Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I had hoped that this year, we could have a reasonable and orderly appropriations process, where we would make the tough decisions that are required to live within our means. I had hoped that we could prioritize our spending, increasing funding for defense to strengthen our nation's readiness, investing in school improvements, devoting needed funds to science and basic research, enhancing our transportation system, and reducing our seemingly inexhaustible demand for pork-barrel projects. Instead, we are now at the end of the appropriations process and we are facing the prospect of spending even more than we have taken in-- despite the fact that revenues exceeded estimates and an on-budget surplus was available to us. At this point we face a Hobson's choice. In order to fulfill a commitment to protect the Social Security surplus that both political parties made to the American people we have to vote for a process that is abhorrent to any concept of responsible budgeting and legislating. In order to fund unwanted and unneeded legislative pork we're taking money from every legitimate program we've already funded--including crucial defense spending and reducing class size. Rather than making the hard choices throughout the process, and foregoing popular parochial spending that is not critical to our nation's needs, we are forced to make an across-the-board cut in order to meet our commitment. This is not the responsible way to govern. In fact, it's indefensible. We haven't done our job, Mr. President. We're playing rhetorical games and posturing artificially in order to keep this little secret from the American people. I will vote for this bill very reluctantly because it's the only measure on the table that meets our commitment. Once the President vetoes this bill, then we can get back to the business of making the hard choices. Cutting spending is never easy or popular, but it is necessary if we are to keep our promises. I oppose spending the Social Security trust funds because I believe that when we voted years ago to take the Social Security trust fund off-budget, we did so in an effort to impose fiscal discipline on ourselves. Although it has taken years to get to a point where we didn't have to rely on Social Security surpluses to pay our bills, we are now at that point, and we've promised the American people that we will refrain from using Social Security and Medicare taxes to fund other government programs. I support the promise because it helps strengthen our spine to cut unnecessary spending. But strengthening Social Security and Medicare for the long term will take more than just placing the trust funds ``off limits.'' Mr. President, we have once again limped pathetically to the end of the appropriations process, past the deadline and over the budget. The mere fact that we have to do an across-the-board cut is a testament to the failure of this budget process. If we have to choose between thoughtful budgeting and honoring a commitment, I will vote to honor the commitment. But that shouldn't be the choice. I will vote for this bill, knowing that it will be vetoed, to send a strong and clear message: government should not spend more than it takes in.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on October 20, 1999, during debate over S. 1692, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I had asked to be added as a cosponsor of Senate amendment 2319, offered by Senator Durbin. Unfortunately, my cosponsorship of this amendment was never reflected in the Record. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's amendment, and that the Record reflect that I was a cosponsor of this amendment when it was offered on October 20, 1999.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation that will permanently extend the research credit and increase the alternative incremental credit 1% per step. It will also expand the credit to companies operating in Puerto Rico. Mr. President, research and experimentation are the foundation of a vibrant economy. While there is some initial cost involved, studies have shown that a permanent extension of the R&E tax credit pays for itself over time due to increased federal revenues generated by a rise in productivity and economic growth. Without a permanent extension of the R&E credit, businesses are less likely to make long term investments in research that is necessary for scientific and technological advancements. Instead, decisions must be made on an annual basis which, over time, have the effect of slowing progress. In order to guarantee that our country remains the leader in cutting edge technology we need to permanently extend the R&E credit. The advantages of increased research and experimentation are simply too overwhelming to ignore. I intended on offering this bill as an amendment in the Finance Committee to the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, (S. 1792), but I was persuaded by members on both sides of the aisle that amendments in Committee threatened the whole deal. I decided, instead, to address this issue on the Senate floor. I still strongly support the tax extenders bill that was reported out of Committee, but I believe, as I have for some time, that we need to address this one deficiency. Without certainty, our nation's investments in research will suffer. Permanent extension of the R&E tax credit is the only way to provide that certainty. Despite recent setbacks, I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to extend this credit permanently. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for permitting me to speak after which this Senate will adjourn in memory of our friend and colleague, John Chafee.