Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the substitute Budget Resolution introduced by Senator Lautenberg. Unlike the Republican Budget Resolution, Senator Lautenberg's Democratic alternative puts real teeth into priorities such as prescription drugs, Social Security, education, and paying down the debt. I support the Democratic proposal because it focuses on our national priorities first. But I want to add a word of caution. Our national defense is underfunded in both resolutions. We cannot afford, as a nation, to continue to underfund our nation's security. Freedom has a price. We can't take it for granted. We're not building enough new weapons platforms and systems to be able to meet our obligations here at home or our commitments to our allies abroad. We can't recruit and maintain the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines we need. We can't adequately modernize, much less revolutionize, our Armed Forces without putting more money into our defense budget. I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to meet our responsibilities in this area.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my colleague from Georgia for the clarification. I did not suggest that this was a voucher. I suggested it was an end run around the difficulty in establishing vouchers. The fact is that three- quarters of the benefits under the education IRA that the distinguished Senator from Georgia was able to pass through this body, which will be vetoed by the President of the United States, would go to people who are already enrolled in private schools. So it may not be a duck, but it certainly looks, talks, and walks like a duck. With respect to the need, I suggest to the Senator from Georgia--and I do this in a friendly spirit--looking at all of the schools and the current estimates, Georgia faces an $8.5 billion shortfall for school modernization, which includes $7.1 billion for infrastructure and $1.5 billion for technology needs. There is projected a 26.5-percent increase in this shortfall in the decade ahead. Georgia would be among the States to benefit from this particular provision. But the bottom line is that we have a choice between a plan that we know the President would support and sign, which would provide some 6,000 schools built or modernized and some 25,000 schools repaired, as opposed to the alternative, where we would have 198 schools built or modernized and none repaired. At the same time, we would be transferring funds that could be used to support public education that would be supporting private education. It is as simple as that. I ask our colleagues to reject the substitute and support the underlying amendment. With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ROBB. I request, from the Senator from Nevada, 2 minutes from the resolution.

Mr. ROBB. I yield the entire 9 seconds to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ROBB. How much time remains on this side?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I respond to my distinguished colleague from Georgia by saying, first of all, this is not an amendment to raise taxes. This is simply an amendment to give up $5.9 billion of the tax cut that is in the resolution. Second, there are no Federal strings attached. One of the benefits of this particular approach is we are not dealing with school policy, which can be very sensitive. We are dealing with bricks and mortar. For the most part, we are doing this through a tax credit that leverages the money so they can get a whole lot more bang for the buck. It is a way to keep us from being involved in local school policy. It provides maximum flexibility in the way the funds are used. Finally, with all due respect to my distinguished colleague, he talked about less attentive. You can translate ``less attentive'' into ``less resourced.'' Most of the Federal programs designed to help are for those localities and institutions that simply don't have the resources to meet the critical needs of their students. This is designed to help some of those localities, including localities with very old schools that have leaking roofs and simply don't have modern heating, air conditioning, ventilation, and other accommodations that are part of the modern school system or could not have the modern technology. This gives them a chance to compete on a more equal footing. I hope it will be the pleasure of our colleagues to set aside this part of the tax cut for the very important purpose of investing ultimately in our children, by investing in a nonintervention, nonintrusive way in school policy, in the bricks and mortar that will provide the kind of environment where they can learn. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. We had an opportunity to discuss and debate this particular amendment last night to accommodate Senators. Very simply, this is an amendment to reduce the amendment for the tax cut by $5.9 billion over the next 5 years. It doesn't call for the passage of any specific school construction or renovation proposal that has been discussed. It simply sets aside the money to pay for them. Five years ago, the unmet needs in our schools nationally totaled about $185 billion. Today, those unmet needs total over $306 billion. We hear a lot about State surpluses. If we used all of the fiscal year 1999 surpluses from all of the States, we would still only address about 10 percent of the unmet backlog in terms of school construction and school modernization. I showed this picture last night. I will show this one again. This is a picture of Loudon County High School, just outside the beltway. This is a trailer being put in place in the parking lot. There are a number of trailers in the parking lot. There are over 3,000 trailers currently in use in Virginia alone. Loudon County needs 22 new schools at an average cost of $18 million each. That is over $400 million for one county alone. School enrollment is at record levels. Currently, there are 53.2 million students in the United States. In the next 10 years, it will increase by another 1 million students. The average school today is 42 years old. The last major investment in schools was made back in the Eisenhower administration. It was a $1 billion investment then. The same amount of money today, in current terms, would be $5.4 billion. This amendment simply sets aside $5.9 billion over the next 5 years to accomplish at least a portion of the pressing unmet school construction needs in this country today. I hope it will be the wisdom of my colleagues to agree to this particular amendment and vote for schools. I think I adequately covered the amendment last night. