Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I share the concerns of my senior colleague. In Virginia, local governments and private industry have worked over the years to develop a fair compromise to provide for an effective integrated waste management system. It is not our intention to have this legislation interfere with that balance.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to add my voice in support of the nomination of Dr. John Deutch to be Director of Central Intelligence. This nomination is extremely important, Mr. President, because the Central Intelligence Agency is at a crossroads and I believe John Deutch has what its going to take to redirect the Agency's course during its next few crucial years. There is no question that strong leadership is critical for the CIA to be able to transform the Agency's mission into one that provides policymakers with timely, useful, and target-specific intelligence. CNN can cover the world; the CIA needs to bring greater attention and resources to bear on countries and issues that represent a threat to our national security interests. Dr. Deutch was brutally frank in his assessment of CIA successes and failures, and refreshingly candid about what he would like to accomplish as DCI. His candor was unusual, since nominees normally go out of their way to avoid categorical statements about agendas and work plans. Dr. Deutch, in contrast, went out of his way to explain exactly where he is headed and what he would like to do. During his confirmation hearing, I heard Dr. Deutch speak of bringing in a new generation of leaders at the CIA, streamlining imagery operations, and getting to the root of problems inside the Operations Directorate. Mr. President, John Deutch brings with him a demonstrated track record of achievement in both government and academia. He is widely respected within the defense community for his performance as Secretary Perry's deputy at the Pentagon and within the scientific community for his tenure at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I believe he is more than equal to the task of restoring luster to the CIA. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have worked with John Deutch, and I have seen firsthand the quality of his work and his conscientious commitment to our national defense and to the men and women who serve our country. Finally, Mr. President, as a Senator from Virginia, I'm pleased that Dr. Deutch understands the distress of talented Agency personnel and alumni who have watched the CIA and other intelligence branches endure a rough patch. He is, in my judgment, the right man at the right time to restore dignity and respect to deserving and hardworking public servants working in the Intelligence Community. Mr. President, I have high hopes for Dr. Deutch's tenure at the CIA, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor. nomination of john m. deutch to be the director of central intelligence

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, like may of my colleagues, I rise today to briefly address the President's fiscal year 1996 budget proposal to privatize some of the Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's], including the Southeastern Power Marketing Administration [SEPA], which serves many Virginians. I am concerned about the devastating effects of the privatization of the Southeastern Power Administration and other PMA's on rural electric providers and their consumers. Prior to the fiscal year 1996 budget submission, I contacted President Clinton and OMB Director Alice Rivlin and asked for this proposal to be reconsidered. Like many of my Democratic colleagues. I was disappointed to find this one-time asset sale in the final budget proposal. Nationwide 650 rural electric systems receive allocations of power from Federal projects. Eleven of our thirteen Virginia rural electric cooperatives get a portion of their power direct from the Southeastern Power Administration. Over the years, Federal hydropower has helped rural electric cooperatives keep their rates competitive with investor- owned utilities. If we are serious about deficit reduction, we must ensure that all of our Federal programs continue to provide significant benefits to our taxpayers. In my opinion, this proposal to sell SEPA and other PMA's is penny-wise, but pound-foolish. I would favor any proposal for deficit reduction, so long as the savings result from sound public policy. Our Federal power program benefits consumers, taxpayers, and continues to facilitate economic growth and development in rural areas across the country. Privatizing the PMA's will not produce benefits that outweigh the current program and is, in my judgment, bad public policy. We should oppose the sale of the PMA's for several budgetary reasons. In the first place, the Government would lose a stream of revenue flowing into the Federal Treasury if the PMA's were sold. The estimated revenues which go to the Treasury exceed the appropriations for the PMA's. In fiscal year 1995, it is estimated that the net positive receipts to the Federal Treasury will be $243 million. Given this situation, the fiscal advantage to the Federal Government of selling the PMA's is time limited. During the year in which sales are actually occurring, the Treasury would receive a windfall in receipts as monies received from the sales and saved from appropriations overwhelm the revenues lost as a result of the sale. However, as the foregone revenues exceed the saved appropriations in the years after the sales, we would be adding to the deficit. Because capital asset sales are a one-time event. We have a budget rule that assets sales should not be counted in the budget. If we were to count the proceeds from selling Government assets as though they were receipts of the Federal Government, then these one-time receipts could be used to fund new spending programs or tax cuts that outlive the stream of receipts. We should follow the budget rule and not allow these fleeting savings to be counted as budget savings. Another budgetary reason to oppose the sale of the PMA's is that the Federal Government could actually lose money if the sale price were inadequate to cover the present value of the federally-held debt. One study indicates that the revenue from the Alaska Power Administration under the current program would be higher than under its proposed sale. If this is the case with the APA, it could be equally true of the others. Given these budgetary uncertainties, we should not be rushing to privatize these entities. The PMA's remain an integral part of our commitment to bring affordable and efficient hydroelectric power to the many Americans dependent on rural cooperatives and municipal power systems. PMA's are a wise and profitable investment on behalf of rural America. We have made great strides in bringing electric power and other utilities to rural areas, largely through the work of rural electric cooperatives, and we should carefully consider the consequences of eliminating this valuable supply of electricity now. I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to join me and support the continuation of Federal power. power marketing administrations