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I just returned. I was down-State when I heard the news of John Chafee's passing. I felt compelled to come to the floor for just a very brief minute and say that, in my judgment, John Chafee was as decent a human being as any individual I have encountered in public service. He was a personal friend during the time he was here in Washington. We happened to attend the same church in northern Virginia. We happened to have worn the same uniform of the U.S. Marine Corps in service to our country. But most of the time I spent with John Chafee was right here in the Capitol frequently in his hideaway. I spent more time in that particular hideaway than I did in my own office, or any other Senator's hideaway in the Capitol, meeting with a bipartisan group of Senators from both sides of the aisle trying to make the system work. John Chafee was an extraordinary human being in many ways. But he understood the need for bipartisanship if this institution were to accomplish the goals which the American people expect us to accomplish. And it was always at the call of John Chafee that we would gather and try to see if we couldn't find some common ground upon which the Senate could at least offer an alternative to the occasional gridlock into which we have occasionally found ourselves forced by the process or other agendas. It was never with any rancor that he disagreed with anyone, whether it be someone on his own side of the aisle or someone on this side of the aisle. He was always a voice of reason, always a voice of bipartisanship, always someone wanting to make the system work and committed to the goals for which he was elected to this particular institution by the people of Rhode Island. Mr. President, I have no prepared remarks. I could not pass up this opportunity to express my own profound sense of loss of someone who was far more special, I suspect, to this institution than many of those who do not or have not had the privilege of serving in it may realize, and whose loss we may feel in ways that many of its Members have not fully come to grips with at this particular point. John Chafee was one of those extraordinary individuals with whom I was very proud to serve and call a friend.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. In honor of the memory and with our own sense of loss to the family, friends, and staff of John Chafee, I now move, in accordance with the previous order and pursuant to Senate Resolution 206, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased Honorable John H. Chafee, late a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, that the Senate stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the Third Annual Caucus for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, to be held on October 22, 1999. Designated by Congress in 1983, the Potomac Heritage Trail is unlike any other trail in the National Trails System. The corridor which follows ``Our Nation's River'' includes both the boyhood home and Mt. Vernon estate of our first President, George Washington, significant greenways and parks, and nearby centers of commerce which are vital to the economic vitality of Virginia and the capital region. I congratulate the National Park Service, the Potomac Heritage Partnership, the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and other advocates of this National Scenic Trail in persevering in their efforts to increase opportunities for enhancing commerce, conservation and cultural initiatives along the Potomac River. I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. It will increase the costs.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I fully support a significant increase in defense spending, and I support the core of the defense appropriations bill we're considering today. Indeed, it includes many critical provisions--including pay and benefits changes--that I and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee worked hard to pass in the defense authorization bill. For that matter, this bill includes many projects important to the Commonwealth of Virginia that were included in the authorization bill. But this is simply not the way we should legislate. Tacking extraneous provisions onto necessary legislation is exactly what fuels the cynicism of the American people. I have regularly supported Congressional increases to the defense budget. But this legislation is a perfect example of what's wrong with the Congress. And it reinforces the need for a line-item veto. The bill contains the usual billions of dollars of congressional spending not requested by the Department of Defense. My colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, observed earlier this morning that some $6 billion in unrequested pork are part of this bill--perhaps the largest amount of unrequested pork ever. This is money that could have gone toward desperately needed improvements in our national defense, including more training, more spares and ammunition, more maintenance, and better quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. But beyond spending on unneeded projects, the bill employs some budget gimmicks that make a mockery of fiscal discipline. The bill designates--arbitrarily--$7.2 billion as emergency spending just to avoid the pain of dealing with the budget caps. I believe we ought to make the tough decisions to keep our spending under control. But if the Congress cannot discipline its spending, it ought to be forthright and acknowledge what it is doing. Avoiding hard choices with smoke and mirrors, however, is not responsible governing. The bill authorizes 15 military construction projects that the Armed Services Committee decided not to authorize in its conference report. The authorization of military construction projects is the responsibility of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I serve as the Ranking Member on the Readiness Subcommittee, where military construction matters are considered. We have been successful in limiting military construction spending to projects that meet certain strict criteria--including whether the military plans to build these facilities at some point in their future years defense plan. The appropriations bill added 15 projects, of which at least half were not even on the Pentagon's books for eventual construction. Only the Armed Services Committee, with its longer-term, policy-oriented focus, can avoid this kind of spending that does little to improve the capabilities of our armed forces. For these reasons, I will reluctantly vote against this bill knowing it will pass overwhelmingly. Since I know the bill will pass, my vote will not jeopardize national security. It will not preclude the Department of Defense from spending the additional funds included in the bill to provide more pay and benefits, more spare parts, increased training, and better maintenance. As I said before, I have fought long