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Georgia or others who may wish to address this particular amendment.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia. I did not see the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' but this reminds me of ``Groundhog Day.'' We have been here before. We wasted an entire week of the Senate's valuable time on the precise bill that the distinguished Senator from Georgia is now presenting to us as an alternative. I listened as the clerk read the language of the initial part of the bill, taking all the amounts that would be put aside to help schools and reducing them to a single dollar. In Virginia, we call that the shad treatment: You leave the skeleton but you surgically remove the entire skeletal structure so there is nothing remaining. Then you substitute a piece of legislation that has already passed this body, notwithstanding the fact that the authors and proponents of the legislation knew from the very beginning this particular bill would not be signed by the President. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, he knew and they knew from the beginning we were wasting a week on that particular legislation. To suggest this is a possible new development or a surprise now, with all due respect, is a bit disingenuous. We have the same problem as before. We are trying to do an end run to bring about vouchers. With this legislation, this Senate would be finding a way to put a disproportionate amount of money--if I recall the figures; I do not have them in front of me--about $37 or so per family for those students who, for the most part, are already sending their children to private schools or parochial schools and about, if I recall, $7 for those in public schools. This is designed to get around the difficulty the distinguished Senator found in incorporating a voucher provision. Vouchers address 10 percent of the population. Our responsibility is to the 90 percent of the children who are in schools in America who do not have access to them. Even if we were to make vouchers available to every schoolchild in America, we only have infrastructure that can support a little over 10 percent of the population. This takes money that would otherwise be available, in this case, for much needed school construction which the States cannot afford and which, by his own admission, would help disproportionately those school districts that do not have the resources, that do not get a chance to play on a level playing field. It would take the money we could use to leverage to build even more schools and renovate even more schools to run the voucher route, again, in a bill that will not even go to the President. This particular resolution does not go to the President for signature. It will have no impact on whatever the President chooses to do about the particular legislation the Senator and those who supported his position passed last time around. Let's not support vouchers in another form to find a way to make it impossible for the Federal Government, without strings attached, to provide support for bricks and mortar in local school districts and divisions that need the assistance. We want to move away from a situation where we have trailers instead of classrooms. If colleagues support the underlying amendment, they will be supporting school construction and renovation. If they support the substitute, they will be supporting school vouchers. I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to reject the substitute and support the underlying amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from North Dakota for their statements. The bottom line is this particular provision in the resolution before the Senate locks in as a matter of law a permanent tax cut that would gobble up all but 2 percent of the on-budget surplus that is available. No matter how much we talk about the desire to do something in terms of prescription drugs for seniors, after the stories we hear about choosing between food and medicine, the bottom line is we lock in a tax cut and we take all the money that would otherwise be available. Notwithstanding the expressed good intentions, it just won't work. This is a matter of priorities. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. A similar statistic could be quoted by any one of our 99 colleagues in this Chamber. Many of those colleagues have similar stories to tell. This amendment is not an attempt to dictate what kind of school modernization legislation we should pass; it merely reserves enough funding to pay for such an effort. Given the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Roth, has reported at least three tax bills within the last year or so which contain tax incentives for school modernization and the fact that Republican and Democratic members alike have various proposals to use discretionary spending as a vehicle to finance school modernization, there is clearly an interest on both sides of the aisle to find a way to do this. Even more illustrative of the momentum to fund school modernization legislation was the introduction last Tuesday of a truly bipartisan school construction and renovation bill in the House. It's sponsored by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Charlie Rangel and has 130 other co- sponsors. School modernization has been a top priority of the education community for the past three years. And this community is joined by engineers, architects, mayors across the country, civil rights groups, and even some religious groups. Mr. President, Let's make it a priority this year. This amendment reflects a commitment similar to the one that our parents and grandparents made a generation ago. I hope we can summon similar courage in this generation. Even more illustrative of the momentum to fund school modernization legislation was the introduction last Tuesday of a truly bipartisan school construction and renovation bill in the House. It is sponsored by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Charlie Rangel and has 103 other cosponsors. School modernization has been a top priority of the education community for the past 3 years. This community is joined by engineers, architects, mayors across the country, civil rights groups, and even some religious groups. Mr. President, let's make it a priority this year. This amendment reflects a similar commitment to the one that our parents and grandparents made a generation ago. I hope that we can summon similar courage in this generation.

