Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. Since I am, in effect, speaking for the other side, I am particularly grateful. I am in wholehearted support of the Boxer amendment. I commend the Senator from California for all she has done to raise our consciousness with regard to school violence, and the very difficult environment that is created for learning if we cannot guarantee our children go to their classrooms with relative safety.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to spend a moment talking in support of my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, in his efforts to maintain at least a semblance of fiscal discipline at a time when many of our colleagues are thinking primarily about how to spend the surplus on new programs or major tax cuts. As the baby boomers head toward retirement, we have a responsibility to address their future needs. The current Social Security and Medicare programs simply are not equipped to handle our aging population. We need to strengthen these programs, but we cannot do that with our current national debt. Conventional wisdom has always been, in times of prosperity we save for the bad times. It is hard to fathom more prosperous times than we are currently enjoying. Yet we continue to avoid making tough choices that will prepare us for the future. Until we muster the political courage to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, we need to focus on paying down the debt. There are three ways to pay for our priorities. We can borrow from our parents by using the Social Security trust fund, we can borrow from our children by adding to our Nation's debt, or we can pay for our priorities ourselves. In my view, the only responsible approach is to pay for our priorities ourselves. How can we even consider tax cut legislation that is not paid for when we have not even determined how much of the budget should be allocated to tax cuts? We are still several weeks away from the actual debate on the budget resolution and even further away from an agreement. If we are going to vote tax legislation off the floor before the budget resolution is in place, it should be paid for. That is the only responsible thing to do. Currently, the public debt is more than $5.75 trillion. In order to maintain this debt, we need to dedicate billions of dollars to making interest payments. Last year alone we paid over $230 billion in interest payments on the publicly held debt. Can you imagine what we could do if we were able to use even one-tenth of this money on our Nation's schools? We can argue all day about the proper role of the Federal Government in public schools, but I assume we all agree something needs to be done. We owe it to our children to give them the best head start possible. Mr. President, $230 billion would go a long way toward solving this problem. We need to remember that the surplus is what we have left over once we have met all our obligations. We have not yet decided what our obligations are, so how can we know how much our surplus is going to be and how much extra money we are going to have? I urge our colleagues to support the Graham amendment when it comes up for a vote. I yield any time that may be allotted to me. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his courtesy.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized to make a brief statement, and then I will continue.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for his statement this morning and for his continued leadership in education. Mr. President, we are now considering amendment No. 2861. It is an amendment I sent to the desk yesterday afternoon but agreed to debate this morning. I always welcome any opportunity to talk about education, about its importance to our society, about ways we can improve our system of education, and about how we at the Federal level can be better partners with our States, our localities, and our families. We met yesterday morning with the Governors of our 50 States. During my own term as Governor of Virginia in the early 1980s, we took a great deal of pride in being able to pump over $1 billion of new money--over and above the baseline projections--into public education. That was back when $1 billion was still serious money. Education is not the only engine of innovation fueling opportunity for economic prosperity; it is one of the most critical tools in maintaining a democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that ``an enlightened citizenry is indispensable to the proper functioning of a Republic.'' So when we have an opportunity to talk in this Chamber about education, we are really talking about our future as well as our past. To my dismay, the opportunity we have today to engage in really productive and constructive debate about education is really a mirage. We have traveled this road before. We have debated this same bill and others similar to it, and the President has exercised his veto power and has promised to veto this bill again if it arrives in its current condition. The Affordable Education Act, while it contains many admirable provisions that would primarily enhance the affordability of higher education, also contains a poison pill, one that many of us are simply unable to swallow. This bill, in essence, would allow the diversion of public moneys to private elementary and secondary schools. As stewards of public taxpayer dollars, any policy that diverts public money away from public schools, it seems to me, is both unwise and inequitable. We have heard many times the figures about education savings accounts. The average tax benefit to parents whose children attend private schools would be $37 a year while the benefit to families whose children attend public schools would be just $7 a year. Yet we know that 90 percent of our schoolchildren attend public schools. We also know our classrooms are overcrowded and many are dilapidated to the point of being unsafe. We know we face a very real and imminent teacher shortage over the next 10 years. We know we need to continue our efforts to help States finish the business we started with Goals 2000. We need to help States align their new standards and assessments with their curricula. We know we need to encourage more professional development for teachers and administrators. I believe we need to give even greater flexibility to States and localities in the use of Federal dollars in exchange for improved academic performance. We need to do all of these things and more. I wish to talk about one specific area that demands our immediate attention. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have frequently mentioned the need to build and modernize our Nation's schools. In fact, I introduced school modernization legislation last July. It has 21 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 50 organizations, from education groups to professional organizations to the National Conference of Mayors. Without good, safe, and modern facilities, the rest of the education debate becomes practically moot. When a roof collapses, teachers and administrators really care most about fixing the roof and reopening the school. When fuses blow because of poor electrical wiring, administrators know they can't buy more computers before first rewiring the schools. Trailers may be a cheaper temporary fix to the problem of overcrowded classrooms, but even the most modern trailers are not adequate to accommodate 21st century learning. One of the largest investments Congress ever made in our national infrastructure occurred under the leadership of a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. In the 1950s, we spent roughly $1 billion to build and renovate our Nation's schools. That was a time when $1 billion really meant something. My friends in Fairfax County tell me it now costs them over $25 million to build just one high school. My friends in Loudoun County need 22 more new schools in the next 5 to 6 years because of skyrocketing enrollments. There are a lot of problems we face in the