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak briefly about yesterday's approval by the Senate of line-item veto legislation, which I supported. By giving the President and the Congress separate enrollment of appropriated items, new tax expenditures and new entitlements, we are better able to maximize our limited resources, make the wisest investments in our people and our Nation, and move more responsibly toward a balanced Federal budget. Will a line-item veto solve all our fiscal problems? No, of course not. But I reject the notion that we should not use all available means to force the President and the Congress to prioritize Federal spending. Our inability, or unwillingness, to make these difficult choices has led to a nearly $5 trillion national debt. Was the measure perfect? No, and I understand the legitimate concerns many Members of this body had about a line-item veto. I think most would agree, however, that changes need to be made in our budget process. Our $5 trillion debt is a testament to that fact. The differences lie in identifying the most desirable means to achieve responsible reform. As I see it, the current problem lies in the fact that the Congress can ignore the rescissions proposed by the President. While the President can veto an entire appropriations bill, doing so forces the President to disapprove items which he supports as well. Thus, unless appropriations bills contain a particularly egregious item or items, Presidents now generally sign them, thereby permitting spending he considers unnecessary to continue in order to avoid striking down other items which he does approve. The separate enrollment of each item will allow the President to reach only those items he disapproves, and Congress will have to accept those rescissions unless they are reinstated by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Does this cede power to the President? Certainly. But, I am willing to give the Chief Executive a strong check on spending. I am willing to give our President the tools to make some tough fiscal decisions because a chief executive has, in my judgment, a singular ability to envision national priorities and reconcile intense competition between disparate interests. It is infinitely easier for one individual to prioritize spending than it is for 535 individuals with varied and specific interests. Not only will the measure passed last night allow the President to strike items in appropriations bills, but it will also allow the President to strike authorizations of new tax expenditures and new direct spending. These other types of spending contribute to our deficit even more than appropriated items, and should be included. To responsibly control spending, we have to put all options on the table. I would, however, have preferred that the language covering tax expenditures been made more clear in the legislation. While I believe that the language included meets the same objectives as the Bradley amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, I believe we should have made it clear and free of all ambiguity that tax breaks are on the table. Nonetheless, I believe the language of similarly situated taxpayers will be interpreted broadly which will subject a wide range of tax breaks to a Presidential veto. Mr. President, this body acted responsibly yesterday in approving line-item veto legislation. As a former Governor who had line-item veto authority, I understand its importance in imposing a measure of fiscal discipline on the budget process. We urgently need this discipline at the Federal level.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madame President, I introduce legislation which will correct an inequity that unfairly denies due recognition to some of America's worthiest veterans. Specifically, this bill would entitle prisoners of war from War World I, World War II, and Korea to receive the Purple Heart Medal for wounds which were sustained while being captured or while in captivity. Currently, only those veterans who suffer wounds while being captured or in captivity after April 25, 1962, are eligible for the Purple Heart Medal. While we might debate how best to recognize their sacrifice and hardship, one thing is abundantly clear; we should not differentiate between prisoners of war based solely on the date of the war in which they were captured. Madam President, as a Vietnam veteran who has had the privilege of leading marines in combat, and as a member of the Senate's Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, I am acutely aware of the hardships endured by service personnel who have been captured by hostile military forces. All of these servicemen have suffered mental and physical abuse, and many were tortured, beaten and starved while in confinement. Our prisoners of war from World War I, World War II, and Korea suffered various wounds and innumerable atrocities at the hands of their captors. Many continue to suffer from physical difficulties associated with their capture and confinement. The Purple Heart Medal would serve to put their service and sacrifice on par with the veterans of other wars, and will remind Americans of their sacrifices. It seems a fitting and overdue recognition. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the supporting resolutions of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Disabled American Veterans, and the letters of support from the DAV, American Legion, AMVETS, and the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, be printed in the Record. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Senators Akaka, Cochran, Craig, DeWine, Ford, Harkin, Kerry, Lugar, Rockefeller, Stevens, and Wellstone for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman and of U.S. dual-use technology efforts in general. The U.S. military will be challenged repeatedly as a deterrent and fighting force in the decades to come. We face the potential of a resurgent Russia, a new economic power that decides to pursue military dominance in its region, or a rogue regime with a nuclear weapon at its disposal. Although the United States will retain its preeminent position as the only military superpower for decades to come, our relative military advantage inevitably will wane. Identifying the next great military powers is obviously very difficult, but we can rest assured that not all will share U.S. values and interests. The question today is whether we will be able to respond rapidly and adequately to emerging threats. Of particular concern are those nations that will attempt to couple rapid economic growth with tight political control. Fortunately for democracies, this marriage of tyranny and a free economy usually leads to divorce. But even a short-lived marriage of this sort is a reasonable prospect for several of today's nondemocratic nations. Widely available and rapidly advancing military technologies will allow these nations to arm relatively quickly and, conceivably, to leapfrog some U.S. military capabilities through innovative technologies. It is this possibility for a rapid, technologically based emergence of a major threat that dictates we support our technology base as effectively as possible, and focus our energies on highly advanced, long-term technologies. We cannot, of course, continue to pay for the enormous research and development base of the cold war. We must now turn to the commercial sector, which leads the Department of Defense in many key technologies, to help sustain U.S. technological leadership. Dual-use technology development efforts, like the Technology Reinvestment Program, represent one of the best conceivable approaches to meeting this long- term national security need. TRP is an especially effective program: TRP is supporting a vast range of defense technology developments in areas such as low-cost night vision, high-density data storage, battlefield casualty treatment, and composite aircraft structures. TRP awards are matched by the program participants, effectively leveraging taxpayer dollars. TRP awards are competed and represent a much more efficient approach than saddling DOD research programs with earmarks that often duplicate or misdirect existing efforts. Finally, TRP allows DOD to drive down costs by leveraging commercial large-scale production. TRP is truly a cents-on-the-dollar program that will secure U.S. long-term security interests well into the next century. While I applaud and strongly support readiness today, let's not compromise our future--a future that will require much foresight and technological excellence to deter and, if necessary, defeat advanced military threats. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner in introducing legislation removing congressional oversight from the operations at Washington National and Dulles Airports. Quick passage of legislation removing congressional oversight is imperative. The Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's ruling that the congressional review board violates the constitutional separation of executive and legislative powers. Under the lower court's order, Congress must reach a solution to the separation of powers issue by March 31 or the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority will be unable to complete actions which require the approval of the review board. Although there are proposals under consideration in the House and Senate relating to the congressional review board, most of the other proposed legislation also addresses matters such as the perimeter rule which limits flights to and from Washington National Airport to 1,250 miles, reconstituting the review board under another name, and the slot rule which limits the number of flights and hours of operation at National Airport. These contentious issues are unrelated to the problem at hand and will delay passage of legislation needed to keep the airports operating. With a court-imposed deadline fast approaching, it is imperative that we enact this clean bill in an expeditious matter, and I urge quick consideration and passage of this measure.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be brief. My views are already known to most of the Members of this body. I support the balanced budget amendment reluctantly--as a bad idea whose time has come. What I really support are the balanced budgets this amendment seeks to achieve. I support the amendment because I do not believe we are ever going to have the will to actually balance our budgets without it and that out failure to do so puts our future in doubt and demands extraordinary and uncommon action by this Congress. Let me begin by saying that I endorsed this amendment more than a decade ago, not because I believed then or now, that it will, in and of itself, bring our budget into balance, but because it establishes both a call to action and a destination--and because it takes away an excuse for not making the hard choices we are going to have to make with or without the amendment. It forces us to confront--head-on--the fiscal disaster we have created, and it will force an essential discipline in our budget process that has been sadly absent. President Clinton deserves enormous credit for the $500 billion deficit reduction package, which passed this body in 1993. It took courage and he did not have the bipartisan help he deserved. But it was not enough. Mr. President, during the course of this debate, I have heard many thoughtful and sincere arguments in opposition to this amendment. This morning, I would like to address just two of them--whether or not the amendment will result in deep cuts to important programs and whether or not the amendment is worthy of constitutional consideration. Mr. President, those who oppose this amendment because it will lead to painful cuts are arguing not against the amendment, but against actually balancing the budget. None of the choices are easy. But to oppose this amendment because of the difficult choices it will force, is to say to the American people that we do not have the will to govern responsibly and live within our means. Making these choices means establishing essential priorities for our Nation, identifying effective programs, that provide hope and opportunity for our people, programs that defend our freedom at home and abroad, and programs that invest in a better tomorrow for our children and our grandchildren. Protecting these priorities means: saying ``no'' to less critical spending; and having the fortitude to