conducted in a way that all Americans can appreciate and share in the history of Jamestown, we propose to establish a federal commission that will assist in developing federal activities that will complement those programs and activities undertaken by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently the Commonwealth of Virginia and the federal government, through the Department of Interior, work together at Jamestown to tell the story of the early colonial times. The commission will provide additional assistance, and coordination and will provide support for the scholarly research that is ongoing at the Jamestown site. The commission can help ensure that the celebration of our earliest history is accessible to a broad range of Americans, and not just those in the immediate vicinity of the original colony. The authority for the Commission will terminate one year after the Jamestown celebration in 2007 and after completing a report on its activities. The report will not only tell the story of the Jamestown celebration, but will provide guideposts and information for national celebrations in the future. Having an end to the commission's work will ensure that the organization will not outlive its usefulness. The planning for this wonderful celebration has already begun, and so I ask for quick consideration of this legislation so that we can move forward together.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, recognizing this is the last rollcall vote of the evening, I will not take the time of this Chamber. It is a very simple amendment. A majority of this body has already gone on record saying that we will make certain we pass a prescription drug benefit for seniors before we pass all of these other tax cuts. We passed a major tax cut on Friday. We are proposing to pass tomorrow morning another major tax cut. All this amendment says is, before these tax cuts go into effect, we will have actually delivered on the promise to provide a prescription drug benefit. I hope it will be the pleasure of this Senate to adopt this amendment and keep the faith with our seniors.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment that I submitted on Friday to the marriage penalty bill, which the Senate will take up and vote on later today. My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Graham and Bryan, follows up on a similar proposal I offered in April to the Senate budget resolution that would have required Congress to enact a new Medicare prescription drug benefit before considering any massive tax cuts. While a procedural hurdle prevented that amendment from passing, fifty-one senators voted to waive a budget point of order, indicating they favored it, and sending the American people a strong signal that a majority of the U.S. Senate thought we should put the needs of our nation's seniors before excessive tax cuts. The majority, however, has moved in the opposite direction since then. This past Friday, we passed a large tax bill that would phase out the tax on the estates of those seniors who die, but did nothing to provide needed prescription drugs that can preserve the lives of those seniors who are living. Because I had cosponsored earlier legislation to ease the estate tax burden in order to preserve family farms and small businesses, I voted for this bill. Even though all of our Democratic amendments were defeated--and look forward to crafting more equitable legislation to address these same concerns after the President vetoes the bill we passed Friday. The bill before the Senate now, however, is very different. Under the guise of eliminating the ``marriage penalty,'' the majority has brought a bill to the floor that would devote over half of its benefits to people who either aren't married, or who are actually receiving right now a tax benefit, or ``bonus,'' for being married. As I have stated previously, Mr. President, this takes a lot of chutzpah. Mr. President, I believe we ought to eliminate the marriage penalty for those who actually suffer the marriage penalty and need the relief most. With all the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about eliminating the marriage penalty, one might think that they'd share my view, and want to pass a bill that would actually focus on the penalty. But a closer examination of the Republican bill reveals that it isn't quite what it's described to be. Mr. President, there are in fact 65 provisions in the current tax code that contain a marriage penalty, including Social Security. The bill reported from the Finance Committee on a straight party-line vote takes care of one marriage penalty provision completely and two others partially, and leaves the other 62 marriage penalties untouched. The Democratic bill addresses all 65 provisions, and takes care of the entire penalty for almost everyone. Mr. President, it's time that we set our priorities straight. We ought not to be devoting billions of dollars of the surplus to individuals who currently suffer no marriage penalty whatever when we've done nothing to help those that suffer from the ``senior citizens' drug penalty''--the high prices our nation's seniors are forced to pay for prescription drugs. The amendment that I've offered would force Congress to address these priorities. It simply says that the tax bill before the Senate today won't take effect until Congress has also fulfilled its responsibility to enact a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit. My amendment won't prevent Congress from enacting marriage penalty relief this year, nor will it keep a single married couple from enjoying the tax benefits in this bill. What it will do is ensure that we don't backtrack from the Senate's vote to enact a prescription drug benefit before we do major tax cuts. Let me say, Mr. President, that this isn't just rhetoric. The problems faced by our nation's seniors in affording prescription drugs are immediate and real. I'd like to remind the Senate of a story I heard from a physician in my state recently about a patient who was splitting her doses of Tamoxifin--a breast cancer drug--with two of her friends who also had breast cancer, but couldn't afford the medication. As a result, all three women had inadequate doses of the medication. Or consider the story of a disabled father of three from Pennington Gap, Virginia, who broke his neck several years ago, and went from making $50,000 a year to $800 a month in disability benefits. While he qualifies for Medicare, he's forced to choose each month between spending nearly half of his disability benefit on prescription drugs, or helping out his family, because Medicare offers no coverage for his medications. These Virginians are not alone in their troubles. The average Medicare beneficiary will spend $1100 on prescription drugs this year. Most of them won't have adequate prescription drug coverage to help them cover these crushing costs. And the numbers of those that do have coverage are dropping rapidly. Despite the suggestions of some of my colleagues, this problem isn't