education arena, but we simply can't ignore the massive infrastructure problem we have anymore. Everyone, from civil engineers to architects to construction firms to the education community, recognizes that we have to help and we have to help now. All of our talk about reducing class size and improving technology education and investing in school safety really puts the cart before the horse when there are no new classrooms for the newly hired teachers, no electrical upgrades to handle the new computers, no new roofs to ensure the safety of our children. Instead of talking about legislation which clearly is destined for defeat or veto, we could be talking about reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Instead of talking about giving greater tax benefits to 10 percent of American families, we could be talking about how to better serve the 90 percent of American families who want the best education system that all levels of government can provide. Instead of talking about pouring money into private schools, I would rather be talking about pouring foundations for public schools. So I offer an amendment with Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Bingaman that would authorize $25 billion in tax credit bonds for school modernization and renovation. The amendment would also authorize up to $1.3 billion a year for the next 5 years in grants and zero-interest loans to needy school districts so they could make urgent repairs such as those required to remedy fire code violations and other urgently needed safety repairs. This amendment still helps families save money for college. It still increases the annual limit for education savings accounts to $2,000. It also helps our States and localities meet a massive infrastructure need. In 1995, the GAO estimated we had $112 billion in repair needs and $73 billion in new construction needs. In a study just released by the National Education Association, the total unmet school infrastructure needs across the country now total $307 billion. These numbers were gathered from the individual State departments of education across the country. These are the dollars our States admit they can't come up with despite their surpluses. Even if every State used all of their available surpluses, that amount would still only meet 7.1 percent of the school construction needs that exist now nationwide. I don't think this Congress has taken seriously the enormity of this particular problem. We can't just sit by and do nothing. Without the pending amendment, the school construction assistance provided in this bill is negligible. Our amendment would help build 6,000 schools and help make urgent repairs to some 25,000 schools. The underlying bill we are considering today will only build or renovate 200 schools. That is a stark contrast. With over 12 million children attending schools with leaky roofs, our students deserve better. With over 3,000 trailers being used in my State of Virginia alone, our students deserve better. In Alabama, it is reported that the roof of an elementary school collapsed just after the children had left for the day. In Chicago, teachers place cheesecloth over air vents to keep lead-based paint flecks from getting into their classrooms. In Maine, some teachers are forced to turn out the lights when it rains because their wiring is exposed under leaking roofs. The list goes on and on. Helping States and localities build schools doesn't interfere with local school control. We know the overwhelming majority of school districts face this particular infrastructure crisis. I simply do not accept the argument that the Federal Government cannot and should not play a role in this crisis. The needs are simply too great. If we can help States and localities build roads, we can certainly help them build schools. Both are critical to our sustained economic success. We should expect great things from our Nation's schools and our Nation's students. They should expect real debate and results from Congress. But by choosing to rehash the same old debate about helping wealthy families pay for private school, we send a message to America that this Congress is more interested in sound bites than in solutions. The American people, and many Members here, are thirsty for solution- oriented dialog. If this bill is passed without addressing some of the most urgent needs, we are not meeting our obligations and we are missing a very real opportunity to make a difference. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wish to address a couple of the issues raised by my distinguished colleague from Delaware. One of the issues the Senator from Delaware suggested was that this creates a whole new bureaucracy. But with all due respect, it does not create a whole new bureaucracy. States only have to keep a tally on how much bonding authority they have used. That is it. That is not a whole new bureaucracy. Talking about the concern about assessments and making additional assessments, the truth is that most of the States have already made those assessments. So we are not talking about any additional burden. When we talk about the QZAB as not having been used, 94 school districts in 15 States have utilized the QZAB, and that, indeed, is the model upon which these school modernization bonds are featured. We are not talking about an untested bill. With respect to the number of students that we are trying to help under the circumstances, currently we have 52.7 million students in America's schools. In 8 years, that total will climb to 54.3 million students in our schools. We are talking about a significant increase in the number of students at the same time we are trying to decrease the number of students in individual classes. We know the schools are getting older and older, with the average age of the schools in this country today being 42 years old. We have a pressing, urgent problem. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague from Delaware, I would recommend a visit to a number of the schools because the schools in many cases are in desperate need of infrastructure repair. And this is designed to provide Federal assistance in ways that do not get involved in local school control. I recognize and respect that particular feature. This is simply designed to assess the financing of those greatly needed improvements, which I believe the Senator from Delaware and any other Senator in this Chamber will find if they visit the schools in their districts. They are old and getting older, and we can't meet the reduction in class size. The school population is increasing. Most of the children we are talking about for the years 2007 and 2008 are already born. We know the numbers. We have to be able to respond to the need. This is a way to do it without interfering with local control. The basic difference between the two of us is whether or not we ought to put public moneys into private education or whether as stewards of the public purse we have a responsibility to make sure we fund public education first. I respectfully request that my colleagues support this particular measure and stand up for the students and the future of education in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it is my intention to make the argument as a proponent of this amendment tomorrow morning. I was prepared to make it at this time, but to accommodate our colleagues I will at this time ask unanimous consent this amendment be temporarily laid aside so we may proceed with the pending vote, and we will return to the amendment for argument first thing tomorrow morning.