and hard to see those increases in the defense authorization bill. And if my protest vote would determine the outcome, I would act differently. But voting against this bill is one of the few means I have available to register my protest forcefully. I simply cannot acquiesce to a process which misdirects funds crucial to our national security to those who are seemingly more interested in their political security. No one should doubt my commitment to a strong national defense, but no one should doubt my commitment to fiscal responsibility as well. We cannot continue to squander so much of our scarce resources on unnecessary pet projects when our needs for improved readiness are so great. And as I stated when I voted against the pork-laden Kosovo supplemental earlier this year, just because we have troops in harm's way does not give us an excuse to go on a spending binge. Hope springs eternal. Hopefully next year we can stem the pork, avoid the gimmicks, and respect long-standing committee jurisdictions.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, on balance I personally believe the arguments for ratification of the CTBT are far more persuasive than the arguments against ratification. But I recognize the legitimacy of some of the arguments made against ratification. I recognize the credibility of some of those making those arguments. I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that ratification would be a mistake. Having said that, I will not repeat all of the reasons that I would vote for ratification, if we are, indeed, forced to go ahead with the vote scheduled for later this afternoon. I would simply appeal to colleagues who oppose ratification not to let their feelings--their personal feelings--toward our Commander in Chief or their desires for a decisive political victory to weaken the role of the U.S. leadership in the international community or encourage additional testing by nations that might not otherwise do so, and thus make the world less secure and more dangerous. On the politics, opponents of ratification at this time have already won. No one contends that 67 Senators are prepared to vote for ratification. No one is suggesting that this President or any future President is going to bring the treaty up for ratification again unless and until they have those 67 votes. I happen to be one of the 10 Senators who engaged in an extended discussion of this treaty with the President and his national security team last Tuesday evening. Many others have been actively engaged in the debate from the very beginning. As I recall, there were six Republicans and four Democrats; and we were equally divided on the question of ratification. I wish to commend all of the Senators involved in that process and throughout, but particularly those Republicans who stated during that meeting, very forcefully, why they oppose the treaty and why a ratification vote would fail but nonetheless were willing to help find a way to pull us back from the brink--for the good of the country and in the interest of a safer world. In this instance, the President has acknowledged that if we go ahead with the vote, he will lose. But he is asking us not to defeat our own national interest as well by voting down this treaty. The Senate, in pressing its case, however, for an up-or-down vote at this point, in my judgment, injures the country's ability to lead and strikes a blow at American leadership around the world. Far more is at stake than defeating the policy and agenda of this particular President. Make no mistake, allies, friends, and enemies would view the defeat of the CTBT as a green light for more nuclear testing and further development of nuclear weapons, either strategic or tactical. Defeat of the treaty will not be perceived as a signal of restraint. Just the opposite. Delay of consideration of the matter at least gives us the opportunity to address continuing concerns about monitoring and verification, as best we can, while delivering the message to other nations that we should proceed with yellow-light caution in regard to testing and development of their programs. I have carefully reviewed the intelligence community's analysis of our CTBT monitoring capabilities--including the 1997 national intelligence estimate and the updating of that document--and admittedly, there are no absolutes when it comes to our ability to detect and identify some tests at low yields with high confidence. The more critical issue at hand, however, is the significance of possible evasion and the rationale that underlies such action and what it means for the inherent advantage we currently maintain with our nuclear arsenal. I urge our colleagues to weigh very carefully the views of the intelligence community. The intelligence community believes we can effectively monitor the CTBT. We approved the Chemical Weapons Convention aware of the fact that denial and deception techniques would prevent us from confirming absolutely that production, development, and stockpiling were not going on. But as with the CTBT, we were able to approach the subject of monitoring with a high degree of confidence that signatories were not violating the CWC. As a result, implementation of that pact is contributing to our national security. Senate hearings this past week suggest an emerging story at Novaya Zemlya but not outright violations of CTBT provisions. Transparency is lacking there, and perhaps a delay in consideration of the treaty will aid our efforts to sort out ongoing developments in this particular location. But defeating the CTBT on the concerns we have about this one site would represent a failure to understand what is in our broad national interest. Creating a normative global standard not to test will do enormous good and will act as a powerful force to stop would-be cheaters in their tracks. It is reasonably clear to our intelligence community that Russia and perhaps others would not necessarily make gains in their thermonuclear weapons program through an evasive low-yield testing program without risking exposure of such tests to the international community. Given that reality, it simply begs the question: Under what substantive rationale would Russia or another country proceed in light of the outcry and condemnation that would surely follow? I believe this matter is ripe for an agreement we can negotiate among ourselves in the Senate, through unanimous consent, that delays CTBT consideration until the next Congress. I am prepared to support CTBT regardless of the political affiliation of the Commander in Chief. But due to the untenable circumstances in which we now find ourselves, we should honor the request of this Commander in Chief and delay a vote. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Iowa. Senator Harkin and I have offered a sense of the Senate amendment relating to school construction, as Senator Harkin has just explained. The amendment is not unlike the amendment Senators Lautenberg, Harkin, and I offered to the Budget Resolution earlier this year. That amendment assumed that given the levels in the budget resolution, Congress would enact ``legislation to allow States and school districts to issue at least $24.8 billion worth of zero-interest bonds to rebuild and modernize our nation's schools, and to provide Federal income tax credits to the purchasers of those bonds in lieu of interest payments.'' The actual cost as it was scored was referred to by the Senator from Iowa. That amendment was accepted and put the entire Senate on record as supporting the concept of providing federal assistance in the area of school construction and renovation. Understanding that Rule 16 prevents us from doing anything of significance at this time with respect to school construction, Senator Harkin and I in just a moment will withdraw our amendment. But every day that passes, this Congress misses an opportunity to help our States and localities fix the leaky roofs, get rid of all the trailers, and install the wiring needed to bring technology to all of our children. These are real problems--problems that our nation's mayors, school boards, and families simply need some help in addressing. While school infrastructure improvement is typically a local responsibility, it is now a national need. Our schools, as the Senator from Iowa has indicated, are over 40 years old, on average; our school- aged population is at record levels; and our States and localities can't keep up, despite their surpluses. Abstract talk about State surpluses provides little solace to our nation's teachers and students who are forced to deal with wholly inadequate conditions. In Alabama, the roof of an elementary school collapsed. Fortunately, it occurred just after the children had left for the day. In Chicago, teachers place cheesecloth over air vents to filter out lead-based paint flecks. In Maine, teachers have to turn out the lights when it rains because their electrical wiring is exposed under their leaky roofs. Mr. President, we are missing an opportunity to help our States and localities with a pressing need. I will continue to work for and press forward on this issue because I think it's an area where the Federal Government can be extremely constructive. When our children are asked about ``Bleak House,'' they should refer to a novel by Dickens and not the place where they go to school. In my own State of Virginia, there are over 3,000 trailers being used to educate students. And there are over $4 billion worth of unbudgeted, unmet needs for our schools. This is a problem that is not going to go away, and it's a problem that our nation's schools need our help to solve. And I regret that Rule 16 precludes us from considering legislation which would reaffirm the commitment that we made earlier this year. I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his continued work on the subject of school construction, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1845 Withdrawn

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I want to discuss my support for an amendment Senator Murray and I offered which puts the entire Senate on record in favor of removing one of the greatest obstacles to quality care that women face in our insurance system today: inadequate access to obstetricians and gynecologists. I understand that our provision will be included in the manager's amendment to this bill, and I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS and Education, Senator Specter, for his work both in including our amendment in his bill, as well as his leadership on this issue. He has been one of the most outspoken members in this body in favor of helping women have better access to women's health services. We know today that for many women, their OB/GYN is the only physician they see regularly. While they have a special focus on women's reproductive health, obstetricians and gynecologists provide a full range of preventative health services to women, and many women consider their OB/GYN to be their primary care physician. Unfortunately, some insurers have failed to recognize the ways which women access health care services. Some managed care companies require a woman to first visit a primary care doctor before she is granted permission to see an obstetrician or gynecologist. Others will allow a woman to obtain treatment directly from her OB/GYN, but then prohibit her from obtaining any follow-up care that her OB/GYN recommends without first visiting a primary care physician who serves as a ``gatekeeper''. This isn't just cumbersome for women, it's bad for their health. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, women who regularly see an OB/GYN are more likely to have had a complete physical exam and other important preventative services like mammograms, cholesterol tests and Pap smears. At a time when we need to direct our health care dollars more toward prevention, allowing insurers to restrict access to the health professionals most likely to offer women preventative care only increases the possibility that greater complications--and greater expenditures--will arise down the road. We ought to grant women the right to access medical care from obstetricians and gynecologists without any interference from remote insurance company representatives. Earlier this year, Senator Murray and I offered an amendment which would do just that. Unfortunately, a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle objected to some of the specific wording in our bill, and the amendment was defeated. Since that vote, we have reworked our amendment to address these concerns. We had hoped to offer an amendment which was identical to language included in a