Mr. ROBB. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to help ensure that no child attends a school with a leaky roof, or crowded classrooms, or that lacks access to the latest technology and the Internet. In the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Last year's debate about our Budget Resolution is almost a carbon copy of this year's debate. There are few times in the legislative process that the contrasts between ideologies are more clear than in our debate on the Budget Resolution--and this year is no exception. While some would have us focus on funding a massive tax cut which will likely be directed to those who need it least, others would focus on strengthening Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and making critical investments in areas like education. While, understandably, there are bound to be philosophical differences about achieving these objectives, I am again disheartened that education is not higher on our list of fiscal priorities. While I compliment the Chairman for including $2.2 billion dedicated to IDEA funding, I'm back again to urge that more of my colleagues to support an amendment which reduces the size of this massive tax cut to help finance school modernization efforts. Mr. President, education should truly be a common priority--we certainly know that it's a national priority. Mr. President, I'm sure that none of us could imagine holding Senate proceedings in a trailer, nor could we imagine having to place buckets around our desks to catch rainwater leaking in through the Capitol dome. We simply can't imagine what it would feel like to hold our summer debates in a chamber that wasn't air-conditioned. And Mr. President, if we couldn't stand the heat, we'd get out of the chamber and take a recess, but our nation's students simply don't have that luxury. A heat-related recess for them means fewer math lessons. It means less time with a qualified teacher. It means reduced learning. And Mr. President, I'm sure our dedicated clerks here in the Senate couldn't imagine doing their jobs today without being able to scan our amendments into a computer, making them accessible to staff and the nation at a moment's notice. We shouldn't then expect our nation's children to master core skills as well as information technology skills if we don't give them the keys to the information highway. Mr. President, five years ago, the GAO estimated that our national school modernization needs totaled $185 billion. This year, that figure has risen to $307 billion, according to a recent report by the National Education Association. The report indicates that the State Departments of Education across the country are reporting a 65% increase in school modernization needs over the last five years. That translates into $66,849,315 a day. Much like our national debt clock, the tape is also running on our school modernization needs. With record enrollments, deteriorating facilities, and the immense need to modernize our schools with the latest technology, we simply can't afford to sit back and claim that the federal government can't or shouldn't help. There is an often used argument that the federal government should have no role in building or renovating schools. And if you look at last year's federal outlays for capital expenses, school construction occupies the smallest slice of that pie. Of the $400 billion the federal government spent on national infrastructure, only one-tenth of one percent--this little piece right here--went to education, training, and employment capital expenses. Roughly 55 percent of our capital costs were spent on highways, 15 percent on housing, 13 percent on community and regional development, with the remaining portion allotted to mass transit, airports, and pollution control facilities. With over $300 billion in unmet needs, Mr. President, I believe we need to expand this pie and invest more in our schools. Our capital costs over the years can vary from category to category, depending upon what our needs are. Today, the average age of our nation's schools is 42 years. The last time we made a major investment in our nation's educational infrastructure was under the leadership of a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. Over the course of his tenure, we spent roughly $1 billion specifically for school construction--due to the boom in our student population. Well, Mr. President, we're in the Baby Boom Echo now; those children now have their own children in our schools. We have a record 53.2 million children now enrolled in our schools today and by 2009, we'll add about one million more. We need to make a commitment similar to the one made by our parents and grandparents in the 1950's. A billion dollars in 1953 would be about $5.4 billion today, if you adjusted for inflation. This amendment merely seeks to set aside $5.9 billion over the next five years. For every one million students, our nation must build about 1300 schools, and at an average cost of over $12 million per school, we're talking about $16 billion. That's on top of the costs to remedy safety code violations, retro-fit schools to accommodate technology, and relieve overcrowding. Mr. President, in Virginia, there are over 3,000 trailers in use. This is a picture of Loudoun County High School in Leesburg, Virginia, just 33 miles from here. You see a crane hoisting just one of a whole line of trailers that sit in a parking lot of this Northern Virginia high school. Loudoun County alone needs to build 22 new schools over the next six years to accommodate their skyrocketing enrollments. At an average cost in Northern Virginia of about $18 million per school, that's almost $400 million for just one county!