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Sergeant Major Annette Cashaw who will retire from the United States Army in June 2000, after more than 26 years of dedicated service. Serving in positions of increasing trust and responsibility, Sergeant Major Cashaw has displayed remarkable leadership, technical knowledge, and superb planning abilities throughout her entire career. Sergeant Major Cashaw's exceptional abilities were notably acknowledged when she was selected as the First Sergeant for the Data Systems Unit, White House Communications Agency. In addition to being responsible for 141 joint service personnel, she ensured that 9 million dollars in hand receipt items were maintained without loss. Her direct involvement in maintenance operations resulted in a net saving of over one hundred thousand dollars to the Army. Upon completion of the Sergeant's Major Academy, Sergeant Major Cashaw assumed the position of Sergeant Major for the Army's largest software development organization, the Information Systems Software Development Center at Fort Lee. Her exemplary performance of duty there resulted in her selection as the Secretary of the General Staff (a position normally held by a Major) for the 19th Theater Army Area Command in Korea. Sergeant Major Cashaw culminated her career as the Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Information Systems Software Center. Her expert knowledge of all Army regulations and policies made her invaluable to the entire command. Soldiers benefitted from her mentoring and went on to win CECOM 2nd Quarter, 3rd Quarter, and 4th Quarter boards and CECOM soldier of the year in 1998. I am honoring Sergeant Major Cashaw on the Senate floor today as a way of thanking her for her faithful and honorable service to the Army and to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators DeWine and Warner to introduce a bill aimed at preserving an important part of our national heritage. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act will help preserve and protect some of our nation's greatest historical treasures, homes and other places close to the lives of U.S. Presidents. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Virginia is the birthplace and home of some of our most illustrious presidents. We have honored those Presidents by preserving their homes, and we honor our history by maintaining those homes and using them to educate and remind ourselves of what has gone before. Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Montpelier are famous for providing historic perspective on what the nation was like during the years when their owners served our country. Not all Presidential homes are as grand as Mount Vernon, nor were all Presidents as well remembered and honored as George Washington. But each President has an important place in American history, and their homes and other sites related to their lives, remain an important part of our nation's story. Many of these sites are owned by private citizens, small community organizations, universities, and historical societies. These organizations don't always have the funds available to keep the sites in good repair, provide fire protection, handicap access, and develop interpretive displays that teach our nation's history. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act is aimed primarily at those sites. We want to lend a hand to those local organizations and individuals who work to preserve the story of individual Presidents in order to preserve the story of America's growth, and America's greatness. Mr. President, I also want to thank each of these organizations for preserving our country's history, and for providing our generation and future generations with information on the backgrounds and influences that tie each President to his time in history, and his place in the national mosaic of our great democracy. I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill, and I hope the Senate will join us in supporting this legislation, and moving it to quick passage.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today with Senator Moynihan I introduce legislation that will continue our fight on urban sprawl by encouraging the use of public transportation. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 increases the tax exemption for transit and van passes to the same level as parking. Currently, we allow employers to provide up to $175 a month in tax-free parking benefits, but only $65 a month for transit. This makes no sense when our goal is to reduce the amount of traffic on our highways. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 raises the limit on transit and van passes up to the current limit for parking passes, $175 a month. Both of these benefits will then be adjusted for inflation annually. To ensure that federal employees can also take advantage of this benefit, the bill also eliminates an outdated provision that currently precludes an employee from cashing out his employer-provided parking pass and using an employer-provided transit pass instead. It is important that federal employees have the same access to public transportation benefits as do private sector employees. While this is but one step towards dealing with traffic congestion and the more comprehensive problem of sprawl, it is an important one. I will continue to push for sensible legislation, like this bill, that continues to improve our quality of life.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators DeWine and Warner to introduce a bill aimed at preserving an important part of our national heritage. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act will help preserve and protect some of our nation's greatest historical treasures, homes and other places close to the lives of U.S. Presidents. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Virginia is the birthplace and home of some of our most illustrious presidents. We have honored those Presidents by preserving their homes, and we honor our history by maintaining those homes and using them to educate and remind ourselves of what has gone before. Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Montpelier are famous for providing historic perspective on what the nation was like during the years when their owners served our country. Not all Presidential homes are as grand as Mount Vernon, nor were all Presidents as well remembered and honored as George Washington. But each President has an important place in American history, and their homes and other sites related to their lives, remain an important part of our nation's story. Many of these sites are owned by private citizens, small community organizations, universities, and historical societies. These organizations don't always have the funds available to keep the sites in good repair, provide fire protection, handicap access, and develop interpretive displays that teach our nation's history. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act is aimed primarily at those sites. We want to lend a hand to those local organizations and individuals who work to preserve the story of individual Presidents in order to preserve the story of America's growth, and America's greatness. Mr. President, I also want to thank each of these organizations for preserving our country's history, and for providing our generation and future generations with information on the backgrounds and influences that tie each President to his time in history, and his place in the national mosaic of our great democracy. I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill, and I hope the Senate will join us in supporting this legislation, and moving it to quick passage.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today with Senator Moynihan I introduce legislation that will continue our fight on urban sprawl by encouraging the use of public transportation. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 increases the tax exemption for transit and van passes to the same level as parking. Currently, we allow employers to provide up to $175 a month in tax-free parking benefits, but only $65 a month for transit. This makes no sense when our goal is to reduce the amount of traffic on our highways. The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 raises the limit on transit and van passes up to the current limit for parking passes, $175 a month. Both of these benefits will then be adjusted for inflation annually. To ensure that federal employees can also take advantage of this benefit, the bill also eliminates an outdated provision that currently precludes an employee from cashing out his employer-provided parking pass and using an employer-provided transit pass instead. It is important that federal employees have the same access to public transportation benefits as do private sector employees. While this is but one step towards dealing with traffic congestion and the more comprehensive problem of sprawl, it is an important one. I will continue to push for sensible legislation, like this bill, that continues to improve our quality of life.