patient protection bill crafted by a Republican Congressman, Charlie Norwood, and that was approved by the House earlier today by an overwhelming vote of 275-151. Yet despite this consensus on this issue by Republicans and Democrats on the House side, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle threatened to challenge our amendment under Senate Rule 16. Senator Murray and I are cognizant of the problem this created, and we've opted to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution in place of the amendment we had hoped to see approved. This Sense of the Senate, which has been accepted by both sides, puts the entire Senate on record in favor of legislation which requires health plans to provide women with direct access to obstetrical and gynecological services, without first having to obtain a referral from a primary care provider or their health plan. It is a strong step forward in our efforts to improve women's access to the type of health care they need. To my Republican colleagues who objected, I say: your party joined with Democrats to hammer out this compromise language on the House side. Now that the Senate is on record as well, let's get behind this same amendment at the earliest available opportunity in the Senate and pass a provision which will help all women in this country get better care. amendment no. 2284 (Purpose: To extend filing deadline for compensation of worker exposed to mustard gas during World War II) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . The applicable time limitations with respect to the giving of notice of injury and the filing of a claim for compensation for disability or death by an individual under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended, for injuries sustained as a result of the persons exposure to a nitrogen or sulfur mustard agent in the performance of official duities as an employee at the Department of the Army's Edgewood Arsenal before March 20, 1944, shall not begin to run until the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1904 (Purpose: to provide a requirement to enhance the competitiveness of air operations under slot exemptions for regional jet air service and new entrant air carriers at certain high density traffic airports)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what is the pending amendment at this time?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1898 be temporarily laid aside and that we return to consideration of amendment No. 1892 offered by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 1892 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for accepting three out of four of the amendments I have proposed. I had hoped we might someday find a way he could accept the fourth. I am very much aware of the fact, however, that he and some others are not inclined to do that. I have, therefore, sent to the desk an amendment, just read by the clerk in its entirety, which simply strikes the section of the amendment that deals with the number of additional slots at National Airport. In this particular case, this amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, while a step in the right direction from the original bill language which would have required that an additional 48 slots be forced on the Washington National Airport Authority, nonetheless cuts that in half and it gets halfway to the objective I hope we can ultimately achieve in this particular case. The amendment would reduce to zero the number of changes in the slots that are currently in existence at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. My primary objection to this section is that it breaks a commitment to the citizens of this region, by injecting the Federal Government back into the management of our local airports. Before I discuss this issue in detail, I wish to make clear that I fully support nearly all of the underlying legislation and have for some period of time. Congress ought to approve a multiyear FAA reauthorization bill that boosts our investment in aviation infrastructure and keeps our economy going strong. There is no question about that. I have supported that from the very beginning, and I thank the managers for their efforts in this particular regard. I have long believed that funding for transportation, particularly mass transportation, is one of the best investments our Government can make. For our aviation system, in particular, these investments are critical. As Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater noted: . . . aviation will be for America in the 21st Century what the Interstate Highway System has been for America in this century. It has been suggested that as part of our preparation for the next century of aviation to promote competition and protect consumers, we ought to impose additional flights on the communities surrounding National Airport. It has been argued that the high density rule, which limits the number of slots or flights at National, is a restriction on our free market and hurts consumers. I do not dispute the fact that flight limits at National restrict free market. I believe, however, that the proponents of additional flights give an inaccurate picture of the supposed benefits of forcing flights on National Airport. Before I go on to discuss the impact of additional flights on communities in Northern Virginia, I would like to deflate the idea that more flights will necessarily be a big winner for consumers. Based on the number of GAO reports we have had on this subject, some of our colleagues may think slot controls are somehow the primary cause of consumer woes. When we look at the facts, however, this simply is not the case. I understand reports by the GAO and by the National Research Council argue that airfares at slot-controlled airports are higher than average. However, the existence of higher-than-average fares does not tell us how slot controls may contribute to high fares at a specific airport. Many other factors, such as dominance of a given market by a particular carrier, or the leasing terms for gates, play a role in determining price. Also, simply noting the higher-than-average fares do not tell us whether slot controls are really a significant problem for the Nation. The U.S. Department of Transportation has examined air service on a city-by-city basis looking at all