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin, Lautenberg, Dorgan, Kennedy, Mikulski, Kerry of Massachusetts, Bingaman, Baucus, and Graham of Florida, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the late Lieutenant Colonel Margaret L. Ellerman, United States Army Retired. A native of Michigan, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman entered the Army as a private in 1964, after seven years of teaching in parochial schools. Following attendance at basic training and advanced individual training, she was selected for Officer Candidate School, from which she graduated in 1966. Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman served as a Finance Officer for most of her career in a variety of command and staff positions. In 1968, she was selected for overseas duty in Germany, in an era when military women were virtually hand-picked for duty outside the United States. Other overseas assignments followed in Thailand and Turkey. Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman received numerous military honors, awards and decorations. Among these were three awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. While on active duty, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman, received her Bachelor of Science Degree in 1972 from Eastern Michigan University, and her Masters in Business Administration from Northwest Missouri State University. In addition, she was a graduate of numerous professional military finance and resource management courses. In 1977, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman was a graduate of the United States Army Command and General Staff College. After retirement from the United States Army in 1986, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman entered civilian employment at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, from which she retired in 1998. Upon this retirement, she founded her own corporation, Partners In Success, which assisted individuals establish their own businesses. From 1991 until her death in March 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman continued to serve her country and the women who had, are, and will serve in the military forces of the United States. She lent her considerable energy and economic knowledge to the Women In Military Service For America Memorial Foundation on the Board of Directors. Joining the cause in 1991, Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman worked tirelessly to see that this Memorial, housing and showcasing the achievements of all women who serve our nation in military service, was funded, erected and dedicated in October 1997. Through her ``behind the scenes'' efforts, this Memorial stands as a monument to our countrywomen who freely choose to dedicate their lives in military service to the United States. Lieutenant Colonel Ellerman never stopped sharing the part of her that made her a dedicated teacher, career Army Officer, and philanthropic entrepreneur. Her charismatic character continues to inspire the men and women who knew and worked with her. The Department of Defense and the American people were well served by this selfless and dedicated Army soldier and civilian citizen.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words about the Estuary Partnership Restoration Act of 1999, which was passed by unanimous consent on Thursday March 30th. This bill contains language that reauthorizes the Chesapeake Bay Program. The success of the Bay program, and the partnerships that have been established as a result of that program, have led to improved water quality in the Bay, enhanced the lives of those of us lucky enough to live in the Chesapeake watershed, and added to the body of scientific knowledge that we have about estuaries, fisheries, and watersheds in general. As Governor of Virginia I negotiated the original Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Last week, I had the opportunity to see that the Senate recognizes all the successes that have come from that program. The fact that the Chesapeake Bay program has enough support to be passed by unanimous consent is gratifying indeed. I am also excited at the prospect of expanding the oyster restoration program, which will enhance Bay water quality in a number of ways, and will continue to work for that expansion. My only regret is that John Chafee, the original architect of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, was not here with us. His leadership on these issues was steadfast, his ability to convince us all to take right action remarkable. I was thinking of John Chafee, last week, wishing he could have joined in the happy moment that he helped make possible. I was happy to have the opportunity to contribute to his legacy, and know that his work will be with us for years to come.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee to repeal the telephone excise tax that originated during the Spanish American War. Fiscal discipline in the past seven years has put us in a position that we could not have imagined even a few short years ago. We now have opportunities to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, pay down our burgeoning national debt and make investments that keep our economy rolling. Along the way, we will have opportunities to correct inequities in the Tax Code. Currently, all users of telephone services pay a 3% excise tax on their use. Repealing this tax will make phone service and internet access more affordable for hardworking families. In order to decrease the expanding digital divide, we must eliminate policies that discourage families from connecting to the internet. While I continue to believe that the best use of our growing surplus is to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, I am pleased that we are entering a period where we can consider legislation that will sustain our high technology growth at the same time that we are shrinking the digital divide.