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on January 17, 2000, I attended the dedication of a memorial monument to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Norfolk, Virginia. I want to read into the Congressional Record the remarks offered at the dedication by Rabbi Israel Zoberman, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Chairman, Community Relations Council, United Jewish Federation of Tidewater: Our God of Blessings, My Cherished African American Sisters and Brothers, Dear Dignitaries and Friends, Indeed, ``This is the day the Lord has provided for us, let us rejoice in it.'' We have come together one family to give thanks for the life of a great son of America and humanity, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for his legacy that will never die. With joy and pride we dedicate this towering monument to the lasting spirit it represents--to bring shalom's gift to the world through the non-violent means of hope, healing and harmony. On the threshold of a new decade, century and millennium, it is an essential guiding beacon of light and enlightenment, soothing pain and discovering promise. Standing on the giant shoulders of our martyr for peace, we gratefully acknowledge the Biblical fountain of living truth spoken by Israel's prophets that nourished, sustained and inspired the prophetic conscience of Dr. King, a Nobel Prize laureate, teaching that human dignity is one and indivisible. No one is to pass by this sacred site untouched by it, for it is symbol of our collective mandate to transform the world-- transcending limitations and breaking barriers that still divide us, keeping all children of Moses' God of Freedom from rightfully fulfilling their potential to be a blessing. We are deeply moved by the extensive labor of love and faith finally giving birth to this grand accomplishment, now and forever gracing our beloved City of Norfolk and the Hampton Roads community. May the entire nation hearken anew to the compelling message of the Book of Deuteronomy, ``Tzedek tzedek tirdof lemann tichye'' (Justice, justice shall you pursue that you may live). Dr. King, we pledge to you and one another to continue your most noble historical mission, rising to meet your high stature. We can do no less. We shall never give up marching to the Promised Land you so abundantly and sacrificially dreamed of, leaving behind slavery in all its manifestations. Together we shall yet overcome, O God Almighty, we shall yet overcome. Amen.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join today with my friend from Tennessee, Senator Frist, to introduce the Know Your Caller Act of 2000--a bill that will make a real and immediate difference in the lives of all Americans. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from Virginians about the intrusion of telemarketers into their homes. Although Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in 1991, the law is widely abused--telemarketers openly disregard the law, refusing to identify themselves when asked, and ignoring requests to be placed on ``do not call lists.'' In recent years, consumers have turned to caller ID services to help them screen out unwanted calls and report those who violate current law to the authorities. Unfortunately, most telemarketers actively block their number from being displayed on caller ID systems, making it difficult to determine the name and employer of the telemarketer. We already require telemarketers to identify themselves when they call, and we should apply this same requirement to their caller ID information. The Know Your Caller Act of 2000 will prevent companies from blocking their identities on caller ID. Our legislation will require every phone solicitor to reveal the name of the telemarketer who is making the call, as well as a valid telephone number where that company can be reached for purposes of being placed on the do-not-call lists required under current law. It's time that we gave consumers a way to fight back against these intrusions into their homes, and this bill is the perfect way to do so: by putting an end to caller ID blocks, we can empower the consumer to take action against violators of the TCPA and regain control of their telephones. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Frist and me in supporting this important consumer protection bill.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join today with my friend from Tennessee, Senator Frist, to introduce the Know Your Caller Act of 2000--a bill that will make a real and immediate difference in the lives of all Americans. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from Virginians about the intrusion of telemarketers into their homes. Although Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in 1991, the law is widely abused--telemarketers openly disregard the law, refusing to identify themselves when asked, and ignoring requests to be placed on ``do not call lists.'' In recent years, consumers have turned to caller ID services to help them screen out unwanted calls and report those who violate current law to the authorities. Unfortunately, most telemarketers actively block their number from being displayed on caller ID systems, making it difficult to determine the name and employer of the telemarketer. We already require telemarketers to identify themselves when they call, and we should apply this same requirement to their caller ID information. The Know Your Caller Act of 2000 will prevent companies from blocking their identities on caller ID. Our legislation will require every phone solicitor to reveal the name of the telemarketer who is making the call, as well as a valid telephone number where that company can be reached for purposes of being placed on the do-not-call lists required under current law. It's time that we gave consumers a way to fight back against these intrusions into their homes, and this bill is the perfect way to do so: by putting an end to caller ID blocks, we can empower the consumer to take action against violators of the TCPA and regain control of their telephones. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Frist and me in supporting this important consumer protection bill.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues, Senators Torricelli and Grassley, for their leadership in putting together the bankruptcy legislation that is before us today. I was one of the co-sponsors of the initial bankruptcy bill and continue to support the legislation that is before us today. I'm concerned, however, that we are including a tax provision which runs counter to the entire essence of the bill. As we finish debate on this measure, we ought to focus on one overriding theme: responsibility. In the context of bankruptcy, this includes both financial and social responsibility. Debtors need to be more responsible when making decisions about purchasing goods or services. And just as we expect those who purchase goods and services to pay for these benefits, we expect lenders and sellers to be responsible in their business practices. This is going to be a difficult balancing act--both sides are going to have to give a little bit. Right now, I hope that we are closer to fixing many of the problems that needed to be addressed. Financial responsibility, however, is not just relevant for our debate today--it needs to become a theme for this Congress. This bankruptcy bill is based on a simple premise: if you are