service to each city. This chart shows a 1998 third quarter DOT assessment of airfares, ranking each city based on the average cost per mile traveled. As you can see, the airports with the slot controls are not at the top of the list. In fact, they do not even make the top 106. Slot-controlled Chicago, as my distinguished colleague from Illinois has pointed out, comes in at No. 19, right after Atlanta, GA; slot-controlled Washington, DC, comes in at 25, which is after Denver; and slot controlled New York is way down the list at No. 42. Clearly, there are factors beyond slot controls that weigh heavily in determining how expensive air travel is in a particular city. So simply adding more flights will not necessarily bring costs down. Proponents of adding more slots at National may argue, nonetheless, that their proposal is a slam-dunk win for consumers. But on closer examination, more flights look less like a game-winning move and more like dropping the ball. Advocates of more flights ignore or downplay a central fact: More flights mean more delays, as the Senator from Illinois has so eloquently pointed out. More flights mean more harm to consumers in the airline industry. This is the untold story of the impact of more flights at National. The most recent GAO study downplays this issue in a passing reference to the impact of delays. According to the GAO: [I]f the number of slots were increased . . . delays. . .could cause the airlines to experience a decreased profit . . . the costs [of delay] associated with the increase would be partially offset by consumer benefits. A 1999 National Research Council report acknowledges that delays resulting from more flights may hurt consumers: [I]t is conceivable that many travelers would accept additional delays in exchange for increased access to [slot- controlled] airports. . . . Recurrent delays from heavy demand, however, would prompt direct responses to relieve congestion. Later on the report suggests ``congestion pricing'' to prevent delays. Congestion pricing would raise airport charges and, thus, airfares during busy times to reduce delays. In other words, the National Research Council is suggesting that additional flights would force consumers to either accept more delays or accept price hikes to manage delays. I understand the underlying bill says that additional slots shall not cause ``meaningful delay.'' The legislation does not define ``meaningful delay,'' however, or provide any mechanism to protect consumers from delays, should they occur. While both the GAO and the NRC reports acknowledge we can expect delays, neither report examines the specific impact of delays on consumers. The most detailed analysis that is available to us comes from a 1995 DOT study titled ``A Study of the High Density Rule.'' That report examines the impact of several scenarios, including removing slots at National completely, and allowing 191 new flights, the maximum the airport could safely accept according to their report. According to experts at DOT: [T]he estimated dollar benefit of lifting the slot rule at National is substantially negative: minus $107 million. This figure includes the benefits of new service and fare reductions, weighed against the cost of delays to consumers and airliners. There is simply no getting around the fact that National has limits on how many flights it can safely manage. As we try to get closer to that maximum safe number, the more delays we will face. The DOT report goes on to examine the specific impact of adding 48 new slots, as proposed by the underlying legislation. The report finds that the length of delays will nearly double from an average of something around 4.6 minutes to a delay of 8 minutes, on average. I will discuss the costs of these delays at National Airport in a moment. But in case some of my colleagues think that a few minutes of delay is not a problem for air travelers, the Air Transport Association has estimated that last year delays cost the industry $2.5 billion in overtime wages, extra fuel, and maintenance. Indeed, yesterday I was flying up and down the east coast and all of those charges were clearly adding to the cost of the airline, which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. For consumers, there were 308,000 flight delays and millions of hours of time lost. For National in particular, the 1995 DOT report finds that airlines would see $23 million in losses due to delays. For consumers, 48 new slots would provide little benefit overall. Consumers would see $53 million in new service benefits, but delays would cost consumers $50 million. The report assumes no benefits from fare reductions with 48 slots, but, being generous, I have assumed an estimated fare reduction of $20 million from fare benefits listed elsewhere in the report. Consumer benefits, therefore, are $53 million for new service; minus $50 million for delays, plus $20 million for possible discounts, for a total of about $23 million. Considering the fact that about 16 million travelers use National each year, that works out to about $1.50 per person per trip in savings. That is not much benefit for the 48 slots. For 24 slots, as the Gorton amendment provides, we don't have a good analysis of the cost of delay. I suspect, however, the ultimate consumer benefits are similarly modest. We all value the free market and the benefit it provides to consumers. At the same time, it is the job of Congress to weigh the benefits of an unrestrained market against other cherished values. The free market does not protect our children from pollution, guard against monopolies, or preserve our natural resources. In this case, we are weighing a small benefit that would come from an additional 24 slots at National against the virtues of a Government that keeps its word and against the peace of mind of thousands of Northern Virginians, as well as many in the District of Columbia and Maryland. Elsewhere in this bill, we would restrain the market. The legislation would restrict air flights over both small and large parks. I submit that is the right thing to do. We should work to preserve the sanctity of our national parks. But while this bill abandons free market principles to shield our parks, it uses free market principles as a sword to cut away at the quality of life in our Nation's Capital. It is wrong to try to