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with several of my colleagues on the Finance Committee to repeal the telephone excise tax that originated during the Spanish American War. Fiscal discipline in the past seven years has put us in a position that we could not have imagined even a few short years ago. We now have opportunities to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, pay down our burgeoning national debt and make investments that keep our economy rolling. Along the way, we will have opportunities to correct inequities in the Tax Code. Currently, all users of telephone services pay a 3% excise tax on their use. Repealing this tax will make phone service and internet access more affordable for hardworking families. In order to decrease the expanding digital divide, we must eliminate policies that discourage families from connecting to the internet. While I continue to believe that the best use of our growing surplus is to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, I am pleased that we are entering a period where we can consider legislation that will sustain our high technology growth at the same time that we are shrinking the digital divide.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today first of all to commend those members on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring this important loan guarantee bill to the floor. It is the final piece--and in my view, the key piece--of a lengthy effort to enact comprehensive reform of our nation's satellite television laws. Last year, we passed a bill that I was proud to cosponsor, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. It restored service to thousands of Virginia households who had been cut off from their network signals, and more importantly, allowed satellite television companies to finally provide local network services to consumers. My only disappointment about the Act was that a last-minute deal removed a provision which would have made it easier for viewers living outside of major metropolitan areas to get satellite broadcasts of their local television stations. As a result, the only market in Virginia that can receive local-into- local service is the metropolitan D.C. area, leaving over 94% of satellite households in my state without this crucial service. The satellite industry is not required to start offering local service to all their customers, and they've made it clear that they don't intend to do so, leaving many Americans without this important service. I believe that every household in Virginia, and, indeed, across America deserves the same quality local television service. This isn't just a matter of helping rural areas get the latest episodes of ``Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?'' or ``NYPD Blue''--it's about ensuring that all consumers have access to vital local public safety information, school closings, weather and news programming that we've come to rely on. There's no question that the market is out there for these services-- I've been inundated with thousands of phone calls, letters and post cards from Virginians who want to subscribe to them. Unfortunately, many companies and cooperatives who are interested in providing new local television services have held back because the financing can be a bit tricky. The bill before us today will help to address this problem. By providing loan guarantees that support new satellite services that serve rural areas of the country, we can help facilitate the transmission of local television signals to areas of the country that are not able to receive this service. Earlier today, I joined Senators Johnson and Thomas in introducing an amendment that would significantly improve the loan guarantee program by expanding it to include those entities that are most adept at providing rural utilities. I'm very pleased that a modified version of this amendment has been accepted, and believe that it will go a long way toward bringing affordable local television signals to unserved areas in Virginia. Mr. President, I'd also like to talk for a moment about a second amendment which I've cosponsored, along with Senators Baucus and Leahy, to address the issue of the emerging ``digital divide'' between urban and rural America. While many people generally think of Internet access as something that you get over telephone lines, consumers are increasingly able to access the Internet at much faster speeds through the same systems used to transmit cable and satellite television. Our amendment simply clarifies that this new loan guarantee program should look at ways that the same systems which are deployed in rural areas to deliver local television services can also be used to deliver new broadband communications services. At a time when television and the Internet are heading in a direction where they may soon converge, we ought to have the foresight to look at ways that new communications systems can support multiple services and technologies, particularly when the government is helping to finance the deployment of these systems. This amendment has also been accepted. Again, Mr. President, I strongly support the underlying bill, and commend those on both sides of the aisle who have helped move it to the Senate floor. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we take steps to further enhance the range of choices consumers have in the marketplace. Administrative Procedure Act

