Charles Robb

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 southwestern 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, and airman, who has made the supreme sacrifice in the service of our country. The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentive Act. This legislation will help accomplish two things. First, it will promote the production and use of cars that use clean fuels, and will consequently improve air quality. Secondly, the tax credit will improve our energy independence. I honestly believe that one of the best things we can do for this country is to find a way to fuel transportation that is cleaner, and more reliable. Our automobile emissions get cleaner every year. But there are more of us on the road every year, and we drive more miles every year. So we have to keep increasing our efforts in the direction of more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels. Earlier this year, we experienced a sharp spike in fuel prices, courtesy of OPEC. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. It is imperative for our country to keep moving in the direction of energy independence, and I am convinced that it can be done without sacrificing convenience, mobility, or the environment. But we need to find a substitute for gasoline, and we need to combine the most efficient technologies in a way that provides convenient transportation. New automotive technologies are being developed by automobile companies, in concert with some of our fine engineering schools. All these technologies show promise, but after the pilot stage and before achieving mass appeal, there is a critical phase at which we can help a new idea grow, or we can ignore it and perhaps let it fail. This tax credit is a tool that can be used to bridge the gap between an experimental vehicle and a commercially available vehicle. It encompasses the kind of creative thinking that we need to employ if we are going to reach a new standard of efficiency in automotive technology. I look forward to a full discussion of the benefits of this bill, and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and move for quick passage.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Alternative Fuels Tax Incentive Act. This legislation will help accomplish two things. First, it will promote the production and use of cars that use clean fuels, and will consequently improve air quality. Secondly, the tax credit will improve our energy independence. I honestly believe that one of the best things we can do for this country is to find a way to fuel transportation that is cleaner, and more reliable. Our automobile emissions get cleaner every year. But there are more of us on the road every year, and we drive more miles every year. So we have to keep increasing our efforts in the direction of more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels. Earlier this year, we experienced a sharp spike in fuel prices, courtesy of OPEC. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. It is imperative for our country to keep moving in the direction of energy independence, and I am convinced that it can be done without sacrificing convenience, mobility, or the environment. But we need to find a substitute for gasoline, and we need to combine the most efficient technologies in a way that provides convenient transportation. New automotive technologies are being developed by automobile companies, in concert with some of our fine engineering schools. All these technologies show promise, but after the pilot stage and before achieving mass appeal, there is a critical phase at which we can help a new idea grow, or we can ignore it and perhaps let it fail. This tax credit is a tool that can be used to bridge the gap between an experimental vehicle and a commercially available vehicle. It encompasses the kind of creative thinking that we need to employ if we are going to reach a new standard of efficiency in automotive technology. I look forward to a full discussion of the benefits of this bill, and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, and move for quick passage.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Col. William ``Dave'' Miller upon his retirement from the U.S. Army and to thank him for his 27 years of faithful and honorable service to the Army and the Nation. Serving in positions of increasing responsibility, Colonel Miller has displayed remarkable leadership and superb knowledge throughout his entire career. Colonel Miller's exceptional abilities were notably acknowledged when he was selected as Commander of the Data Systems Unit, White House Communications Agency. As the Commander, he was the driving force behind the development of a host of automation modernization programs, which significantly improved the crisis management decision process of the Nation and placed the Command upon the cutting edge of the information revolution. Colonel Miller routinely interacted with the National Security Council, White House Military Office, and the White House Staff. The consummate professional, he demonstrated the ability to work successfully with each of these offices and build consensus thereby ensuring mission success. Upon completion of the Program Manager's Course, Colonel Miller served as the Commander of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Acquisition Information Systems Activity, where he directly supported the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition. Colonel Miller introduced a myriad of initiatives that resulted in dramatic improvements in the daily operation of his organization. Chief among these was his ability to reduce base operations costs by 38 percent which translated into a yearly savings of over three hundred thousand dollars. Colonel Miller culminated