force Virginians and those who live in this area, Maryland and the District of Columbia and elsewhere, to endure more noise from National Airport, especially when the consumer benefits are so small and so uncertain. Most troubling of all is the fact that this bill breaks a promise to the citizens of this region, a promise that they would be left to manage their own airports without Federal meddling. To give the context surrounding that promise, I must review some of the history of the high density rule and the perimeter rule at National. National, as many of our colleagues know, was built in 1941. It was, therefore, not designed to accommodate large commercial jets. As a result, during the 1960s, as congestion grew, National soon became overcrowded. To address chronic delays, in 1966, the airlines themselves agreed to limit the number of flights at National. They also agreed to a perimeter rule to further reduce overcrowding. Long haul service was diverted to Dulles. During the 1970s and early 1980s, improvements were negligible or nonexistent at both National and Dulles, as any of our colleagues who served in this body or the other body at that time will recall, because there was no certainty to the airline agreements. National drained flights from Dulles so improvements at Dulles were put on hold. Litigation and public protest over increasing noise at National blocked improvements there. As my immediate successor as Governor, Jerry Baliles, described the situation in 1986: National is a joke without a punchline--National Airport has become a national disgrace. National's crowded, noisy, and incomprehensible. Travelers need easy access to the terminal. What they get instead is a half marathon, half obstacle course, and total confusion. To address this problem, Congress codified the voluntary agreements the airlines had adopted on flight limits and created an independent authority to manage the airports. The slot rules limited the number of flights and noise at National, and the perimeter rule increased business at Dulles. Together with local management of the airports, these rules provided what we thought was long-term stability and growth for both airports. More than $1.6 billion in bonds have supported the expansion of Dulles. More than $940 million has been invested to upgrade National. These major improvements would not have taken place without local management and without the stability provided by the perimeter and slot rules. The local agreement on slot controls was not enacted into Federal law simply to build good airports. Slot controls embodied a promise to the communities of Northern Virginia and Washington and Maryland. In the 1980s, there was some discussion of shutting down National completely. Anyone who was here at the time will recall that discussion and the prospect that National might actually be shut down. We avoided that fate and the resulting harm to consumer choice with an agreement to limit National's growth. I suspect some individuals in communities around National believe the agreement did not protect them enough and should have limited flights even more. But by giving them some sense of security that airport noise would not continue to worsen by giving them a commitment, we were able to move ahead with airport improvements. Congress and the executive branch recognized the community outrage that had blocked airport work and affirmed that a Federal commitment in law would allow improvements to go forward. In 1986 hearings on the airport legislation, Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole stated: With a statutory bar to more flights, noise levels will continue to decline as quieter aircraft are introduced. Thus all the planned projects at National would simply improve the facility, not increase its capacity for air traffic. Under these conditions, I believe that National's neighbors will no longer object to the improvements. As the Senate Committee on Commerce report noted at the time: [I]t is the legislation's purpose to authorize the transfer under long-term lease of the two airports ``as a unit to a properly constituted independent airport authority to be created by Virginia and the District of Columbia in order to improve the management, operation and development of these important transportation assets.'' Local government leaders, such as Arlington County Board member John Milliken, at that time noted that they sought a total curfew on all flights and shrinking the perimeter rule but, in the spirit of compromise, would accept specific limitations on flights and the perimeter rule. The airport legislation was not simply about protecting communities from airport noise. It was also about the appropriate role of the Federal Government. Members of Congress noted at the time that the Federal Government should not be involved in local airport management. In short, local airports should be managed by local governments, not through congressional intervention. At a congressional debate on the airport legislation, Senator Robert Dole and Congressman Dick Armey affirmed that Federal management of the airports was harmful. According to Senator Dole: There are a few things the Federal Government--and only the Federal Government--can do well. Running local airports is not one of them. According to Congressman Dick Armey: Transferring control of the airports to an independent authority will put these airports on the same footing as all others in the country. It gets the Federal Government out of the day-to-day operation and management of civilian airports, and puts this control into the hands of those who are more interested in seeing these airports run in the safest and most efficient manner possible. I submit that local airports in Virginia have been well managed to date. We shouldn't now start second-guessing that effort. Again, the legislation before us reneges on the Federal commitment to this region that the Federal Government would not meddle in airport management and that we would not force additional flights on National. Congress repeated that commitment in 1990 with the Airport Noise Capacity Act which left in place existing noise control measures across the country. That act, wherein Congress limited new noise rules and flight restrictions, also recognized that the Federal Government should not overrule preexisting