turn to the revenue side when we cannot responsibly cut spending any more; and refusing to enact new tax cuts we cannot afford and tackling entitlement reform, the 800 pound gorilla of the 21st century. If we do not, Mr. President, if we continue on our present course and speed, entitlements and interest on the debt--and nothing more--will absorb the entire tax revenue base of the Federal Government by the year 2012. It will absorb all of it, with nothing left for national defense or any other Federal program. How then do we invest in our children? Interest payments on the national debt will not ever put a single poor child through college. Interest payments on the national debt will not ever provide nutrition for a disadvantaged pregnant woman, special education for a child with disabilities, or the only hot meal of the day for a 6-year-old living in poverty. I support this amendment, reluctantly, Mr. President, not because I want to endanger programs that provide real opportunity for our children, but because I fear for the strength and security of the world we leave them, and their children if we do not act today. high school--the year entitlements and interest on the debt begins to absorb all our tax revenue. What kind of a nation will that child inherit? Will it even resemble the world of unlimited possibilities that our parents left us? Today, we make that decision, Mr. President. Today, we decide the future of the class of 2012. Today, we either begin to assume the responsibility for our own debt or we leave it to our children and our grandchildren. Our Founding Fathers would be dismayed to know that we have reached the point where amending their Constitution is necessary to protect the strength and security of future generations of Americans. And if we had governed with the political courage of our forefathers, we would not be facing a fiscal crisis of such enormous proportion. But I would argue, Mr. President, that paying our own bills is not a trivial matter. Protecting our ability to invest in the kind of America we want for our children, is not a minor academic argument. Tripling our debt in 15 years is not an inconsequential act. Mr. President, $6 trillion is not trivial. To me our own lack of will in paying our bills trivializes our Constitution--and this institution--far more than a balanced budget amendment. To the children graduating from high school in 2012, an amendment to balance our Federal budget will be more important to the kind of country they inherit than the last amendment we added to the Constitution. That amendment, the 27th, ratified in May, 1992, required intervening elections before congressional pay raises go into effect. The legacy of debt we leave our children, can never be trivial nor inconsequential. It violates a sacred obligation that has passed through generations of Americans, an obligation which has endured since the birth of our democracy and the adoption of our Constitution. That obligation is to leave a future brighter than our past. If we do not act today we are violating that obligation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the manager.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I had not planned to speak this afternoon at all. As a matter of fact, I was just about to part from this Chamber when the senior Senator from Arkansas asked for the floor. I knew he was going to recite a few words that had been prepared officially by the Marine Corps, and it was my privilege to deliver another as a part of that series earlier this week. I would like to join with all of the colleagues here on the floor, and the many who have been fortunate to be in this Chamber at this particular moment, and say thank you, Marine Dale Bumpers, for reminding us for a few minutes what is important in life. I could not help but be drawn back into my own experience. I was, at the time of Iwo Jima, a young boy starting school. But I suspect, if I am honest, I would acknowledge that Iwo Jima probably had a lot to do with my decision to join the Marine Corps. I certainly, like many others, benefited from the heroism that was demonstrated in that particular battle along that tiny eight-square-mile island. And even Dale Bumpers' description of having talked to those who had examined the photographs and other remains of the enemy that they had taken during the course of the battle rings very true to me in a different conflict later on. But it still happens and you still have that very personal gut-wrenching feeling that there are human beings on both sides of those political struggles that are involved. I simply join in saying thank you to my fellow marines here and elsewhere for the legacy that they left to all of us who served later. Those immortal words ring through to all of us. As my friend, John Glenn, talked about his statue, I have a much smaller and much less prestigious copy that sits on the front of my desk in my office to which I will return shortly, which but reminds me of a time when something very important in our history occurred, just 50 years ago. And for those of you who were fortunate enough to be present in the Chamber today, something important in this Chamber occurred, and it is all too rare that we have a feeling where we have been truly moved by a few words. I would have to say that our distinguished friend from Arkansas has a disproportionate number of those moments to his credit. In any event, may I join colleagues who are here celebrating that uncommon valor that occurred some 50 years ago and ask others around the country to stop for just a minute or two to think about the consequence of the risks and the sacrifices they made in terms of the quality of life that remains today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as if in morning business for not to exceed 4 minutes.