Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues in support of the Truthfulness, Responsibility and Accountability in Contracting Act, or the TRAC Act. We look forward to dropping our bill when the Senate returns from the July 4th recess. The TRAC Act simply stated, seeks the best value for the federal dollar. Its main objectives are instituting public-private competition and tracking costs. My colleagues and I agree that improvements to service contracting should be made, and this bill is one way to achieve that. Our bill directs federal agency certification before entering into new contracts. These standards include establishing agency-wide reporting systems to report contracting efforts; requiring public- private competition; and reviewing contractor work and recompeting that work if appropriate. Why the new standards? So we can better ascertain what the federal government is spending for government services. David Walker, Comptroller General for the General Accounting Office, stated recently in a June 1st Washington Post piece by David Broder that ``. . . it is not clear that the remaining federal employees are capable of monitoring the cost and quality of the outsourced activities.'' The ability to monitor costs is essential if the Congress is to exercise proper oversight of federal funds spent to carry out services by either contractors or federal employees. We also want to ensure an even playing field between contractors and federal employees when competing for work. The public-private competitions required by the TRAC Act will determine how best the federal government can save money on its many critical services. Our bill doesn't guarantee any pre-determined outcome in a public-private competition, but rather ensures that these competitions occur. Contractors have historically played a role in delivering government services and will continue to do so. Therefore, our bill will allow the federal agencies to see who completes work most effectively, regardless of who delivers the service.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, lest there be any confusion on the vote we are about to cast, it is my understanding that minors who seek a prescription drug from a school-based health clinic can do so only after receiving consent from a parent or guardian. Given that this standard is already in place, I don't believe it is the place of the federal government to instruct states and localities what specific services can or cannot be offered in these clinics--I trust communities to decide for themselves what services should be offered in their school-based clinics, based on their values and priorities.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, a majority of this body--myself included-- just voted to table both the Landrieu and Jeffords amendments, each of which have the laudable goals of increasing funding for disadvantaged and special education students. The problem with both amendments is that they rob Peter to pay Paul. Both amendments reduce the amount of funding in Title VI, which has been substantially increased this year. The distinguished Chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has indicated that the $2.7 billion allocated for Title VI this year is for the continuation of our class size reduction efforts and for funding, for the first time since the 1950's, a massive school modernization effort. The effect of these amendments is simply to reduce the number of new teachers schools can hire or reduce the money they'll have available to fix fire code violations or upgrade old schools with new technology. That's not the answer. What we ought to be doing is making a greater overall investment in public education. I have co-sponsored a bill to increase the amount of Title I funding from $8 billion to $12 billion in this year alone, and I have co- sponsored a bill that puts us on track to fully fund our federal commitment to IDEA within ten years. Our economically disadvantaged and special needs students deserve more of a commitment from the federal level, but they also deserve small class sizes and safe, modern schools. It's simply wrong to pit these objectives against each other, because in the end, our children are the ones that suffer and that is why I voted to table two amendments that I would otherwise support.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds, and then I will yield to the Senator from West Virginia. I remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that this bill was read in its entirety earlier today, and it has been available for several days. But it has been debated for a very long period of time, and the concept has been debated at length and discussed at length. There was an attempt to put together a prescription drug bill in the House. The Health Insurance Association of America has stated many times that the particular proposal from the House simply will not work. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, how much time remains on the side of the proponents?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of the 15 minutes that are allocated to the affirmative position on this amendment. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, I would like to summarize this amendment as succinctly as I can. It is a bipartisan bill that would guarantee access to a comprehensive, meaningful prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries. Unlike other drug proposals, our bill would guarantee total coverage for seniors, without any limits or gaps. Let me say, however, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that this benefit is not some ``big government'' solution to the Medicare prescription drug problem. In putting this proposal together, our bipartisan group opted to rely on private sector, market-based mechanisms to deliver medications to seniors. Competition and choice are at the very essence of our bill. For those who suggest that we need to take a centrist approach, I say that this bill is that logical bipartisan compromise. And we need to act on it now. Mr. President, today is June 22. With the Senate deep into the appropriations process, we have very few legislative days left in this session. If we are going to get a prescription drug bill to the President's desk, we need to consider one now. Mr. President, I've spoken previously today about the stories I heard in a series of health care fora held in my state over the past month. In one of them, I spoke to a physician who was prescribing the drug Tamoxofin for women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were Medicare eligible. One woman was sharing her prescription with two other women who simply could not afford it--a travesty by any health care standards. I've heard many other stories of similar magnitude. Prescription drugs are clearly a part of modern medicine today. They are a necessity, not a luxury. I ask that our colleagues respond affirmatively to this chance to provide modern medicine to those who are eligible for Medicare. I reserve any time not used.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, does the Senator from Delaware or anyone opposing this particular bill wish to speak at this time?

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. A motion to commit with instructions.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this past April when the Senate was debating its annual budget resolution, I offered an amendment which stated that if Congress was going to consider massive tax cuts this year, it must first pass legislation that modernizes Medicare through the creation of a prescription drug benefit. Fifty-one Senators voted in favor of this amendment, in favor of putting our Nation's seniors before massive tax cuts, including six of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle--Senators Chafee, Specter, Abraham, DeWine, Burns, and the distinguished occupant of the chair. I rise today to follow up on the vote that we took in April and to urge a majority of our colleagues to, once again, come together across party lines for our Nation's seniors. Putting seniors before tax cuts was the first step. Now the Senate needs to take up and pass a comprehensive affordable prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, it is now mid-June and neither the Senate Finance Committee nor the Senate itself has considered a Medicare prescription drug benefit. With so few legislative days left in the year and so much work to be done, it is crucial that we take this issue up now. The amendment I am offering today will commit this bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that they report out a new bill that provides a universal, comprehensive, dependable prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act, a bill that I introduced this week with Senators Graham, Bryan, Conrad, Chafee, Baucus, Rockefeller, and Lincoln, is a moderate bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation. It combines the best elements of prescription drug proposals offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. More important, the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act will help every senior better afford the prescription drugs which they so badly need, and the need is real. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Riggle, a fellow in my office, be permitted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 4577.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, at a health care forum I sponsored in Virginia, a doctor told me of a woman with breast cancer splitting her Tamoxofin pills with two other breast cancer patients, because the drug was so expensive that the other two couldn't afford it. This is a touching story from the perspective of a woman trying to help two peers, but from a health care perspective, it's an abomination. Not only does splitting a dose for one person into three negate the effects of the drug for all three women, but the lack of access to this drug only makes them sicker. Unfortunately, stories like these are all too common today. Modern medicine has become more and more dependent on prescription drugs, yet the Medicare program, which provides health care for our nation's elderly and disabled, has not changed with the times. As a result, Medicare often finds itself in the position of paying for expensive hospital care, yet not paying for the prescription drugs that could help keep a patient out of the hospital. And as prescription drugs become more essential to seniors' health care, we hear many stories like the one I've told you today. It's time we did something to change this. While over 90 percent of private sector employees with employer-based health insurance have prescription drug coverage, the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries in America today have no basic prescription drug benefit. At the same time, the average Medicare beneficiary fills eighteen prescriptions each year, and will have an estimated average annual drug cost of nearly $1,100 in 2000. We have an obligation to our seniors, and future generations of seniors, to strengthen and modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, both the House and Senate have made little progress toward passing a drug benefit this year. By and large, moderate, bipartisan solutions have been absent from the debate. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Bryan, Senator Conrad, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus in introducing a bill which we believe will break this logjam, the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act, or MOD Act, of 2000. In crafting the MOD Act, we have combined the best elements of insurance-based plans--which aim to promote competition and innovation--and the President's plan--which offers a dependable, universal benefit to all seniors. The result is a bill that all sides should be able to agree on. Like the President's plan, our bill will offer a defined Medicare benefit that will be available to all seniors, regardless of their health status or place of residence. But unlike the President's plan, our bill will allow private entities to compete for Medicare beneficiaries--allowing seniors and the disabled to choose from a variety of options that are custom-tailored to their specific prescription drug needs. Moreover, the MOD Act is the first prescription drug bill to offer Medicare beneficiaries a comprehensive drug benefit, with no gaps in coverage, and full protection against sky-high out-of-pocket costs. The MOD Act gradually increases its level of coverage as beneficiaries get sicker, so that the greatest assistance is devoted to those who need it most. There is only a handful of legislative days left in the Senate this year, and if we're going to get anything done on the prescription drug front, we'll have to settle on a proposal that is moderate and bipartisan. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act is that bill, and I urge each of my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm introducing a bill that will help clean up and restore our nation's waters. This bill, The National Clean Water Trust Fund Act of 2000, creates a trust fund from fines, penalties and other monies collected through enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The money deposited into the National Clean Water Trust Fund would be used to address the pollution problems that initiated those enforcement actions. A highly publicized case in Virginia illustrated the need for this legislation. On August 8 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Smith issued a $12.6 million judgement against Smithfield Foods for polluting the Pagan River in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. The judge stated in her opinion that the civil penalty imposed on Smithfield should be directed toward the restoration of the Pagan and James Rivers, tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, due to current federal law, the court had no discretion over the damages, and the fine was deposited into the Treasury's general fund, defeating the very spirit of the Clean Water Act. Today, there is no guarantee that fines or other money levied against parties who violate provisions in the Clean Water Act will be used to correct short and long term damage from water pollution. Instead the money is directed into the fund of the U.S. Treasury with no provision that it be used to improve the quality of our water. Pollution from spills or illegal discharges can have a profound effect on our environment and can degrade our public water supplies, and recreational areas. Water pollution causes long term damage to fish and shellfish habitat and destroys the livelihood of watermen, and leads to the long term degradation of scenic areas. While the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement activities are extracting large sums of money from industry and others through enforcement of the Clean Water Act, we are missing an opportunity to pay for the cleanup and restoration of pollution problems for which the penalties were levied. To ensure the successful implementation of the Clean Water Act, we should put these enforcement funds to work and actually clean up the nation's waters. This legislation will establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund within the U.S. Treasury to earmark fines, penalties, and other funds, including consent decrees, obtained through enforcement of the Clean Water Act that would otherwise be placed into the Treasury's general fund. The EPA Administrator would be authorized, after consultation with the States, to prioritize and carry out projects to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds collected from the violations of the Clean Water Act. This legislation would not preempt citizen suits or in any way preclude EPA's authority to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part of settlements related to violations of the Clean Water Act or any other legislation. The bill also provides court discretion over civil penalties from Clean Water Act violations to be used to carry out mitigation and restoration projects. In this bill, EPA is directed to give priority consideration to projects in the watershed where the original violation was discovered. With this legislation, we can avoid another predicament like the one faced in Virginia. Mr. President, it only makes sense that fines occurring from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to restore the waters that were damaged. This bill provides a real opportunity to improve the quality of our nation's waters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, at a health care forum I sponsored in Virginia, a doctor told me of a woman with breast cancer splitting her Tamoxofin pills with two other breast cancer patients, because the drug was so expensive that the other two couldn't afford it. This is a touching story from the perspective of a woman trying to help two peers, but from a health care perspective, it's an abomination. Not only does splitting a dose for one person into three negate the effects of the drug for all three women, but the lack of access to this drug only makes them sicker. Unfortunately, stories like these are all too common today. Modern medicine has become more and more dependent on prescription drugs, yet the Medicare program, which provides health care for our nation's elderly and disabled, has not changed with the times. As a result, Medicare often finds itself in the position of paying for expensive hospital care, yet not paying for the prescription drugs that could help keep a patient out of the hospital. And as prescription drugs become more essential to seniors' health care, we hear many stories like the one I've told you today. It's time we did something to change this. While over 90 percent of private sector employees with employer-based health insurance have prescription drug coverage, the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries in America today have no basic prescription drug benefit. At the same time, the average Medicare beneficiary fills eighteen prescriptions each year, and will have an estimated average annual drug cost of nearly $1,100 in 2000. We have an obligation to our seniors, and future generations of seniors, to strengthen and modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, both the House and Senate have made little progress toward passing a drug benefit this year. By and large, moderate, bipartisan solutions have been absent from the debate. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Graham, Senator Bryan, Senator Conrad, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus in introducing a bill which we believe will break this logjam, the Medicare Outpatient Drug Act, or MOD Act, of 2000. In crafting the MOD Act, we have combined the best elements of insurance-based plans--which aim to promote competition and innovation--and the President's plan--which offers a dependable, universal benefit to all seniors. The result is a bill that all sides should be able to agree on. Like the President's plan, our bill will offer a defined Medicare benefit that will be available to all seniors, regardless of their health status or place of residence. But unlike the President's plan, our bill will allow private entities to compete for Medicare beneficiaries--allowing seniors and the disabled to choose from a variety of options that are custom-tailored to their specific prescription drug needs. Moreover, the MOD Act is the first prescription drug bill to offer Medicare beneficiaries a comprehensive drug benefit, with no gaps in coverage, and full protection against sky-high out-of-pocket costs. The MOD Act gradually increases its level of coverage as beneficiaries get sicker, so that the greatest assistance is devoted to those who need it most. There is only a handful of legislative days left in the Senate this year, and if we're going to get anything done on the prescription drug front, we'll have to settle on a proposal that is moderate and bipartisan. The Medicare Outpatient Drug Act is that bill, and I urge each of my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm introducing a bill that will help clean up and restore our nation's waters. This bill, The National Clean Water Trust Fund Act of 2000, creates a trust fund from fines, penalties and other monies collected through enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The money deposited into the National Clean Water Trust Fund would be used to address the pollution problems that initiated those enforcement actions. A highly publicized case in Virginia illustrated the need for this legislation. On August 8 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Smith issued a $12.6 million judgement against Smithfield Foods for polluting the Pagan River in Isle of Wight County, Virginia. The judge stated in her opinion that the civil penalty imposed on Smithfield should be directed toward the restoration of the Pagan and James Rivers, tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, due to current federal law, the court had no discretion over the damages, and the fine was deposited into the Treasury's general fund, defeating the very spirit of the Clean Water Act. Today, there is no guarantee that fines or other money levied against parties who violate provisions in the Clean Water Act will be used to correct short and long term damage from water pollution. Instead the money is directed into the fund of the U.S. Treasury with no provision that it be used to improve the quality of our water. Pollution from spills or illegal discharges can have a profound effect on our environment and can degrade our public water supplies, and recreational areas. Water pollution causes long term damage to fish and shellfish habitat and destroys the livelihood of watermen, and leads to the long term degradation of scenic areas. While the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement activities are extracting large sums of money from industry and others through enforcement of the Clean Water Act, we are missing an opportunity to pay for the cleanup and restoration of pollution problems for which the penalties were levied. To ensure the successful implementation of the Clean Water Act, we should put these enforcement funds to work and actually clean up the nation's waters. This legislation will establish a National Clean Water Trust Fund within the U.S. Treasury to earmark fines, penalties, and other funds, including consent decrees, obtained through enforcement of the Clean Water Act that would otherwise be placed into the Treasury's general fund. The EPA Administrator would be authorized, after consultation with the States, to prioritize and carry out projects to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds collected from the violations of the Clean Water Act. This legislation would not preempt citizen suits or in any way preclude EPA's authority to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part of settlements related to violations of the Clean Water Act or any other legislation. The bill also provides court discretion over civil penalties from Clean Water Act violations to be used to carry out mitigation and restoration projects. In this bill, EPA is directed to give priority consideration to projects in the watershed where the original violation was discovered. With this legislation, we can avoid another predicament like the one faced in Virginia. Mr. President, it only makes sense that fines occurring from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to restore the waters that were damaged. This bill provides a real opportunity to improve the quality of our nation's waters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support the Smith-Kennedy legislation. This legislation will simply strengthen