his career as the Commander of the United States Army Information Systems Software Center, a centrally selected Command with over 900 military and civilian personnel supported by over 400 contractors. He managed a budget of over $115 million. Colonel Miller, a recognized leader in the acquisition and automation communities, did an exceptional job of leading his command through a difficult period of downsizing and budget cuts while continuing to improve automation support to the Warfighter. Colonel Miller is one of the Army's most outstanding automation officers. His selfless dedication, consummate professionalism, and visionary leadership have enabled him to lead his Command to unprecedented heights, eliciting praise from field commanders Army wide. He personifies the very best character attributes of the Officers' Corps. The Army will be greatly diminished the day that he retires. I am honoring Colonel Miller today as a way of thanking him for his faithful and honorable service to the Army and to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished senior colleague. We agree on so many things. Sometimes we have to consider the cost of doing nothing as opposed to the cost of doing what we are doing. It is in that context that I view this particular dilemma we face. I certainly share my distinguished senior colleague's commitment to finding a way to maintain our commitments to peace in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to respond to my colleague.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the Navy's ship maintenance problem is large--and growing larger. Scheduled heavy maintenance for fifteen ships has already been canceled this fiscal year. Without the funds provided by this amendment, the Navy will either cancel or drastically reduce work scheduled for eighteen more. The individual cases are striking: The amphibious assault ship Bataan should be undergoing $17 million of work at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Instead she is deployed to Puerto Rico. The amphibious transport dock ship Shreveport ran aground recently and was repaired overseas for $1.5 million just to get her home. Her subsequent $6 million shipyard availability has been canceled. The backlog of work for the fast combat support ship Detroit-- declared ``unsafe for underway operations'' by Navy inspectors last August--climbed to $68 million, nearly twice previous estimates. All of this unprogrammed funding must come out of this fiscal year's budget. The Pacific Fleet canceled $20.6 million of work on the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard and $13 million on the amphibious transport dock ship Denver. They may have to skip availabilities for three aircraft carriers--two of which, the Kitty Hawk and the Constellation, are nearly 40 years old. Mr. President, we should not be surprised. Since the end of the Cold War we have reduced the size of the fleet, yet we are running our Navy at unprecedented levels in support of worldwide national security requirements--over eighty contingencies just since 1990. Ship maintenance challenges have a direct and adverse impact on Navy retention rates. Admiral Vernon Clark, Commander of the Atlantic Fleet and nominee for next Chief of Naval Operations, routinely points out that retention is all about our sailors' quality of life and quality of work. Sailors spend valuable time chipping paint; time that should be spent training, going to school or enjoying their families. Consider this example, just to provide a sense of this retention relationship. The anchor and chains of the destroyer USS Briscoe were refurbished in 1995 and supposed to last twelve years. Within three years, rust was bleeding through. A ten sailor detail was mustered from the ship's crew to redo the job. The chains were lowered to the pier one link at a time, dragged to a barge, then scraped by sailors with vibrating wire needle guns--a total of 1,530 feet of chain. The job took ten sailors working six weeks to finish, a job that should not have been needed until 2007. Clearly, time-consuming and spirit-sapping work. Clearly, the Navy is not getting all the tools, time and parts to do the job right. Mr. President, there is no question, we are at a crisis point in keeping our magnificent fleet safe and ready. The $220 million in this amendment will provide some immediate relief for the Navy and our sailors around the fleet. The Senate Armed Services Committee, under the capable leadership of Senator Warner, and the Seapower Subcommittee under Senator Snowe's leadership, have committed to fully fund all of the Navy's fiscal year 2001 projected maintenance requirements. It is important to recognize, however, that additional funds are only a part of controlling our ship maintenance problems. The Administration, the Navy and the Congress must address the larger issues that will continue to erode our fleet's readiness. Aging ships, more deployments, chronic underfunding of maintenance accounts, inefficiencies in the maintenance management system, reductions at our public and private shipyards, and lower retention rates for sailors with maintenance ratings--all compound this situation. Mr. President, we have a lot of work ahead of us if we are to set the conditions that will ensure the capability and readiness of our Navy today and in the years ahead. Our shipbuilding rates are too low to sustain the size of the fleet necessary to meet our security requirements. We need to accelerate the insertion of new and improved ship technologies that will reduce maintenance requirements. The Navy's maintenance management system needs modernization, arguably a new way of thinking of why, how and when ship maintenance is scheduled. Modern sailors work too hard and are too valuable to waste time chipping paint--we need to protect them from mind-numbing heavy maintenance that should be done right the first time in the nation's shipyards. This amendment is only part of what should become a comprehensive approach to the challenges of Navy ship maintenance--but it is a critical part. We cannot afford to allow the backlog to grow. With this amendment and the resources we provide for fiscal year 2001, we make a national commitment to fully fund our ship maintenance requirements, and to keeping our fleet safe and ready. Amendment No. 3156