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, thank you. I thank my distinguished colleague and fellow Vietnam veteran from Nebraska for his words. It is an important topic. Mr. President, when I came home from Vietnam a little over thirty years ago, I came home to a nation divided. I was assigned by the U.S. Marine Corps to head up a major officer recruiting program on college campuses all across America. It was 1969 and anti-war fever was consuming the nation. As you can imagine, my Marine uniform on a college campus became a lightning rod for protests and protesters. In this assignment, Mr. President, incoming bullets, rockets and artillery were replaced by insults, jeers and demonstrations. At times, it was tough. I had just spent a tour of duty, which included commanding an infantry company in combat, and over 100 of my men received the Purple Heart, almost a quarter of them posthumously. Like all other warriors who served in uniform, it wasn't their job to question the policy that sent them to Vietnam, but they answered the call and those that died, did so with honor, for our Nation. So while I did my best to reason with the crowds that came out to greet me on college campuses, I didn't appreciate the instinctive disrespect that was shown to me and the uniform I wore. But Mr. President, I rise today to defend the rights of those individuals 30 years ago to protest me and my uniform. Freedom of speech is the foundation of our democracy--and silencing that speech would have been against everything I had fought for in Vietnam. To paraphrase an old saying: I didn't agree with what they said. But I had been willing to die to protect their right to say it. Mr. President, I am repulsed by any individual who would burn the flag of my country to convey a message of dissent. It is an act I abhor and can barely comprehend. But in the democracy that our forefathers founded, and that generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve, I simply do not have the right to decide how another individual expresses his or her political views. I can abhor those political views, but I cannot imprison someone for expressing them. That's a fundamental tenet of democracies and its what makes America the envy of the world, as the home of the free and the brave. Mr. President, when we frame the acceptable context for conveying a political message, we qualify freedom in America. We chip away at the extraordinary freedom that has distinguished us from our enemies for 200 years. Last week, I received an e-mail from a retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel from Virginia. Like many Americans (and many American veterans), he had struggled with this issue and searched his conscience for what's right. In his message to me, he said: ``I have seen our flag torn in battle, captured by our enemies, and trampled on by protesters. In all those events I never felt that the American way of life was in grave peril . . . for whenever our flag fell or was destroyed there was always another Marine to step forward and pull a replacement from his helmet or ruck sack.'' He continued: ``The Constitution is the bedrock of America, the nation . . . the people. It is not possible to pull another such document from our `national ruck sack.' We have but one Constitution, and it should be the object of our protection.'' Mr. President, there is no question that it is precisely because the flag represents those sacred ideals that define our democracy, that we are so angry to see one being trampled or torn or torched. What angers us the most is the message of disrespect that desecration conveys. The ingratitude of the desecrater is tangible and we simply cannot help but be outraged. How can anyone be so shallow and so ungrateful that they would destroy the flag of a nation so great that it gives them the freedom to commit such a despicable act? In fact, Mr. President, it is the motivation of the flag burner, not the burning of the flag itself, that makes us so angry that we want to punish that individual and throw away the keys. We know that when an American flag is old and tattered, or damaged and no longer fit to fly, we don't bury it, or throw it in the trash. We burn it. That is the proper, respectful method of disposing of a flag. So it is not the burning of the flag that stirs us to anger. It is the reason why the flag was burned that gets us so upset. And the reason why the flag is burned (to convey a message of dissent) is the reason why the Constitution protects it. It is precisely because the act of flag burning sends a message that elicits such a visceral and powerful response that it is undeniably speech. Vulgar, crude, infantile, repulsive, ungrateful speech, but undeniably speech. Mr. President, since speech that enjoys the support of the majority is never likely to be limited, the Bill of Rights, by its very design, protects the rights of a minority in key areas that the founders held dear. And it is the freedom to dissent peacefully that separates the greatest democracy the world has ever known from other regimes like those in China, Cuba, Iraq, and others where political dissent has been met with imprisonment and sometimes death. We've applauded the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals in other countries willing to risk their lives to peacefully protest their government. And we know that the first sign that freedom is in trouble anywhere around the world is when the government starts locking up its dissenters. If we reach past our natural anger and disgust for a few publicity- hungry flag-burners, we know in our hearts that a great nation like ours, a nation that defends liberty all over the world, should not imprison individuals who exercise their right to political dissent. And we know in our hearts that a few repulsive flag-burners pose no real danger to a nation as great as ours. Mr. President, a