existing hate crime laws by enhancing the Federal Government's ability to assist State and local prosecutions. It is a little bit like Project Exile, which is so much in vogue and which has been practiced so successfully in Richmond, VA. This will allow the resources of the Department of Justice to be made available where appropriate to investigate and prosecute those in our society who commit acts of brutality based on hate. The dragging death of James Byrd, Jr., an African American man in Jasper, TX, the torture and death of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual male in Laramie, WY, shocked the national conscience. Hate crimes have occurred in the Commonwealth of Virginia as well. In 1999, a man was sentenced to life in prison and fined $100,000 for his role in the death of an African American man who was beheaded and burned in Independence, VA. And a homosexual man was murdered and his severed head was left atop a footbridge near the James River in Richmond, VA. It is hard to imagine the pain and suffering of the victims and their families. This legislation does not allow individuals to be prosecuted for their hateful thoughts; rather it allows them to be punished for their hateful acts. Willfully inflicting harm on another human being based on hate is not protected free speech. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and demonstrate our commitment to eradicate the hate. I reserve any time remaining to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Murray and Senator Snowe renews our debate, once again about women's reproductive choice and access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive health care services. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their eloquent advocacy on behalf of women in uniform. Mr. President, the Murray-Snowe amendment repeals the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military medical facilities. Simply stated, this legislation would ensure that women service members and military dependents stationed overseas have access to the reproductive health care services guaranteed to all American women. Under the current policy, women who volunteer to serve their country and are stationed outside the United States have to surrender the protection of these rights. They can't use their own funds to obtain abortion services in our safe military medical facilities. It is ironic that active-duty service members who are sent abroad to protect and defend our rights are unnecessarily denied their own in the process. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has, time and time again, affirmed that reproductive rights are constitutionally protected rights. Roe v. Wade is still the law of our land. Congress has even passed legislation making it illegal to prevent or hinder a woman's access to clinics that provide abortion services. And yet we are here again trying to protect the constitutional rights of a group of women who are willing to die to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. This is a fight we shouldn't have to wage in this chamber, Mr. President. I'd like to respond to some of the arguments that have been made against this amendment. This amendment does not advocate Federal funding of abortions. Women service members, not the American taxpayer, are entirely responsible for the cost of these services. Furthermore, as per current policy, this amendment would not force any individual service member to perform a procedure to which he or she objects. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and give military service members and their dependents the same protections whether stationed in this country or abroad. The women of our Armed Forces should not be forced to risk their health, safety, and well-being via back-alley abortions or substandard foreign health care services. The Murray-Snowe amendment provides the women who have volunteered to serve this Nation and are assigned to duty outside the United States with the range of constitutional rights that they have when they are on American soil. We owe this to our American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the Millennium Digital Commerce Act, a bill which I believe will help us remove one of the most imposing barriers to the growth of electronic commerce--the lack of a way to verify the validity of contracts entered into over the web. As the Internet becomes more ubiquitous in society and the lines between paper and electronic worlds blur, it is crucial that we find ways to adapt older regulatory structures such as contract law to the new world of Internet commerce. By providing a framework for digital signatures, the Millenium Digital Commerce Act will do just that, and I'm pleased that we're about to send it to the President's desk for signature. I'm particularly pleased that the conferees were able to work through some of the complicated consumer protection issues on this bill. Throughout the conference negotiations, there were those who suggested that we should use this bill to relax some of our most important consumer protection laws. I appreciate the efforts of Senators Leahy, McCain, Abraham and others in working to temper these efforts, and believe that the final product is much better for it. While I strongly support this legislation, I regret that a prior commitment will prevent me from being here tomorrow to vote in favor of it. In my absence, I urge each of my colleagues to support this landmark agreement, which will help the Internet realize its full potential.