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Michigan in recognizing the eloquence of the statement just made, very much from the heart, by the Senator from Oregon. I concur in his remarks. Once again we are on the floor of the Senate debating the strength of the U.S. commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans, and once again we are being asked to weigh the benefits and costs of our current commitments. I do not like to find myself at odds, especially on national security matters, with my friend and senior colleague from Virginia. We share so many of the values that shape our view of the world and the critical role of the United States in that world. We also share an unshakeable conviction in the importance of the moral and physical leadership of the United States in a dangerous world and the belief that a strong United States is the best guarantor of peace. Likewise, I have enormous respect for the other coauthor of the amendment which is currently incorporated in the military construction appropriations bill we are now considering. There is no other Member of this body who is more knowledgeable, when it comes to the history of our Constitution, or who has fought harder to uphold the constitutional role of the Congress and of this body in relation to the executive branch than the senior Senator from West Virginia. I understand and share our colleagues' frustration with the costs of our commitments in the Balkans, not just in terms of dollars but also the wear and tear on our armed forces around the world. I understand and share our colleagues' frustration with the glacial pace of progress toward reconstruction in Kosovo and the establishment of a capable civil police force. But we knew the risks going into this effort to stop the killing and give peace a chance to take hold in this troubled land. We know from experience that these types of efforts defy deadlines. We know from experience the consequences of setting conditions that let other countries control our destiny. Each time we have debated deadlines, I have argued against them. Each time we have proposed statutorily binding deadlines, I have voted against them. I believe the provisions in this bill establishing a deadline for the withdrawal of ground troops from Kosovo undermine U.S. leadership around the world and raise understandable anxiety about our commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans. They play directly into the hands of those in the region who depend on conflict and chaos to achieve their ends. The situation in Kosovo defies a simple calculus for withdrawal of U.S. forces. The situation in Kosovo defies a simple calculus for those whose burdens are greater or smaller, fair or unfair. We know from experience that the requirement of our physical presence and our relative share of the burden will shift with changing conditions on the ground--either through reduced threats or improved stability. Setting statutory deadlines now, in my judgment, will only undermine the confidence of our allies. Setting statutory deadlines now will only shake the world's confidence in our leadership. Setting statutory deadlines now will only encourage those who oppose peace and stability in the region. The deadline framework established by this provision in the military construction bill tells our adversary what combination of actions or manipulation of conditions by which he can ``control'' U.S. and NATO policy. Although the authors argue that this provision has no automatic triggers and that there are escape clauses allowing the Congress to undo what this provision would do, the advantage of knowing the limit of our commitment transfers the advantage and the leverage to our adversary. Under this provision, July 1 becomes a magic date--either this year or next; or some other date, if it happens to be switched in conference--against which he can plan, organize, and execute efforts to pursue regional destabilization. Under this provision, in the mind of our adversary, we trade the certainty of our commitment to stability, and our military capability to enforce it, for the certain knowledge of our limited determination and the eventual unhinging of the political and military cohesion of our coalition. I am concerned that regardless of when the deadlines may be set in this provision, our perceived lack of will could put at risk militarily our coalition troops on the ground in Kosovo. I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my friend and senior colleague on many issues involving our Nation's national security interests. But I cannot do so on this issue because I believe it would undermine our position of world leadership and place us in an untenable position regarding the Balkans. In support of our men and women in uniform in the field, and of America's enduring open-ended commitment to peace and stability, I must, therefore, oppose the provision currently included in the bill and urge our colleagues to support the motion to strike offered by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. With that, Mr. President, I believe my time has expired. If not, I reserve any remaining time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan on his time, as requested.