able to pay your debts, you should. I believe this premise should also be applied to the federal government. For decades, the government spent more than it took in. It ran up a $5 trillion debt. We are now in a position to pay our debts. Before we go on a massive tax-cutting or spending binge, we should focus on reducing our debt. It rings hollow for us to insist upon financial responsibility from individuals and then fail to exercise financial responsibility ourselves. We should start this session exercising fiscal restraint, and we should begin with this bill. It is ironic that this bill contains a tax cut that costs more than it should and fails to hit its target. Although the tax package contained in this bill is being described as helping small businesses, it is poorly targeted and will provide little help to the businesses that will be most affected by the minimum wage bill. If minimum wage legislation continues to move forward, I urge my colleagues to look once again at S. 1867, The Small Business Tax Reduction Act of 1999, the bill that Senator Baucus and I introduced last November. This tax package offers real relief to those employers who will be most affected by the minimum wage increase. That was the purpose of the minimum wage tax bill, and our bill accomplishes that goal. For instance, our bill would accelerate the full deduction for self- employed health insurance so that it takes effect immediately instead of delaying it for several more years. Our bill would increase the expensing limit for small businesses so they can purchase new and better equipment. We would also raise the business meals deduction from 50% to 60% to help restaurants accommodate increased labor costs. At the same time, we would provide estate tax relief for small family-owned farms and businesses. Death is an inappropriate catalyst for the forced sale of a family-held business or farm. Farmers would benefit as our bill would be sure that income averaging does not increase a farmer's potential Alternative Minimum Tax liability. We also provide farmers with a longer period to use their net operating losses if they have them. These are real tax provisions that help real people. The Small Business Tax Reduction Act of 1999 also contains provisions targeted to geographic areas with the greatest need of economic assistance. The New Markets proposal, for example, would reward employers who operate in economically distressed areas, where the minimum wage is the most prevalent. It also includes a credit that encourages employers to give their lower income employees information technology training. We also expand current empowerment zones credits so that more communities and more people are able to take advantage of these credits. These are all provisions that will provide assistance to areas that are most in need of help. Moreover, the pension provisions in our bill are designed to address the needs of small employers struggling to develop effective retirement plans for their employees. For example, we would allow small businesses to take plan loans as large businesses can, and we have included Senator Baucus' proposal to provide a credit for new small business pension plans. Everyone benefits when small businesses are better able to offer their employees retirement plans. In short, the tax package I offered accomplishes the purpose of providing relief to those employers who will have higher costs when the minimum wage increases. And it is responsible. It does not squander the surplus that we have fought so hard to achieve, but rather maintains it for debt reduction. At the same time, it protects Social Security Trust Funds from being misallocated to other programs and expenditures. The tax package that is currently contained in the bill is not responsible and must be substantially improved in conference. We are going to face several tough issues this year. I hope that our colleagues agree that this is the time to start.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to once again address the issue of the interstate movement of municipal solid waste. This is an issue that I have been working on for over five years, Mr. President. In 1994, I proposed legislation (S. 2126) that would have authorized localities to impose reasonable limits on imports of municipal solid waste from other states. That legislation did not pass, and even though most communities now negotiate compensation from landfills that imports waste, they negotiate with no real authority to power. In 1997, I re-introduced that bill (S. 448). In 1999 during the 106th Congress, and working with Senator Warner, I introduced new language that I had hoped would spur discussion and perhaps some creative approaches to solving this problem. I have tried, as have many other Members including Senators Warner, Baucus, Coats, Specter, Voinovich, Bayh, Conrad, Santorum, of course Senator Chafee, to come to grips with this issue in some reasonable way. We have all tried to come up with legislation that would provide states and localities with some method of refusing the detritus from other states when it becomes an imposition, or a hazard. The Environment and Public Works Committee did have a hearing last summer on this issue, but unfortunately no mark up was held after that hearing. All of our efforts, singly and in concert, have had little effect. As of today Virginia remains the second largest importer of waste in the US, with the level of waste imported increasing from approximately 2.8 million tons in 1997 to 4.6 million tons in 1998. The figures for 1999 are not in yet but we can safely assume that they are higher still. On May 29th 1996, Mayor Giuliani and Governor George Pataki announced that in December of 2001 the Fresh Kills landfill will close. Fresh Kills remains the point of disposal for much of New York City's waste. Let me quote from a 1997 report prepared by the Congressional Research Service on this looming closure. How the city will replace Fresh Kill's capacity is unclear. At present, there are few options other than an expanded recycling program and out-of-state disposal. A 1996 report for the city's Department of Sanitation concluded that, given current disposal sites, the city would consume virtually all of the available disposal capacity located within a 365-mile radius. New York City and the state of New York have done virtually nothing since that time to increase in-state capacity. I would pose this question to each Senator. Envision the largest city in your state with a solid waste disposal problem of this magnitude, can you imagine your state government, and the mayor of that city simply ignoring the problem and failing to do anything about it? Admittedly, we have some tussles in Virginia, but when we have a problem, we try our level best to solve it ourselves, before we ask the rest of the Union to carry the weight. This session it is critical that we get something done on this issue. Because when Fresh Kills closes we can expect a lot of additional waste to come our way. Each additional 1 million tons of waste that comes to Virginia will result in 40,000 additional tractor trailer trips on Virginia highways, if the trucks observe the legal weight limit. If they don't, we will have fewer, but more dangerous trucks. Mr. President, a principle of public health protection embodied in the most basic practices of solid waste disposal is that waste should move as quickly as possible from point of origin to point of disposal. Moving waste over 300 miles through the most congested portion of this country makes no sense, but it will continue unless we move to stop it. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge that the Environment and Public Works committee move to mark up a bill that will help those of us in Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and other unwary states to cope with, and put reasonable restrictions on waste coming into our states. I have proposed an alternative option, but if that can't or won't be taken up by the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am ready to support any and all legislation aimed at empowering states to have some control over waste imports. To that end I ask that I be added as a co- sponsor to both the Specter and Voinovich bills. I will be willing to support any other legislation that serves my stated purpose. In 104th Congress we came very close to passing an interstate waste bill. Senator Smith of New Hampshire worked tirelessly on that bill, and was integral to its passage in the Senate. I hope as chairman, he will take up this issue once again, and move a bill through committee for consideration by the full Senate. We were sent here to tackle complex issues and solve problems. We need to work together, and start now, so that an interstate waste bill will be one of the accomplishments of this year.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to commend the efforts of those of my colleagues who joined in the effort to make an important change to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. As initially drafted, the conference report on H.R. 1554 caused many of us great concern because it included two provisions which could have discriminated against Internet and broadband service providers by expressly and permanently excluding any ``online digital communication service'' from retransmitting a television signal or other audiovisual work pursuant to a compulsory or statutory license. Like many of my colleagues, I was deeply concerned that in the race to adjourn, Congress would neglect to fix these potentially damaging provisions. Under the agreement which has been reached on this bill, these provisions have been deleted. This was the right thing to do: these two provisions had been added to the conference report late in the process, after agreement had been reached on the fundamental parameters of the bill, and without any public debate. Now that the provisions have been removed, the committees of jurisdiction will have an opportunity to consider the proper application of the compulsory and statutory licensing provisions of the Copyright Act to Internet and broadband service providers. Given the enormous importance of the Internet for enhancing consumer access to programming, it is essential that Congress give full attention to this issue early next year. 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. I also wanted to take a moment to commend Senator Baucus and others for their efforts in securing an agreement to address the problems that small-market and rural areas now face in obtaining satellite broadcasts of their local television stations. By my estimates, the only market in Virginia that will get local-into-local service with the current bill is the metropolitan D.C. area, leaving over 94% of satellite households in my state without this crucial service. All Virginians, however, and, indeed, all Americans, deserve quality local satellite service, and I intend to make this issue a top priority when Congress returns next year.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as we near the end of this session of Congress, there are some accomplishments we should celebrate and some disappointments we should work to remedy in the next session of the 106th Congress. While there are many items in the appropriations and tax bills that benefit our nation, there are a few I'd like to highlight. This year's final budget package will continue to provide more crime reduction and school safety funding so our children are safer in their neighborhoods and in their schools. It will continue our efforts to reduce class size so our children get more individualized attention from a top-quality teacher. And it will provide what I hope will be the first installment of school modernization funding so that our children's schools are safe and equipped for the future. With the passage of the appropriations and tax measures this session, Congress will uphold its commitment to continue reducing crime on our streets and in our schools. We've come a long way from the original Senate committee bill that would have killed the COPS initiative, which has placed 100,000 new police officers in our communities since 1994. This year's appropriations bill provides enough funding to hire another 50,000 officers over the next few years, and it sets aside $225 million in Department of Justice funding for school safety initiatives. The first obligation of government is to provide for the safety of every man, woman, and child, and I believe our funding levels for COPS and school safety programs live up to that obligation. We will also be living up to the commitment we made last year to hire 100,000 new teachers so our children's class sizes are smaller and their individual time with their teachers is greater. We made a down payment last year and hired 29,000 teachers. This year, we will provide $1.3 billion to states so we can keep those teachers in the classroom and hire even more. But as we all know, school systems can't hire new teachers if they don't have the extra classrooms. So, I'm especially pleased that we have finally recognized the school infrastructure crisis in America. The tax package we will pass today will provide an additional $800 million in zero interest bonds under the Qualified Zone Academy Bond Initiative. These bonds will help our neediest schools renovate buildings that are relics of the past and turn them into schools of the future. It will help them purchase new equipment--from classroom computers to new, safe school buses. It will help them train teachers and develop challenging curricula to raise expectations and achievement scores of our nation's students. The continuation of this school renovation initiative is just one component of the school modernization bill I introduced with many others in July, and I am grateful to so many education, labor, and professional organizations for their unwavering support. I thank my colleagues who co-sponsored the legislation, Rep. Charlie Rangel for his work on similar legislation, and the administration's commitment to ensuring that our schools are safe and modern havens for learning. We're sending the right message to our nation's school boards, teachers, parents, and students: that we see the leaky roofs, that we see the cracked walls, that we see all the trailers--and that we're willing to help. But there remains much unfinished business. Over 14 million children attend schools in need of extensive repair or complete replacement. Twelve million children attend schools with leaky roofs, and 7 million children attend schools with safety code violations. Our schools are on average over forty years old. They're overcrowded, they're under- equipped with technology, and many are unsafe. In Virginia alone, there are over 3,000 trailers being used to hold classes. In short, our national renovation needs total $112 billion and our new construction needs total $73 billion. Given these tremendous needs, I view the $800 million in the this year's tax package as the first installment of the nationwide renovation and modernization of our children's schools. Mr. President, the other major disappointment of this session concerns one of our nation's most important transportation arteries. I am quite dismayed that this Congress has not lived up to its responsibility to fund the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This is the only federally owned bridge in the entire country. It is a major gateway in the Washington metropolitan area, and a critical route for commerce along the entire east coast. We have an obligation to support its replacement. I worked closely with the administration to advance this project, and I was gratified by the fact that funding was among the administration's top priorities during the budget negotiations. Unfortunately, however, Congress declined to provide funding, so we will revisit the issue next year, when construction is scheduled to begin. We have become all too familiar with the devastating effects of traffic jams in this area--on our economy, on our environment, and most importantly, on our quality of life. The unresolved matter of funding for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge project continues to threaten the region, and I intend to continue the fight next session to be fiscally responsible and responsive to our region's biggest transportation need.