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today marks an important anniversary for all of us who served in the Marine Corps and for freedom-loving Americans everywhere. On this date 50 years ago, the largest force of U.S. marines ever assembled prepared to embark on the most savage and most costly battle in the history of the Marine Corps. Nearly 100,000 troops, American and Japanese, were ready to fight to the death on the most heavily fortified island in the world, 8 square miles of volcanic ash and rock known as Iwo Jima. Since the turn of the century, marines had pioneered and developed the capability for seizing advanced naval bases. The payoff for those many years of planning and training was seen in the successive, hard- fought victories in the amphibious landings throughout the Pacific in places like Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Tarawa, and New Britain, and on Saipan, Guam, Tinian, and Peleliu. But now in February 1945 marine forces were approaching within 1,000 miles of the Japanese homeland for the first time and would face a determined, fanatically brave enemy who had constructed the most elaborate and ingenious system of underground fortifications ever devised. Despite thorough allied planning and preparation and all the naval and air support available, it was ultimately the marine on the beach with the rifle who eventually won this critical battle for America. Mr. President, one out of every three marines who set foot on Iwo Jima was killed or wounded, so great was the price of victory. As Gen. Holland M. Smith, Commanding General, Expeditionary Troops, Iwo Jima, said later of his marines, ``They took Iwo Jima the hard way, the marine way, the way we had trained them to take it when everything else failed. They took Iwo Jima with sweat, guts, and determination.'' Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, there is a serious debate going on over whether the Federal Government should continue to play a role, the small part it currently plays, in supporting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. On Tuesday, in a speech before the National Press Club, Ervin Duggan, president of the PBS, outlined reasons why support from the Government is important, and I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Duggan's speech printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I would like to reiterate my support for public broadcasting because of the important educational role it plays in our society. We invest very little and we get a lot in return. Public broadcasting does not rely solely, or even mostly, on Government support. Only 14 percent of its budget comes from Congress, approximately $1.09 per person. The rest of its funding comes from 5 million Americans and hundreds of corporations who understand the importance of quality commercial-free educational broadcasting. Public broadcasting is no longer just MacNeil/Lehrer, ``All Things Considered,'' ``Sesame Street,'' and the Civil War series. I have been particularly impressed with the way public broadcasting is using new technology for education. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, who otherwise would not have the opportunity, can earn their high school or college degree through courses shown on public television. At 60 colleges--and that number is growing--students can earn a 2-year degree through PBS telecourses. Millions of teachers use television's best programs, like Ken Burns' remarkable Civil War series, in the classroom. Many of these programs are now available to educators on laser disk for interactive learning. Many public broadcasting stations are currently on the Internet, along [[Page S1190]] with PBS, NPR, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In times of budget deficits, we all understand that we have to make the most of our limited resources, but we must also understand that one of the targets of our resources is education and that education, as we know it today, encompasses more than just a classroom. It is libraries, movies, television, radio, computers, museums, and the many other outlets of information available. In today's society, where quality educational programming is so rare, public broadcasting fills a unique and important niche, and it asks us to invest so little--one-fiftieth of 1 percent of our budget. Most of us in Washington have the opportunity to enjoy local public television programming through WETA, one of the top five public broadcasting stations in the country. But public television also reaches out to the far corners of our country--and in my own State, to Richmond, Charlottesville, Roanoke, Norfolk, and Marion. Public broadcasting brings its viewers and listeners programs they might not otherwise have the chance to experience. For example, the majority of viewers who watch opera on public television do not have a college degree and make less than $40,000 a year. Mr. President, I believe our very small contribution to public broadcasting is one of the best investments this Government makes. As Mr. Duggan so aptly points out, public television could operate for 10 years on what Fox paid for one program of NFL football. I hope the Congress will continue its commitment to public broadcasting. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the majority leader and the floor managers for allowing me to use these few minutes while they are concluding their effort to resolve this particular question. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The Living Tree of Public Broadcasting (Remarks of Ervin S. Duggan) investing well The little town where I grew up--Manning, South Carolina-- was small enough that we could walk to church on Sunday. My Sunday School teacher was a Southern matriarch named Virginia Richards Sauls, one of nine daughters of a South Carolina governor. Miss Virginia, as we called her, never tired of telling us the great stories of the Bible. Her favorite was the Parable of the Talents. In that parable, a rich man leaving on a journey entrusts his property--measured in what were called talents--to his three servants for safekeeping. He returns to find that two servants have invested their talents well--so well, in fact, that their worth has doubled. The other, foolishly, has buried his talent in the ground. The master scolds and punishes the foolish, hoarding servant, but says to the wise and fruitful ones: ``Well done, thou good and faithful servants; you have been faithful over a little; I will set over you much.'' That story, of course, is about the generous, productive use of gifts; about sharing, building and creating. I mention it because I am convinced that the people of public broadcasting--the local volunteers, trustees, producers, professionals and supporters who make up this enterprise--are good and faithful servants who are living out a modern reenactment of the Parable of the Talents. They do not eat tax dollars; they plant them and grow others. They are faithful over a little; they turn it into much. I'm concerned, however, that everything those good and faithful servants have built over two generations is suddenly, seriously at risk. For the next few minutes I'd like to talk about four things: I want to talk first about a genuine crisis that faces the nation we love. I call