Mr. ROBB. Of course.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century. This legislation would authorize a transfer of interest from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the United Mine Worker Combined Benefit Fund so that we can keep our promise of paying for our retired coal miner's health benefits. In the 1992 Coal Act, a promise was made to retired coal miners and their families that they would have health benefits. In a few short months, the available funds for these health benefits will be exhausted. We cannot allow this to happen. We made a promise--we must keep it. Last week, Senator Rockefeller introduced similar legislation to authorize a transfer from general revenues to pay for the shortfall in the retiree health benefits fund. Senator Rockefeller has been a leader on this issue for many years and I strongly support his approach. Last year, thanks to the dogged determination of Senator Byrd, we were able to postpone the inevitable by getting additional funding. This funding, however, will run out in several months. The time has come to make good on the promise to the retired coal miners. This legislation will give retired coal miners and their families the health benefits they deserve.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century. This legislation would authorize a transfer of interest from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the United Mine Worker Combined Benefit Fund so that we can keep our promise of paying for our retired coal miner's health benefits. In the 1992 Coal Act, a promise was made to retired coal miners and their families that they would have health benefits. In a few short months, the available funds for these health benefits will be exhausted. We cannot allow this to happen. We made a promise--we must keep it. Last week, Senator Rockefeller introduced similar legislation to authorize a transfer from general revenues to pay for the shortfall in the retiree health benefits fund. Senator Rockefeller has been a leader on this issue for many years and I strongly support his approach. Last year, thanks to the dogged determination of Senator Byrd, we were able to postpone the inevitable by getting additional funding. This funding, however, will run out in several months. The time has come to make good on the promise to the retired coal miners. This legislation will give retired coal miners and their families the health benefits they deserve.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to join my distinguished colleague from Tennessee in a colloquy with the distinguished Managers of this legislation, the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words about the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs, or MEND Act, which our leader, Senator Daschle introduced today. The MEND Act an important first step toward modernizing Medicare through the creation of a voluntary, affordable, universal prescription drug benefit. While the bill has many elements that I support, I am also interested in looking at ways that we might create a prescription drug bill that distributes its benefits for senior citizens in a more targeted way. I am working with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee to create such a bill, and hope to introduce it in the next two weeks. With it, we will have two strong options for giving our seniors the help they so desperately need with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Mr. President, I applaud the minority leader for his determination in working to help our nation's seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, and for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words about the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs, or MEND Act, which our leader, Senator Daschle introduced today. The MEND Act an important first step toward modernizing Medicare through the creation of a voluntary, affordable, universal prescription drug benefit. While the bill has many elements that I support, I am also interested in looking at ways that we might create a prescription drug bill that distributes its benefits for senior citizens in a more targeted way. I am working with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee to create such a bill, and hope to introduce it in the next two weeks. With it, we will have two strong options for giving our seniors the help they so desperately need with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Mr. President, I applaud the minority leader for his determination in working to help our nation's seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, and for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, tomorrow I intend to offer an amendment (No. 3146) to address our critical ship maintenance shortfalls in fiscal year 2000 as part of the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. I am filing this amendment tonight.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, we may not have any more important debate this session than the one we are having now on the reauthorization of the major piece of federal legislation affecting K-12 education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I was pleased to support the Democratic alternative last Thursday because it contained many of my highest priorities for education. It continues our commitment to class size reduction, an initiative that will give our children more individualized attention with a qualified teacher. It provides substantially more money for professional development for teachers and administrators, so we can help build our teachers up, rather than tear them down. It contains more money for schools to make urgently needed safety-related repairs to their facilities, so our children are not in schools with leaky roofs or fire code violations. It contains increased investments in equipping our schools with modern technology, so our children can learn the language of the new economy--the information technology language. It contains increased funding for school safety initiatives, because we can't have good schools, unless we have safe schools. I am pleased that the New Democrats were able to work with our Democratic Caucus to significantly enhance and strengthen the accountability measures contained in the Democratic alternative. Although the amendment was defeated, I believe it contained a better approach, frankly, to the reauthorization of ESEA than