great defender of freedom in the world, General Colin Powell, had this to say in letter last year about this amendment: I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. The first amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that which we agree or disagree, but also to that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of Democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. Mr. President, our flag stirs very deep emotions in me. It never fails to inspire me. I still get a chill down my spine when it passes in a parade. And I've handed it, folded, to too many widows not to revere it to the core of my being. I fully support the Citizens Flag Alliance and especially my fellow members of the American Legion for all their hard work to instill in our people a greater respect for our flag. I understand why so many of my fellow veterans support this amendment. But I want the same thing they want. I want all of our citizens to respect our flag and all that it stands for. Mr. President, I want that flag to be the proud symbol of a nation that is truly free. And for it to be that proud symbol, we must also protect the sacred freedoms placed in the first amendment of the Constitution by our forefathers. Mr. President, I am a proud veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. And I learned many lessons serving in combat in Vietnam. I served with Marines who loved this country and were great patriots. They were often young and sometimes scared. But they risked their lives in Southeast Asia. Some of those brave warriors died for our nation. On two separate occasions, I had men literally die in my arms. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice may have died keeping faith with their country. They may have died so that others might be free. They may have died for an ideal or a principle or a promise--sacred intangibles that transcend time. Some might say they died for the flag. But I was there, Mr. President, and they did not die for a piece of cloth (however sacred), that eventually becomes worn and tattered and eventually has to be replaced. No. They died fighting for all that our flag represents. My fellow veterans who died in combat sacrificed their lives for these intangibles that are the core values of our democracy. They died for liberty and tolerance, for justice and equality. They died for that which can never burn. They died for ideals that can only be desecrated by our failure to defend them. In opposing this amendment, I truly believe that I am again called upon to defend those intangible ideals--like freedom and tolerance--for which so many of us fought, and too many of us died. I am in a different uniform today, in a different place and time. But I feel as if, in some way, I am again battling the odds to defend principles that, as a younger man, I was willing to die for. I'd still put my life on the line today to defend those principles. I say that because the flag represents freedom to me. But the first amendment guarantees that freedom. And when we seek to punish those who express views we don't share, then we--not the flag burners--we begin to erode the very values, the very freedoms, that make America the greatest democracy the world has ever known. I support our flag, and the republic for which it stands. But I cannot, with the faith I have in that republic, support this constitutional amendment. I thank the Chair. And I thank my distinguished colleague from Nebraska who has received the highest honor our country can bestow on any who has defended America in battle; the Medal of Honor. I am proud to appear with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. This bill contains some welcome new tools to help manage risk on the farm. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. Virginia farmers will have more risk management tools available to them than ever before, and these tools will be able to cover more crops than ever before, making the crop insurance system more equitable and more available. In particular, I thank the members of the Agriculture committee for their hard work on this bill. I know that the discussions have been contentious, and that different regions of the country view risk management in entirely different ways. I for one am thankful that the necessary compromises were made to bring this bill forward for a vote. It is gratifying to know that on the important issues, and this is a very important issue, that we can still work together and do what is necessary to improve the lives of the people we represent. So, I say thank you Chairman Lugar, and Senators Kerrey, Roberts, Graham, Lincoln, Leahy and Mack, the rest of the committee, and all of your staffs. You have done the hard work. The country, our food supply, and our farmers will all benefit. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I am delighted to join, as I just mentioned to him, the ``amen'' chorus. I rise to support my friend from Nebraska in his continuing effort to strengthen Social Security for the long term. I commend him for his tireless work on behalf of the seniors of this country, as well as their children and grandchildren, as he fights to both strengthen Social Security and lessen the burden of debt we leave to future generations. I share Senator Kerrey's frustrations over the failure of this body to strengthen Social Security. I am pleased we can now afford to repeal the earnings test. I fully support this bill. But this is only one of many steps that need to be taken. We cannot continue to deal with a program as large and as vital as Social Security on a piecemeal basis. We owe both our seniors and our children so much more. The facts are simple. By the year 2013, payroll taxes we collect will not be sufficient to