limited solely to the poor. One in four Medicare beneficiaries with a high income--defined as $45,000 a year for a couple--has no coverage for prescription drugs. And while some seniors do have coverage, nearly half of them lack coverage for the entire year, making them extremely vulnerable to catastrophic drug costs. Complicating this matter for the elderly is the ``senior citizens' drug penalty'' that seniors without drug coverage are forced to pay. Most working Americans who are insured through the private sector pay less than the full retail price for prescription drugs. This is because insurers generally contract with private sector entities that negotiate better prices for drugs, and pass on the power of group purchasing to their customers. Seniors lack this option, however, and must still pay full price for their drugs. One recent study showed that seniors without drug coverage typically pay 15 percent more than people with coverage. And the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries without drug coverage who report not being able to afford a needed drug is about 5 times higher than those with coverage. This ``senior citizens' drug penalty,'' in my view, is unconscionable. Senior citizens are more reliant on drugs, and have higher drug costs, than any other segment of the population. They deserve to have the same bargaining power that benefits other Americans. Mr. President, in April, the other side spoke against my budget amendment, claiming that there was already adequate language in the Republican budget resolution to ensure that we pass a prescription drug benefit this year. At the time, they pointed to the $40 billion reserve fund which was included in the budget resolution that the Committee had reported, arguing that this would provide ample money to enact a prescription drug benefit and offer tax relief. Republicans asked, in essence, that we trust them that the Senate won't put tax cuts before our nation's seniors. Let me say that I do trust my good friends on the other side of the aisle. But to borrow a line from Ronald Reagan, I believe we should trust--but verify. That requires deeds as well as words. Mr. President, our nation's seniors deserve better than this. In April, at least fifty-one senators felt the same way. I urge every one of them, as well as senators who opposed my amendment then because they thought the $40 billion reserve fund would guarantee a prescription drug benefit, to support my amendment now. With its passage, we'll be able to eliminate both the true ``marriage penalty'' and the ``senior citizens' drug penalty.'' With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic side be permitted to reclaim the 15 minutes accorded to the other side of the aisle earlier today so that I may speak at this particular moment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I supported final passage of the Death Tax Elimination Act. I'm a cosponsor of similar legislation, and I've long believed that simply dying shouldn't be a taxable event. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but they don't have to be simultaneous. Because we've been willing to make some tough decisions over the last seven years, we now have the first budget surplus we've seen in this nation in a generation. We need to continue making those tough decisions. We need to keep the prosperity going by investing in our schools and roads and paying down the debt. We need to strengthen Social Security and modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. We need to bolster our nation's defenses, which includes improving the quality of life for those who now serve in our military and honoring our commitment to provide health care for life for those who've already served. And we need to provide targeted tax relief. To address these many needs, we in Congress ought to establish our priorities first. I continue to believe that before we enact massive untargeted tax cuts, we should make sure that Social Security is strong and that Medicare contains a prescription drug benefit. I voted today to phase out the estate tax because I'm committed to making sure that no one loses their farm or their small business because of the way we tax gifts and estates. We know this legislation we passed today will be vetoed. Once the bill is vetoed, I hope we can come to the table in a bipartisan way to address a few of our more pressing national priorities and construct a fair way to protect family farms and small businesses from having to be broken up or sold just to pay estate taxes.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that will protect one of the most beautiful areas of Virginia. Today, with my colleague John Warner, I am introducing the Virginia Wilderness Act of 2000. This Act will provide wilderness status to two exceptional areas of Virginia. These areas, the ``Three Ridges'' and ``The Priest'' have long been recognized for their outstanding vistas, deep valleys and rugged beauty. After receiving wilderness designation these areas will remain available for hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, and other traditional uses. Wilderness protections will ensure that ``The Three Ridges'' and ``The Priest'' remain available for the full enjoyment of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This action is now fully supported by the Virginia delegation, and the communities closest to the proposed wilderness areas. I hope we will see quick action on this bill through the committee and that we can move it to floor and complete action on the bill this year. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that will protect one of the most beautiful areas of Virginia. Today, with my colleague John Warner, I am introducing the Virginia Wilderness Act of 2000. This Act will provide wilderness status to two exceptional areas of Virginia. These areas, the ``Three Ridges'' and ``The Priest'' have long been recognized for their outstanding vistas, deep valleys and rugged beauty. After receiving wilderness designation these areas will remain available for hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, and other traditional uses. Wilderness protections will ensure that ``The Three Ridges'' and ``The Priest'' remain available for the full enjoyment of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This action is now fully supported by the Virginia delegation, and the communities closest to the proposed wilderness areas. I hope we will see quick action on this bill through the committee and that we can move it to floor and complete action on the bill this year. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, all time now having expired, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment would decrease Social Security surpluses and therefore violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, all time having been yielded back on this particular amendment, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment would decrease Social Security surpluses.