that which has been offered by our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The Senate new Democrats under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and others, as has already been stated, have been working for many months on a proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in a way that will truly help our Nation's students and improve our Nation's schools. We have offered this proposal as an alternative to the way we think about the Federal role in K-12 education. The goal of this alternative approach is the principle reason why we should have an Elementary and Secondary Education Act at all: to improve student academic performance and readiness. Two critical factors on the federal level in achieving this goal are investment and real accountability. In 1994, Congress took a monumental step toward encouraging standards-based reform across the states--a movement which really began in 1989 when President Bush convened a summit in Charlottesville, VA with our Nation's Governors to explore ways to improve our public education system. When we considered the Goals 2000 legislation in 1994, we reiterated the principle of that summit: that education is primarily a State and local responsibility, but it is also a national priority. We recognized that if the Federal Government is to be a meaningful partner in education reform, we must give greater flexibility to States in the use of their funds in order to foster innovation and to help States design their own standards-based reform plans. During the floor consideration of Goals 2000, I voiced my support for Goals 2000 funding and said: [w]ith this new funding States can, if they choose, work to establish tough academic standards, create a system of assessments to put real accountability into our schools, and expand efforts to better train teachers and give them the tools they need to teach our kids. As a result a result of Goals 2000, 48 States have now developed standards and many are in the process of aligning their curricula and assessments to those standards. But we need to help even more than we are now, because only about half of the States this year will meet their student performance goals. And what is more troubling is that there continues to be a startling achievement gap between low-income students and more affluent students. Now that the vast majority of our States have standards in place, we need to help them meet those standards. Our Three R's amendment emphasizes the need to reinvest in our schools, to reinvent the way that we partner with States and localities, and to recognize that we, as a Nation, have a responsibility to ensure that our children are receiving the very best education that all levels of government can collectively provide. For the first time, this amendment attempts to hold States accountable not for filling out the right forms or for writing good grant proposals, but for actual increases in student achievement. The Three R's approach ensures that States are held accountable for yearly improvement in student academic performance. States will set their own yearly targets for improvement. Our hope is that these performance goals will help all children become proficient in reading, mathematics, and science. States will be required to take dramatic corrective action in the event that school districts in their States chronically fail to make the grade. Failing schools can be shut down. They can be reconstituted with new administrations. They can be turned into charter schools. There are a variety of options available, but the point is simple: failing schools are failing our children, and our children deserve more. States that meet or exceed their performance targets will be rewarded with even more flexibility in the use of their funds. But a demand for more accountability must be accompanied by increased investment--increased investment in our students, increased investment in our teachers, increased investment in our administrators, and increased investment in our schools themselves. This amendment calls for an unprecedented $35 billion increase in elementary and secondary education funding over the next 5 years. Currently, the Federal Government only spends $14.4 billion per year on K-12 education. To put that in some perspective, last year we spent $230 billion to pay interest on the national debt. The fact that we pay 15 times more money on debt that is akin to bad credit card debt, when we could be building schools, or training teachers, or hiring school safety officers, is shameful. Our amendment would increase our current spending by $7.2 billion next year alone. Instead of pumping this money into more programs, our amendment distributes most of the new Federal funds to States based upon a formula, rather than to those States and localities who can afford to hire savvy grant writers. The distribution of funds is targeted to where the funds are needed most--to our neediest schools and students, that are so often left behind. The Three R's approach increases teacher quality funding to $1.6 billion, which is a $1 billion increase from our current spending. It substantially increases aid for economically disadvantaged students by 50 percent--from $8 billion to $12 billion. We continue our commitment to reducing class size by providing a guaranteed stream of funding for this important initiative which has so far provided States with enough funding to hire over 29,000 new teachers. And we get serious about helping Limited English Proficient students not only master English, but achieve high levels in core subjects as well. Our funding for LEP students is increased from $380 million to $1 billion. Finally, we provide $2.7 billion to expand after-school and summer-school opportunities, to enhance school safety, to improve the technological capabilities of our students, teachers, and schools, and to fund innovative school improvement initiatives designed at the local level. We need to invest in our teachers so they are the best in the world. We need to invest in our schools so they are safe and modern. We need to invest in our students so they will develop the skills they need to succeed. The Federal Government can provide these resources and we believe that it should. At the same time that we do this, we need to ensure that the Federal role in K-12 education is one that actually promotes improvement in academic achievement. That is accountability