it the triple crisis. Second, I want to describe the remarkable local and national partnership that constitutes public broadcasting--a treasure not unlike our national parks, or The Smithsonian Institution. I want to sketch its true nature, because too many people seem not to understand it. Third, I'd like to say a few words about the dangers of loose talk, of careless rhetoric, about ``privatizing'' public broadcasting. If privatizing turns out to be only a euphemism for defunding public broadcasting in a way that would commercialize it; if privatizing, in the end, leads to breaking it into pieces to be sold for salvage, much could be lost, never to be regained. Fourth and finally, I want to suggest that there are better, more creative possibilities for this great national asset, this living tree called public broadcasting: possibilities for more hopeful and constructive than merely zeroing it out, or hacking the tree down to a stump. the triple crisis Consider, first, the triple crisis that we face. First there is the crisis of education: Can we send all our children to school ready to learn? Once they're there, can we give them an education good enough to help them become productive, responsible citizens and workers in a competitive global economy? We face, second, a crisis in our popular culture--a steadily coarsening, ever-more-tawdry, popular culture, driven by marketplace imperatives to be increasingly violent and exploitative. Today's electronic culture of gangsta rap and kick-boxing superheroes not only makes it harder to be a parent; except for a few honorable exceptions, our media coldly abandon parents who yearn to give their children decent values to live by. Telling those parents simply to turn off the set if they don't like the violence and tawdriness that they see is like telling people to wear gas masks if they don't like pollution. We face, third, a crisis of citizenship. Can we still speak with civility to one another? Can we approach our mutual problems in an atmosphere of shared purpose? We citizens in the center wonder--and we wince as our elected leaders vilify one another in an atmosphere of gridlock. We wince to hear commercial talk shows disintegrate into shouting matches and peep shows for the lurid and bizarre. Can we create what Father Richard Neuhaus calls a civil public square? the populist broadcasting service? That triple crisis points me to my second topic: I know of one institution that can constructively address every aspect of that triple crisis. It is an imperfect institution, yet one with many virtues. Its entire mission is education, culture and citizenship. It is called public broadcasting. We could substitute, for that word ``public'' in public broadcasting, the more elaborate words of Abraham Lincoln: ``of the people, for the people, by the people.'' For public broadcasting stations are not owned or controlled by monolithic bureaucracies a thousand miles away. They're owned by local boards, by universities, by school systems, by nonprofit civic organizations. What could be more populist, more Jeffersonian? I can almost see Thomas Jefferson in his study, watching Bill Buckley's ``Firing Line'' debates. Jefferson, a child of the Enlightenment, would have loved the enlightening mission of public broadcasting. Jefferson the small-d democrat would have loved its universal reach. Jefferson the inventor would have wanted to meet the pioneers who brought the world closed captioning for the deaf and an audio channel for the blind. It is not far-fetched to say that public broadcasting is Mr. Jefferson's other memorial: a temple of minds and voices; a temple not built of stone. That word ``public'' means something else: free and universally available to all. To enjoy its riches, no one has to pay thousands of dollars for a computer and software and a modem. If you do have a modem, however, we have a great new service called PBS ONLINE. And you'll find many public stations on the Internet, along with PBS, NPR, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To enjoy the riches of public broadcasting, moreover, you don't have to plug in a cable, or rent a converter, or pay hundreds of dollars a year in subscriber fees or pay-per-view charges. That word ``public'' in public broadcasting refers to something else, as well: a mission that cannot be replaced by commercial operators any more than your public library can be duplicated by Crown Books, a public school replaced by a New England prep school, or a national seashore duplicated by a commercial theme park. Our unique mission is service to teachers, students and schools. This year, hundreds of thousands of Americans will earn their high school or college degrees through courses screened by local public television stations. Millions of teachers will use classroom versions of our most famous programs; my ninth-grade son, right now, is learning about the Civil War from his teacher--and from a laserdisc version of Ken Burns's masterpiece. As I speak to you, teachers across the nation are learning the new Goals 2000 math standards through a service called PBS MATHLINE. At 60 colleges--60 and growing--students can earn a two-year degree totally through PBS telecourses, without going to campus. That is a side of public television many viewers, and many members of Congress, don't know enough about. That mission, however, sets us apart from every other broadcast and cable service in America. For us, you see, education isn't an afterthought, or window dressing or a sideline. It is in our institutional genes. It is central to our purpose. Then there's our funding, public in the broadest sense of that word. Public television, for example, has between five and six million contributing members--five million householders who give generously to something they could get for free. Locally and nationally, hundreds of public-spirited corporations underwrite programs--Mobil, General Motors, Archer Daniels Midland and AT&T. They can buy commercials elsewhere. Here, they care about another mission. Generous and visionary foundations like Olin, MacArthur, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and Bradley also give. And then, joining all these stakeholders in our enterprise, there's Congress. How much does Congress contribute each year to public broadcasting? Roughly 14 percent of the budget for this public-private enterprise. [[Page S1191]] Fourteen percent. To put the question another way, how much of the Federal budget does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting account for? One