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his words. I regret to say that I rise in opposition to the new markets initiative as it is currently structured. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. With additional work, we can find common ground. It is critically important that we pass a new markets initiative. My staff has been working for some time with several other offices on a bill that reflects the compromise the President and the Speaker entered into. This bill is going to be dropped next week, and I welcome input from all offices on both sides of the aisle. This is complicated tax policy, and it ought to go through the Finance Committee. We ought to have a hearing. In the House, the Committee on Ways and Means is working a bill to mark up, and we ought to be doing the same thing. I regret that the characterization of this bill is one that I cannot agree with at this particular moment. It seems to me it adds too much to the renewal communities at the expense of the already established empowerment zones. Most importantly, the legislation as it is currently drafted would allow every recipient of Federal grant funds to discriminate against those they hire based on the applicant's religion. This Chamber has fought for the last 40 years to eliminate discrimination. I simply cannot support legislation that turns back the clock. With that, I yield such time as I have remaining to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will speak for a minute--the time remaining allocated to the Senator from Florida--in support of his amendment. The resources that were allocated to the Budget Committee were simply insufficient to deal with the problem of providing adequate prescription drug coverage under Medicare. This particular amendment will make it possible to provide adequate, affordable, available prescription drug coverage to our seniors. We cannot do it under the constraints of the current amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee has offered a good faith effort to try to resolve that problem but is constrained by taking away from Part A and Part B, causing beneficiaries to have to make a choice. They should not have to make that choice. They should not have to make the choice between food and medicine. This will give us an opportunity to solve a problem that is long overdue. With the robust condition of the economy, we finally have an opportunity to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I apologize. I thought the Senator from Pennsylvania had completed his presentation. I will withhold until he has completed his presentation.

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have visited the Carver Neighborhood of Richmond in my state. This neighborhood is a low-income community that thanks to collaborative efforts among the community, city, and federal government, has seen a tremendous decrease in crime, helping to spur a major community revitalization. We've seen this trend more and more in cities and communities across America. Much has been accomplished in our efforts to revitalize our communities--but more needs to be done. We should build on our past successes and focus our resources on keeping our children safe and our neighborhoods free of fear. We should take what we know works and apply it in our fight against illegal drugs. It is in this spirit, Mr. President, that I rise to introduce the Community Oriented Policing Services Against Drugs Act. As part of our continuing battle against the proliferation of drugs in our nation's communities, my bill seeks to provide $500 million over five years in federal funds from the COPS Program to state and local law enforcement authorities across the country to eliminate or reduce drug crime in America. We know the COPS Program works, and I'm proud to have expanded it to provide our schools with more than 2,600 police officers to combat school violence. Specifically, this new program will provide federal funds to hire 1,950 more police officers to enhance existing community policing initiatives throughout approximately 65 cities across the country. Newly hired police officers will be charged with developing and implementing community policing initiatives to combat the production, manufacture, distribution, importation, or use of illegal drugs in our communities. There are dozens of cities across the country, such as Richmond, Norfolk, and Williamsburg in my state, that are committed to providing a safe environment for citizens to live, work and raise a family but need additional resources to help eliminate drug trafficking and drug- related crime, including violent crime. This legislation will build upon the successful COPS Program and focus an aspect of its community policing initiatives against the scourge of illegal drugs in our neighborhoods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have visited the Carver Neighborhood of Richmond in my state. This neighborhood is a low-income community that thanks to collaborative efforts among the community, city, and federal government, has seen a tremendous decrease in crime, helping to spur a major community revitalization. We've seen this trend more and more in cities and communities across America. Much has been accomplished in our efforts to revitalize our communities--but more needs to be done. We should build on our past successes and focus our resources on keeping our children safe and our neighborhoods free of fear. We should take what we know works and apply it in our fight against illegal drugs. It is in this spirit, Mr. President, that I rise to introduce the Community Oriented Policing Services Against Drugs Act. As part of our continuing battle against the proliferation of drugs in our nation's communities, my bill seeks to provide $500 million over five years in federal funds from the COPS Program to state and local law enforcement authorities across the country to eliminate or reduce drug crime in America. We know the COPS Program works, and I'm proud to have expanded it to provide our schools with more than 2,600 police officers to combat school violence. Specifically, this new program will provide federal funds to hire 1,950 more police officers to enhance existing community policing initiatives throughout approximately 65 cities across the country. Newly hired police officers will be charged with developing and implementing community policing initiatives to combat the production, manufacture, distribution, importation, or use of illegal drugs in our communities. There are dozens of cities across the country, such as Richmond, Norfolk, and Williamsburg in my state, that are committed to providing a safe environment for citizens to live, work and raise a family but need additional resources to help eliminate drug trafficking and drug- related crime, including violent crime. This legislation will build upon the successful COPS Program and focus an aspect of its community policing initiatives against the scourge of illegal drugs in our neighborhoods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.