with real meaning. This amendment is also meant to provide a starting point for a bipartisan effort. Our education debate has a tendency to devolve into partisan battles with the extremes on both sides drawing hard and fast lines that either abandon public schools by promoting vouchers or continue the status quo by funding myriad small programs--programs which, however well intentioned, often dilute the effectiveness of the limited Federal dollars we have to spend on education. We have to get beyond these differences to better serve our children. There is more to the education debate than just these priorities. Last month, the Senate new Democrats held a hearing about the RRR approach. The panelists were former Reagan Education Secretary William Bennett; former Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to President Clinton, William Galston; Seattle Superintendent Joseph Olchefske; Amy Wilkins, principal partner of the Education Trust, an organization dedicated to the education of disadvantaged children; and Robert Schwartz, president of Achieve, Incorporated, an organization formed by the Nation's Governors and corporate leaders to improve public education. Despite the philosophical diversity among the panelists in many areas, all of the panelists agreed that focus on increased investment in exchange for real accountability was necessary and prudent. Perhaps William Bennett summed it up best by saying: The Three R's has the potential to bring about a new era for the Federal Government and education, an era that actively emphasizes results over process and favors success over failure. I believe our RRR amendment combines the principles upon which so many of us can and do agree. It is perhaps more aptly described as the ``III''--investment, innovation, and improvement. This really should be the model for the Federal role in elementary and secondary education in our country. I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will seriously consider this approach. I yield the floor and reserve any time remaining.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to offer a Senate resolution designating May each year as the Month for Children. Children are our nation's future, and it is important that we recognize the significant contributions that children make to their homes, schools and communities. Unfortunately, we continue to be plagued by school violence that is devastating our communities. Furthermore, parents who are struggling to make ends meet find themselves with less time to commit to their children. It is imperative that we as a society rededicate ourselves to exalting our children--supporting their efforts to succeed and providing positive role-models for them today and in the future. We must show that we care for them, and in their honor, I submit this resolution.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I inquire as to how much time remains on this side.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last week, I offered an amendment 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 my amendment from passing, fifty-one senators voted to waive the budget point of order, indicating they favored it, 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. Yet only a week after this vote, Mr. President, we are considering a massive tax cut that will spend $248 billion of the surplus over 10 years, without doing anything to modernize Medicare. 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. This takes a lot of chutzpah. 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 about eliminating the marriage penalty, one might think that they would share my view and want to pass a bill that would actually focus on the penalty. But a close examination of the Republican bill reveals that it is not quite what it is described to be. In fact, there are 65 provisions in the Tax Code that have a marriage penalty, including Social Security. Their bill takes care of one provision entirely and two others partially, and leaves the other 63 marriage penalties exactly the way they are. The Democratic bill addresses all 65 provisions, and takes care of the entire penalty for nearly everybody. The Democratic bill accomplishes all this but costs half as much. It is time that we set our priorities straight. We ought not to be devoting $140 billion of the surplus over 10 years to individuals who currently have no marriage penalty when we have done nothing to help those who suffer from the ``senior citizens' drug penalty'' the high prices our Nation's seniors are forced to pay for prescription drugs. I intend to offer a motion to recommit this bloated bill to the Finance Committee, with instructions to report out a new bill by June 1 that focuses its dollars on taxpayers who actually face a marriage penalty, and that devotes $40 billion over the next 5 years to a new prescription drug benefit. This motion will not prevent Congress from enacting marriage penalty relief this year, it will just ensure that we do not backtrack from last week's vote to enact a prescription drug benefit before we do major tax cuts. I want to share again a letter I received from a woman in St. Stephens Church, VA which illustrates why the prescription drug amendment is so important. She writes: My husband and I are both retirees and rely on Social Security and Medicare. Recently, we both had to go to our family doctor, and the drugs that were prescribed for us would cost us out of pocket approximately $300 per month. Due to the cost of the two prescriptions, we are forced to choose not to take the medication and live with the illness. Another woman from Scottsville, VA writes: My husband's income consists of his Social Security and a small pension from his former employer. We spend over twice as much for prescriptions as we do for groceries, and it's getting harder and harder to stretch our income 'til our checks arrive. These Virginians are not alone in their troubles. The average senior citizen will spend $1,100 on prescription drugs this year. Most of them will not have adequate prescription drug coverage to help them cover these crushing costs. The numbers of those who do have coverage are dropping rapidly. Despite the suggestions of some of my colleagues, this problem is not 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 Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers--or PBMs--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. A