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to honor the service of Ms. Mary Moran and Ms. Victoria Metz, the outgoing Parent Teacher Association (PTA) co-presidents at the Arlington Traditional School, a public alternative elementary school in Arlington, Virginia. For the past two years, both Mary Moran and Victoria Metz have dedicated themselves to educational achievement by assisting the students, parents, teachers and administration of Arlington Traditional School. They have appeared on numerous occasions before the Arlington County School Board to discuss educational issues and sustain support for the Arlington Traditional School. Ms. Moran and Ms. Metz have also frequently met with individual members of the School Board to answer questions and have reached out to other local PTA presidents. During the tenure of Mary Moran and Victoria Metz as co-presidents, the Arlington Traditional School PTA has played an integral role in the following activities: Math Night, Science and Technology Night, the DARE Program for 5th Graders; Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Asian Pacific Heritage Month, Native American Month, the Fall Family Get-Together, Holiday Open House, Parent-Teacher Conference Luncheon and Dinner, Summer Reading Challenge, Back to School Night and Staff Appreciation Week. The PTA generously purchased computers for student use at the Arlington Traditional School. Mary Moran and Victoria Metz were also responsible for the Arlington Traditional School PTA's outreach efforts into the community. The PTA made significant contributions to the Arlington Community Temporary Shelter, the Animal Welfare League of Arlington, UNICEF and the Red Cross's International Relief Fund. Mary Moran and Victoria Metz have truly made a difference at the Arlington Traditional School. Their success illustrates that our public schools benefit and prosper when parents take active leadership roles in supporting education.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a concurrent resolution urging Congress to enact meaningful hate crimes legislation. Today marks the sad second anniversary of the killing of James Byrd, Jr., the victim of a vicious hate crime in Texas. Mr. Byrd, a 49-year-old African-American man, was dragged for approximately two miles while chained to the back of a pickup truck by his white assailants. As a result of this brutal attack, Mr. Byrd's head and right arm were severed from his body. Reflecting on this terrible act of deep hatred against the dignity of a human being should strengthen our resolve to combat acts of bias in our society. We will not get to where we need to go in this country until we have eradicated the discriminatory hatred that lies in some people's hearts. While we cannot legislate away the prejudice in a person's heart or soul, we can certainly punish those who act upon their feelings of hatred and commit acts of utter brutality. Hate crimes tear at the very fabric of American society and often scar, not just the victims, but the families and communities involved as well. Those who harbor hatred must know that America will punish them for their actions and that we will not tolerate their acts of inhumanity. Our Nation is composed of a great diversity that contributes to our economic and educational preeminence in the world. We will never achieve all that our Nation is capable of accomplishing unless we are united in addressing the scourge of prejudice and hate crimes in our society. The Congress can lead on this issue by enacting comprehensive legislation, such as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, that expands existing hate crimes law. Not only should those who are victimized by hate crimes because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability be afforded access to appropriate justice, but we as a Nation should also pursue swift and serious punishment against violent hate-mongers to send a message that we will not tolerate their hate. Today, I join with colleagues from both the Senate and the House to introduce this concurrent resolution and spur action to combat the crimes motivated by bias which continue to shock the conscience of our civil society. Federal hate crimes legislation provides another avenue for prosecuting the perpetrators of violent hate, and I look forward to enacting a comprehensive Federal hate crimes statute. I am confident that our abhorrence of hate crimes will move the Congress to action.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as we approach the 56th Anniversary of D- Day, June 6th, 1944, we should pause to reflect on the valor and sacrifice of the men who died on the beaches of Normandy. In the vanguard of the force that landed on that June morning, was the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division. In 1944 the 116th Infantry Regiment, as it is today, was a National Guard unit mustering at the armory in Bedford, Virginia. They drew their members from a town of only 3,200 people and the rich country in central Virginia nestled in the cool shadows of the Blue Ridge Mountains. On the morning of June 6th, 1944, Company A led the 116th Infantry Regiment and the 29th Infantry Division ashore, landing on Omaha Beach in the face of withering enemy fire. Within minutes, the company suffered ninety-six percent casualties, to include twenty-one killed in action. Before nightfall, two more sons of Bedford from Companies C and F perished in the desperate fighting to gain a foothold on the blood- soaked beachhead. On D-Day, the town of Bedford, Virginia gave more of her sons to the defense of freedom and the defeat of dictatorship, than any other community (per capita) in the nation. It is fitting that Bedford is home to the national D-Day Memorial. But we must remember that this memorial represents not just a day or a battle--it is a marker that represents individual soldiers like the men of the 116th Infantry Regiment--every one a father, son, or brother. Each sacrifice has a name, held dear in the hearts of a patriotic Virginia town-- Bedford. Mr. President, in memory of the men from Bedford, Virginia who died on June 6th, 1944, I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record at the end of my statement as a tribute to the town of Bedford, and every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine who has made the supreme sacrifice in the service of our country.