pay for Social Security payments. By the year 2034, the program will only be able to pay for 72 cents out of every dollar of benefits we have promised senior citizens in America. Worst of all, these figures are based on our economy continuing to click along at the same pace it is right now. If we have a sudden downturn or period of stagnation, we will be in trouble much sooner. It is time to start telling the American people the truth. If we do not strengthen our Social Security program, we will have to either cut benefits or increase payroll taxes--or both. We cannot afford to let that happen. Even worse, from my perspective, the bills would have to be paid by our children and grandchildren. They deserve a better legacy from us than a mountain of debt. The good news is, slowly but surely, we are making progress. In the past several years, we have been able to remove the Social Security trust fund surplus from the calculation of the onbudget surplus. While I am pleased we have taken this first step toward fiscal responsibility, we need to do much more. Setting aside the surplus in the Social Security trust fund is prudent, but it does not take care of the underlying and very fundamental problems. Now is the time to act. We need to strengthen the Social Security program so today's senior citizens get the benefits they have been promised. We need to strengthen the Social Security program so our children and grandchildren are not unfairly burdened with our debt. We need to do more. I support what we are doing today, but we need to do more. I conclude my remarks by thanking the distinguished senior Senator from New York, who is, regrettably, in the judgment of many of us, going to be retiring from this institution, and the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska, who, equally regrettably, is going to be retiring from this institution. Both will be sorely missed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I take a moment to recognize a milestone we reached today that was simply unthinkable eight short years ago. While it has gone largely unnoticed, in my view it represents real hope for our children's future. Today, for the first time in 70 years, we bought back part of our Nation's debt. It was a relatively small amount--$1 billion--compared to our $5.7 trillion debt. But at least it shows that we are willing to pay down the mortgage the federal government took out on our children's future over the last 30 years. We hear a great deal about wasteful spending, and we need to remain vigilant to root out wasted taxpayer dollars. But in my view, the most wasteful federal spending is the money we are forced to spend on interest to support our publicly held debt--debt which represents all the tough choices we did not make. Last year, we spent nearly $230 billion on interest payments on the debt. That compares with the roughly $38 billion the federal government spent last year on education. Those of us who care deeply about keeping government from spending more than it takes in need to continue to make fiscally responsible choices so we can remove the millstone of debt from the necks of our children as quickly and responsibly as possible.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding time. Mr. President, for the third time in as many years, I am forced to express in this Chamber my strong opposition to a congressional proposal to meddle with Virginia airports. I will have to oppose the FAA conference report, most of which I strongly support and I believe is long overdue because it breaks a promise to the people of Northern Virginia--a promise that Congress would permit us to manage and develop our own airports. While I will again vote against this bill to protest congressional interference in the operation of Virginia's airports, I would like to make clear that I fully support FAA reauthorization and release of the airport improvement funds. In fact, as someone who has long believed that we need to substantially increase our investments in transportation, I commend the conferees for crafting a conference report which does just that. Under this bill, annual funding for many airports in Virginia will nearly double, providing for critical safety improvement and expanding airport capacity. Nonetheless, I will have to vote against the bill. By forcing additional flights on Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, this measure breaks the 1986 agreement among the Congress with Virginia and the local governments to leave National Airport alone and to get Congress out of the business of managing airports. Even at the time of the 1986 agreement, however, there was skepticism that Congress would keep its word. In the words of then-Secretary of Transportation William Coleman, ``National has always been a political football.'' Perhaps he should have said: National will always be a political football. I hope that is not the case. But I am dubious. While I worked hard to oppose the addition of slots and expanding the perimeter at National, I am not going to engage in any purely dilatory tactics because I believe these issues should be decided on the merits. In this case, I believe the merits are simple and compelling. Increasing slots at National creates delays for the majority of the people who use the airport and undermines the quality of life in communities that are near the airport. People have a right to expect their Government to keep its end of the bargain. By injecting the Federal Government into the running of the airports once again, this bill scuttles an agreement we made with this region more than a decade ago and breaks a promise to the people who live here. Mr. President, I yield any time remaining on the side of those in opposition. I yield the floor.