study released earlier this week 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 rely more 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. Last week the other side spoke against my 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 the Committee 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 will not squander the surplus on tax cuts before we have helped our nation's seniors. Let me say that I do trust my good friends on the other side of the aisle. To borrow a line from Ronald Reagan, I believe we should trust--but verify. That is what my amendment last week did. It required deeds as well as words. Seeing what happened in the budget resolution conference committee, it has become clearer than ever why we need to verify the promises that the other side gives us. Because despite both chambers setting aside a $40 billion reserve fund for a prescription drug benefit, one of the first things that the conferees did was cut this fund in half, to $20 billion--a number far too low to enact any sort of universal benefit for our nation's seniors. The conferees then took this other $20 billion, which is vitally needed to fund a universal prescription drug benefit, and said that it should be used for other Medicare reforms, such as another round of adjustments to the payment rates for Medicare providers that were hit hard by the cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. But after touting this reserve fund as the key to a prescription drug benefit, they have essentially neutered themselves. Even worse, the conferees removed the one provision that would have helped push a prescription drug benefit forward. The Senate budget resolution set a date of September 1 for the Finance Committee to report out a prescription drug bill. This deadline would have guaranteed that the Senate would at least consider prescription drug legislation this year. But the conferees stripped this deadline out of the bill. They have basically said: it is not important for the Senate to pass a bill to eliminate the ``senior citizens' drug penalty.'' I am by no means opposed to taking another look at the decisions we made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I worked very hard last year in the Finance Committee on the Balanced Budget Refinement Act. And there ought to be room, in the context of a balanced budget, to provide further relief to health care providers who were hit hard by the cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We ought not to be limiting our Medicare reform efforts to $40 billion, however, simply to free up additional funds for tax cuts. With this new limit, Republicans have essentially pitted a prescription drug benefit for seniors against additional relief for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers. Republicans have decided that two important priorities must square off, so that we can provide billions of dollars in so-called ``marriage penalty'' tax relief to individuals who do not even incur a marriage tax penalty on their taxes. Our nation's seniors deserve better than this. Last week, at least fifty-one Senators felt the same way. I urge every one of them, as well as Senators who opposed my amendment last week because they thought the $40 billion reserve fund would guarantee a prescription drug benefit, to support my motion to recommit this bill. With its passage, we will be able to eliminate both the true marriage tax penalty and the ``senior citizens' drug penalty.''

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce the Assistance in Development to Communities Act. This bill addressed the importance--and need--for community-based, economic development to assist areas in trade-related, economic transitions. Despite the increased globalization of our economy, many communities nationwide are still one-company or one-industry towns. If that company or industry is adversely affected by trade, the entire community faces economic strain. When these communities lose a major employer or industry, they sadly also lose something far more valuable--they lose their way of life, and too often their strong sense of community. Currently, when an individual loses a job because of the effects of trade, the federal government provides Trade Adjustment Assistance or NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance to help with income support and worker retraining. But what good is that training without jobs? While we continue to open new avenues of free trade, the federal government has an obligation to help trade affected communities attract good jobs. Unfortunately, prospective employers don't automatically appear on the community's doorstep. Workers have mortgages, car payments, health concerns, family obligations and ties to the community, so relocation isn't always feasible. Local officials must find a way to lure industries to the area. Yet, they are caught in vicious cycle--employers are reluctant to move to economically depressed areas, but without jobs, communities will never recover. This is an on-going reality in the Martinsville/Henry County region of Virginia. In January, I spoke with local officials about the steady stream of job losses they've endured, including the loss of the number two employer in Martinsville. They've faced double-digit unemployment-- something that's virtually unheard of in this strong economy. They told me they need help. This legislation is borne from their ideas. The AID to Communities bill give local communities the resources they need to implement their own ideas for attracting new employers--quickly and easily. It does this by providing an automatic, one-time grant to help affected communities formulate an economic development plan. This grant, up to $100,000, gives communities the resources they need to develop a long- term plan to readjust their economic base. Once that plan has been developed, the AID to Communities bill establishes a second, competitive grant program to help affected areas implement their plans. These grants can be used in a variety of ways, from expanding commercial infrastructure to establishing small business incubators. My bill also offers two incentives to attract prospective employers. The first incentive would expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) to provide employers with a tax credit if they hire someone who lives in an affected community and has lost a job due to trade. My bill would also make explicit that the New Markets Tax Credit, which provides incentives for private sector investment and capital access in certain areas, is available for trade-affected communities. Finally, the bill makes the federal government a better partner be creating a one-stop, easily accessible clearinghouse of economic development information. This clearinghouse would provide access to cross-agency economic development tools, such as grants or low-interest loans, for affected communities so local officials don't have to hunt through each federal agency for the information they need. Our neighbors in places like Martinsville/Henry County, Virginia are eager to enjoy the economic prosperity that the rest of the country enjoys, yet has so far eluded them. The AID to Communities bill is one way to help. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill becomes law and that the people of Martinsville/Henry County, and in so many other small towns across America, get the help we owe them.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce the Assistance in Development to Communities Act. This bill addressed the importance--and need--for community-based, economic development to assist areas in trade-related, economic transitions. Despite the increased globalization of our economy, many communities nationwide are still one-company or one-industry towns. If that company or industry is adversely affected by trade, the entire community faces economic strain. When these communities lose a major employer or industry, they sadly also lose something far more valuable--they lose their way of life, and too often their strong sense of community. Currently, when an individual loses a job because of the effects of trade, the federal government provides Trade Adjustment Assistance or NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance to help with income support and worker retraining. But what good is that training without jobs? While we continue to open new avenues of free trade, the federal government has an obligation to help trade affected communities attract good jobs. Unfortunately, prospective employers don't automatically appear on the community's doorstep. Workers have mortgages, car payments, health concerns, family obligations and ties to the community, so relocation isn't always feasible. Local officials must find a way to lure industries to the area. Yet, they are caught in vicious cycle--employers are reluctant to move to economically depressed areas, but without jobs, communities will never recover. This is an on-going reality in the Martinsville/Henry County region of Virginia. In January, I spoke with local officials about the steady stream of job losses they've endured, including the loss of the number two employer in Martinsville. They've faced double-digit unemployment-- something that's virtually unheard of in this strong economy. They told me they need help. This legislation is borne from their ideas. The AID to Communities bill give local communities the resources they need to implement their own ideas for attracting new employers--quickly and easily. It does this by providing an automatic, one-time grant to help affected communities formulate an economic development plan. This grant, up to $100,000, gives communities the resources they need to develop a long- term plan to readjust their economic base. Once that plan has been developed, the AID to Communities bill establishes a second, competitive grant program to help affected areas implement their plans. These grants can be used in a variety of ways, from expanding commercial infrastructure to establishing small business incubators. My bill also offers two incentives to attract prospective employers. The first incentive would expand the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) to provide employers with a tax credit if they hire someone who lives in an affected community and has lost a job due to trade. My bill would also make explicit that the New Markets Tax Credit, which provides incentives for private sector investment and capital access in certain areas, is available for trade-affected communities. Finally, the bill makes the federal government a better partner be creating a one-stop, easily accessible clearinghouse of economic development information. This clearinghouse would provide access to cross-agency economic development tools, such as grants or low-interest loans, for affected communities so local officials don't have to hunt through each federal agency for the information they need. Our neighbors in places like Martinsville/Henry County, Virginia are eager to enjoy the economic prosperity that the rest of the country enjoys, yet has so far eluded them. The AID to Communities bill is one way to help. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill becomes law and that the people of Martinsville/Henry County, and in so many other small towns across America, get the help we owe them.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to support the budget resolution that is before us today. Our annual budget resolution supposedly represents our nation's fiscal blueprint, but this document comes up short in terms of what our priorities ought to be. Instead of large, untargeted and unwarranted tax cuts, we ought to be dedicating our resources towards rebuilding our nation's schools, providing Seniors with affordable medication, strengthening Social Security and building up our national defense--in addition to paying down the national debt, so that the federal government can stay out of the capital market and be better equipped to handle dips in the economy in the future. In all of these categories the budget resolution falls woefully short. Through fiscal discipline the past seven years, we finally have the ability to begin to address our real needs. We cannot allow this golden opportunity to slip through our fingers. We owe it to our children and our parents to do a better job.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I accept the objection of my friend from Iowa. Under the conference agreement, the $40 billion went in on the part of the Senate. Only $20 billion came out; $20 billion has already been diverted in the conference agreement. I recognize an objection has been offered. I will make my point.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, so that I may offer a motion to recommit the bill to the Senate Finance Committee.