fiftieth of one percent; two hundredths of the Federal budget. In decimal form, point zero two. That's $1.09 per person, 80 cents of it for television. If you bought just about any newspaper in the country last Sunday, you paid more for that paper than you pay for public broadcasting for an entire year. Think of it: Sesame Street, MacNeil/Lehrer, NOVA, All Things Considered, Morning Edition--all this, all year, for less than the cost of a cup of coffee in Chicago. All of public television's buildings, facilities, stations, programs, all year--everything--for a dollar a year. We could operate PBS for ten years for what Fox paid for just one program: NFL Football. Suppose we paid for interstate highways through such a public-private partnership, with Congress appropriating only 14 percent of the total. Suppose we used this model to pay for battleships or Capitol Hill offices and staffs? Government leaders of both parties, who rightly care about frugality and efficiency, about stretching every dollar, would, I'm sure, hold parades in the streets to celebrate such feats. Well, public broadcasting IS funded through such a frugal, efficient partnership. Those who are taking aim at it, in my judgment, should instead be saying, like the master in that biblical parable, ``Well, done, thou good and faithful servants. Enter into the reward laid up for thee.'' Cut Down the Living Tree, or Save It? Some of our leaders, however, are speaking in a different way. They have targeted public broadcasting for a quick, sidelong choke that could mean its eventual extinction. They intend, they say, to ``privatize'' public broadcasting by stripping it of federal funding. The professional political term, inside the Beltway, is ``zeroing-out.'' So let me turn now to my third topic--privatizing, which at this point in the debate cannot be distinguished from another word: commercializing. The opponents of public television deny that their opposition is ideological; they deny they want to censor or silence voices they don't like. After much complaint about that issue, they now say they have other, more innocuous reasons. Let us take them at their word. They argue that the federal government has ``no mandate'' to keep funding public broadcasting; that noncommercial educational broadcasting is ``not essential'' to the nation. Surely, then, they plan to zero out, as well, The Smithsonian Institution? The National Gallery? The Kennedy Center? Federal support for the Internet? For these, too, are public institutions of education and culture, like public broadcasting. And these too, are not essential; not necessary to life. They are simply among the things that make life worth living, for rich and poor alike. Why single out public broadcasting? I wonder why. Another complaint is that public broadcasting is elitist, a ``sandbox for the rich.'' All the factual evidence, all the research, all the data suggest the opposite: that the people who love public broadcasting are the very same people who make up America. The majority of viewers who watch opera on public television, for example, don't have a college degree, and their household incomes are less than forty thousand dollars a year. What about the contention that public broadcasting is too expensive? the numbers you have heard poke big holes in that argument--especially when you add, to the numbers, the matching efforts that expand and multiply the federal contribution. To defund this enterprise for that reason-- suddenly, unilaterally, and without consulting the millions of other stakeholders who produce far more of its support-- would be pound-foolish, not economical. To people outside the Beltway, to thousands of local board members and volunteers, such talk doesn't sound like reform. It sounds like assisted suicide--a mask pressed down upon a patient who wants no such assistance, and whose family isn't allowed into the room. Told how frugal we are, some of these detractors about- face, awkwardly, to yet another explanation: It's such a tiny amount, they say, it could easily be made up from ``other sources''--from toy sales, for example, tied to our programming. The numbers don't add up, but who's counting? We need to be clear on one important point: In our economy, there is no such thing as nonprofit venture capital. That relatively small amount of federal funding--that 14 percent of public broadcasting's budget--is our seed money, our risk capital. If ``privatize'' means to ``zero out'' (and we're told it does); and if no clear plan exist for replacing that seed capital (and none has emerged), then to ``privatize,'' means, perforce, to commercialize. Take away public broadcasting's seed funding, starve it financially of its only venture capital, however small--and you force it headlong into the alien world of ad agencies and costs-per- thousand and merchandising, rather than the world of teachers and historians and community volunteers. Surely those who speak of a quick, unilateral ``privatizing'' don't intend that to be the final destination. Or do they? Finally, we hear that cable can do everything public television can do. Why not let a cable network, or several cable networks, program PBS--as a sort of re-run channel? Leave aside for the moment the implication here; the whiff of trickle-down TV. Ask some other questions: Is this in the public interest, or a commercial parody of the public interest? Would America like to lose what would be lost? Would America's existing commercial networks like such an outcome? What would such a scheme do public television's historic role as found and wellspring of innovative program ideas? What, exactly, is the vision of those who would ``privatize'' public broadcasting? Is it a vision that preserves the original dream, or does it torch and destroy that dream? They don't say. Is it a vision worthy of those public-spirited Republicans and Democrats of the Carnegie Commission, who created a new model called public broadcasting 25 years ago? They don't say. Is it a vision for a new and better future? Or is it, in fact, a death warrant disguised as a new charter? what the people say Perhaps our leaders on Capitol Hill need to listen to what the people say. A national poll conducted by opinion Research Corporation was released today. It suggests that most Americans--84 percent--want that small but vital federal stake in the partnership maintained or increased. Support for federal funding totals 80 percent among Republicans; 86 percent among independents; 90 percent among Democrats. What do these numbers tell us? They suggest