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm submitting a resolution today expressing a sense of the Senate regarding a heinous crime affecting a family in Virginia and a growing problem in this country. With this resolution, I seek to bring to your attention the plight of child abductions by noncustodial parents, and to encourage the United States and Saudi Arabia to immediately locate Nadia Dabbagh and return her safely to her mother. Ms. Maureen Dabbagh of Virginia Beach has not seen or heard from her daughter, Nadia, in 6 years. When Nadia was just 3 years old, she was illegally abducted by her father, Mr. Mohamad Hisham Dabbagh, and the State Department believes they are currently in Saudia Arabia on temporary visas. Throughout this ordeal, Maureen Dabbagh has been aided by many caring people, groups, and government agencies, but despite FBI, State Department, and Interpol efforts, Nadia is still separated from her mother. According to the Department of Justice, 983 children are abducted by noncustodial parents every day. I greatly sympathize with Maureen Dabbagh and with all parents facing similar situations. I believe that we, as Members of Congress and as parents, ought to use all available resources to locate missing and abducted children. I ask that we redouble our efforts to bring Nadia home.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join many others in this body in expressing my support for miners and for mining communities. In Virginia's Southwest region, mining creates the jobs that provide enough income to lift the next generation, that put the sons and daughters of miners through college, and that gives the region options other than coal. Virginia miners have expressed deep concerns that the broad application of Judge Haden's ruling would result in the devastation of the mining industry in the Southern Appalachian coal fields. The Judge's decision is not limited to the mountain top mining that was the subject of the original suit. It would apply to the use of valley fills from other forms of mining, including underground mining. The practical effect of this ruling is a virtual moratorium on mining in mountainous regions. We need to protect the environment and we also need to protect the livilihood of those hardworking families. I had hoped we could reach a compromise on this issue that would effectively allow us to do both. I have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding between the federal and state agencies that could be used to mitigate the consequences of valley fills if they were allowed to continue. It was signed by the EPA, Department of the Interior, Army Corps of Engineers, and the State of West Virginia. All the signatories are sworn to protect the nation's water. I am convinced that if the MOU stood, the agencies involved would work diligently to mitigate any negative consequences from mining in the West Virginia coal fields. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we continue to be vigilant on the effects of mining on the environment, and work to minimize its effects. I have also reviewed Judge Haden's ruling and see in that ruling the underlying conflict between what the regulations intend to do, and the actual costs of applying those regulations. It demonstrates once again how essential acting on regulatory reform is going to be in this Congress. It is imperative that we set in place a method of analyzing the true cost of the regulations, before they are put into place. I am certain the agencies involved want to do the right thing, by both miners and the environment. The rules as I read them make that virtually impossible. I am hopeful that this conflict can be resolved as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I intend to support the miners of Southwest Virginia. I must however, voice my strong opposition to the language on hard rock mining that has been added at the last minute to this amendment. My vote on this amendment stems only from my concern for the immediate effect Judge Haden's ruling would have on the economy of Southwest Virginia. I have opposed and will continue to oppose efforts to delay the review and revision of the nation's hard rock mining standards. My vote in no way supports the inclusion of hard rock provisions in this package. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the Record before the vote on Amendment No. 2780.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, to introduce legislation to pay overtime to federal managers and supervisors more equitably. I'm proud of our federal workers. Despite seemingly constant assaults, our nations's civil servants have persevered to provide government that is working better and more efficiently than ever. We've seen a streamlined federal government that's continually asked to improve services to its customers--the American people. But with smaller staffs and the push to increase the federal government's productivity, workloads continue to grow. As federal employees' duties grow, the need to work more overtime hours increases as well. Managers, supervisors and other FLSA-exempt employees within the federal government can receive overtime, but the current overtime cap presents two problems to these employees: they earn less working on overtime than they do for the work they perform during the week and they earn less while working overtime than the employees they supervise. Who then, can blame prospective candidates for supervisory or management positions for declining promotions when remaining in their current, non-supervisory position can mean more money for their families? If the federal government is to continue to recruit and retain a top-notch workforce, then the present overtime cap is one issue that we need to address. Our legislation will ensure that supervisors and managers neither make less working overtime than they would during regular work hours nor make less working overtime than those they supervise. This bill increases the overtime cap from GS-10 step 1 to GS-12 step 1, the first adjustment in the overtime cap since 1966. Our bill doesn't mandate that overtime be paid; overtime pay will be implemented as it is currently, based on personnel decisions made by individual agencies. We should encourage incentives to attract bright and capable workers to join the management ranks of the federal government, and this bill is one such incentive. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, to introduce legislation to pay overtime to federal managers and supervisors more equitably. I'm proud of our federal workers. Despite seemingly constant assaults, our nations's civil servants have persevered to provide government that is working better and more efficiently than ever. We've seen a streamlined federal government that's continually asked to improve services to its customers--the American people. But with smaller staffs and the push to increase the federal government's productivity, workloads continue to grow. As federal employees' duties grow, the need to work more overtime hours increases as well. Managers, supervisors and other FLSA-exempt employees within the federal government can receive overtime, but the current overtime cap presents two problems to these employees: they earn less working on overtime than they do for the work they perform during the week and they earn less while working overtime than the employees they supervise. Who then, can blame prospective candidates for supervisory or management positions for declining promotions when remaining in their current, non-supervisory position can mean more money for their families? If the federal government is to continue to recruit and retain a top-notch workforce, then the present overtime cap is one issue that we need to address. Our legislation will ensure that supervisors and managers neither make less working overtime than they would during regular work hours nor make less working overtime than those they supervise. This bill increases the overtime cap from GS-10 step 1 to GS-12 step 1, the first adjustment in the overtime cap since 1966. Our bill doesn't mandate that overtime be paid; overtime pay will be implemented as it is currently, based on personnel decisions made by individual agencies. We should encourage incentives to attract bright and capable workers to join the management ranks of the federal government, and this bill is one such incentive. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, on Friday, November 5, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Small Business Tax Reduction Act of 1999. We drafted this legislation to complement Senator Kennedy's minimum wage amendment, and under the unanimous consent agreement, it was incorporated into that amendment which is now pending. The Small Business Tax Reduction Act of 1999 is targeted to provide tax relief for those employers who will be most affected by the minimum wage increase, even more than the proposal to be offered by the other side of the aisle. Our package adheres to two principles that had to be reconciled: First, that tax relief should be provided to those who need it most; and, second, that any tax relief package be fiscally responsible. To make sure that our package benefited those who need it most, we focused primarily on small businesses, those most likely to experience higher costs as a result of an increased minimum wage. To make sure the package was fiscally responsible, we used true offsets, not the surplus, to pay for it. In this way, we have remained true to both principles: This is a good tax package; it is a responsible tax package. Admittedly, deciding what provisions to include in such a bill required some compromises. In almost all cases, I have sponsored, or cosponsored, legislation that would go beyond the tax relief in many of the areas addressed by our bill. I will continue my efforts to move on these broader provisions. However, our commitment to paying for the tax bill and not either borrowing from our parents by using the Social Security trust fund or borrowing from our children by increasing our debt burden, precluded us from doing more at this time. In some respects, our tax package is similar to the Republican proposal. For example, both packages accelerate the 100-percent deduction for self-employed health insurance; both packages increase section 179 expensing for small businesses; both packages extend the work opportunity tax credit; and both packages raise the business meals deduction from 50 percent to 60 percent. But in other ways, our packages are quite different. For instance, we have included in our amendment some estate tax relief for small family- owned farms and businesses. Inflation has left the current exemption simply insufficient to give adequate relief to farmers and small business owners. This is one of the areas where we clearly need to do more, but some relief is better than none. We have included provisions targeted to geographic areas with the greatest need for economic assistance. The new markets proposal, for example, would reward employers who operate in economically distressed areas where the minimum wage is the most prevalent. There is also a credit that encourages employers to give lower income employees information technology training so we can begin to close the so-called digital divide. I was at an announcement this morning that will also make a major step in that direction. We also expand current empowerment zone credits so more communities and more people are able to take advantage of these credits. The empowerment zone credit provides a dual benefit. It helps those who may not yet be reaping the benefits of our expanding economy, and it helps revitalize our cities which, over the long term, may be our best tool for reducing the pressures that lead to suburban sprawl. Another area we devoted our attention to is retirement security. Increasingly, people are apprehensive about their retirement. Many small businesses are struggling to provide retirement security for their employees. The pension provisions in our bill are designed to address the needs of these small employers who are trying to develop effective retirement plans for their employees. For example, we would allow small businesses to borrow from their plans, just as large businesses can, and we have included Senator Baucus' proposal to provide a credit for new small business pension plans. Everyone benefits when small businesses are better able to offer their employees retirement plans. Finally, we need to help our communities meet their increasing demand for new and upgraded schools. Across the Nation, there are pent-up needs for new schools to make room for smaller classes, for schools that have access to the latest technology, for schools that have decent heating and plumbing and leak-proof roofs. To help meet those needs, we have included a provision to help communities modernize their public schools. In this bill, we propose extending the Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program, or QZABs, for an additional year. This program helps with school modernization efforts and deserves to be extended. Again, this effort is important, but we need to do much more. While we could not squeeze more on school construction into this vehicle, I am determined to find one that is large enough to accommodate our Nation's schoolchildren, who, frankly, deserve better than what they have gotten from Congress this year. Let me close by reiterating why we decided to pay for this bill and not just take the money from the surplus. First of all, I believe both sides understand we made a bipartisan commitment to stop dipping into the Social Security surplus to pay for current spending outside Social Security. Honoring this commitment is important both to maintain pressure for fiscal discipline and to prevent further cynicism about the way the Federal Government operates. As for the non-Social Security surplus, we believe our first priority should be paying down the over $5 trillion debt we have accumulated by failing to exercise fiscal discipline in the past. The need to keep up the pressure for fiscal responsibility is clear. Congress has been breaking the spending caps at breakneck speed. CBO recently advised us, not only had we already spent the small surplus expected for fiscal year 2000, we are already $17 billion in the red for the next fiscal year. Until we can agree on a comprehensive package that balances our spending, tax relief, and debt reduction priorities, we should pay for the spending and the tax cutting we propose and not take the easy route of spending the surpluses that may or may not actually materialize. If we do not put the brakes on piecemeal tax cuts now, we could easily face a runaway train of politically popular proposals that are not likely to be in the best long-term interests of the Nation. When we are ready to put everything on the table and consider the various priorities--such as using the surplus to pay down the debt--we can engage in that discussion. Until then, we should focus on achieving the current objective, which is to assist employers, particularly small employers, who may be adversely affected by the minimum wage increase. In short, this tax package accomplishes its purpose of providing relief to those employers who are most likely to have higher costs when the minimum wage increases. It is responsible. It does not squander the surplus we have fought so hard to achieve but maintains it for debt reduction. At the same time, it protects Social Security trust funds from being misallocated to other programs and expenditures. This is a good tax package, and I urge our colleagues to support it. With that, Madam President, I reserve any time remaining and yield the floor.