that the parents and teachers and grandparents of this nation--the people who live in homes with cable, and in the 32 million homes that don't subscribe--may want a better plan. They seem to want something more than vengeful zeroes, or ``privatization'' schemes that threaten to commercialize or kill. Fortunately, the people of public broadcasting, and the people who cherish public broadcasting all over the nation, have lots of good ideas. All over the country, local stations are becoming educational teleplexes. They're planting the flag of education on new technologies. They're turning the existing infrastructure of public broadcasting into a free educational launching pad into cyberspace. People within the world of public television have good ideas, as well, about renewing and refreshing public television: ideas, for example, about insulating its governance and financing from the political vagaries of each appropriations season. The original Carnegie Commission, made up largely of Republican business leaders, called for a national endowment, raised from a few pennies on the sale of each TV set and radio. That's one idea. A reserve of spectrum auction money is another. Tax credits and ``education technology grants'' are another. The local leaders of public broadcasting are forward- looking. They are highly capable of planning the future of their enterprise. Before changes are hatched that might be ill-considered, we need some decent ground rules. Let me suggest three: First, all of the stakeholders who support this local enterprise ought to be invited to the table. Otherwise, any outcome is likely to be imposed, not democratic. Second, the process should be orderly, not precipitous; careful, not headlong. Public broadcasting has taken 40 years to achieve its present excellence. Why all this haste to dispatch it in 100 days, by a quick, sidelong fiscal choking? Third, we need to be candid about the real motives underlying proposals for change. What are we to think about would-be surgeons who seem to despise their patient? do they hear us? It was Edmund Burke who pointed out that the true conservatism lops off dead branches, in order to preserve the living tree. Public broadcasting, however imperfect it may be, is part of the living tree: the tree of education, culture and citizenship. To chop up that tree and sell it off as cordwood would be violent and extreme, not conservative. The volunteers, professionals and board members of America's public broadcasting stations are eager to tell their leaders about the worth and potential of that living tree. They see a historian and educator as the House Speaker and they say, ``History: that's what we're about.'' They hear Speaker Gingrich discuss our need to nurture and care for our young and say, ``Education: that's what we're about.'' They hear Speaker Gingrich's speeches about futurism and technology and the Third Wave--about laptops for the poor-- and they say, in so many words, ``Technology for humane ends: that's what we're about. Is he listening? Does he know we're here?'' Those same leaders look at the biography of Senator Pressler and see a son of Harvard; a Rhodes Scholar, a Senator whose constituents, many of them, live in rural places or are too poor to afford a monthly bill for cable, great as cable is. They say, ``We have a great deal to say to him. Will he listen?'' The people of public broadcasting--thousands of them, who have created jobs and educational services and community outreach projects out of their local stations, are ready to join in a discussion about its renewal and its future. But they will also fight the reflex to destroy what they have built. Today they know that millions of Americans agree with them.

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

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, although it is not necessary, that we turn to a period of morning business for about 7 minutes.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, thank you. The Senator yields to the Senator from Ohio. Amendment No. 170, as modified

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner in introducing the Lorton Correctional Complex Closure Act. This legislation provides a vital solution to the problem associated with the Lorton Correctional Complex, located in Virginia. Originally, Lorton was designed as a workcamp and dormitory for misdemeanants and drunkards. Today, Lorton's facilities are outmoded and overburdened. The same dormitories which were designed to hold nonviolent, minimum security prisoners now house D.C.'s most dangerous felons. In its strapped fiscal state, the District is ill-equipped to improve the facility at Lorton. Part one of our proposal will direct new D.C. felons into Federal correction facilities, providing an immediate remedy for increased overcrowding. Then, within 5 years, all remaining felons at Lorton will be turned over to the control of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, enabling final closure of the facility. The D.C. Department of Corrections will retain responsibility for juveniles, misdemeanants, and pre-trial detainees. Part two of the bill sets up a commission of locally appointed representatives from the District of Columbia, Fairfax County and Prince William County to help devise a plan for closure of the facility, disposal of the property, and future land use. This creates a process that maximizes community involvement, input and participation in inherently local decisions. Under this plan, northern Virginians will have safer communities and will be able to participate in the development of future land use proposals for the affected area. Since the land is owned by the Federal Government and the facility is operated by the District, local officials and residents in northern Virginia have had limited means of impacting the decisions relative to Lorton. That's why I included a provision giving local residents and officials a voice in expansion proposals during last year's crime bill. But limiting expansion just isn't enough--I've come to the conclusion that the Federal Government must accept its responsibility and devise a longterm solution. We have before us an honest and open attempt to provide a vital remedy for the longstanding problems at Lorton. Closing this facility will not be easy--but I look forward to working with the Virginia delegation and the District to develop a reasonable and sound solution to the problems posed by the Lorton facility in its present condition. I urge quick consideration and passage of this measure.