slot controls, curfews, and noise limits. The 1990 act left in place preexisting rules, including flight limits at National. The bill before us contributes to the growing cynicism with which the public views our Federal Government. Overruling protections that airport communities have relied on is fundamentally unfair. Beyond the matter of fairness, forcing flights on National sets a precedent that will affect communities across the Nation. Many communities, such as Seattle, WA, and San Diego, CA, are trying to determine how they will address growing aviation needs and how their actions will affect communities around their airports. Those debates will determine how communities will treat their existing airport, whether they will close the airport to prevent possible growth in excess noise or leave it open to preserve consumer benefits, with the understanding that growth will be restrained. Those debates will also determine the location of new airports, whether a community will place the airport in a convenient location or further remove it from population centers to avoid noise impacts. The action Congress takes today will shape those debates. Knowing that Congress may intervene in local airport management will tip the balance toward closing the more convenient local airports out of fear-- fear that Congress will simply stamp out a local decision. Unfortunately, for the citizens around National, they trusted the Federal Government. They hoped the Federal Government agreement that they had to limit flights would protect them. As former Secretary of Transportation William Coleman noted in 1986, ``National has always been a political football.'' To summarize, the additional flights proposed in this bill are not designed to address some major restraint on aviation competition. Slot controls may respect competition, but there are clearly many factors affecting airfares. More importantly, the benefits to consumers of 24 additional flights at National are very uncertain. We will clearly have delays, and none of the studies supporting additional flights have examined in detail the cost of those delays. The best study we have on the subject, a 1995 DOT report, suggests that because of those delays, consumers won't get much benefit--maybe $1.50 per person, on average. We don't know how the delays at National--which we know will come if we approve the new flights--will affect air service in other cities with connecting flights to National. We are balancing these marginal benefits against the quality of life in communities surrounding the National Airport. We are pitting improved service for a few against quieter neighborhoods for many. We are also pitting a small, uncertain benefit to consumers against the integrity of the Federal Government. Forcing additional flights on National breaks an agreement that Congress made in 1986 to turn the airport over to a regional authority and leave it alone. A vote for this amendment to strike is a vote against more delays for consumers. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of a Federal Government that keeps its word. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike and retain the bargain, both implied and explicit, that we made in 1986 with the communities that surround the two airports in question. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Arizona, with whom I agree on so many issues but disagree on this particular question. First of all, I will let the Senator know that I am not in any way affiliated or associated with an effort to get people to write the Senator from Arizona or anybody else. There may be others with good intentions. But I submit to my friend from Arizona that the letter he just read makes the point we are trying to make; that is, the letter--which I haven't seen yet--talks about it was worse back in the early 1960s when we had a slots agreement which limited the number of planes. We had a decrease in noise because of the aircraft noise levels in the stage 3 aircraft. All of this is consistent with what has happened. Why most of the individuals who live in these areas want to continue to have the protections that were afforded to them by the 1986 agreement is precisely what is included in the letter my friend from Arizona just read. I ask my friend from Arizona to react to my reaction to a letter previously unseen, but it seems to me to be directly on point and makes the point as to why we are pursuing an attempt to keep my friend from Arizona from breaking that agreement.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will my friend from Arizona yield for an additional question?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Arizona if he would address the other two principal concerns that have been raised--delays and the breaking of a deal. He has in part addressed the breaking of a deal. He says the deal in effect was political. Indeed, there are some political implications in almost anything that is struck, particularly as it affects jurisdictions differently in this body, as the Senator well knows. But it was a deal entered into by the executive branch, Congress on both sides, the governments of the local jurisdictions involved, and all of the local communities. That was the deal that was entered into. Now we are concerned about the impact of breaking the deal and the impact of additional delays. As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I myself was caught in delays that were exacerbated by the fact that we had some planes waiting to take off ``right now.'' That is without any additional flight authorization during the time periods that are going to be sought. Second, certainly the Senator from Illinois talked about the fact that the mayor of Chicago came here for a specific reception that was in his honor to benefit Chicago and was inconvenienced to the point that he didn't arrive until after the reception was over and he turned right around. I almost did that yesterday on another flight. But the point is, more flights mean more delays and mean breaking the deal that the Congress, the executive branch, and the local governments made with the people. Will the distinguished Senator from Arizona address those two elements of my concern at this point? I agree certainly on the stage 3 engines and the continued noise reduction. Mr. President, before he answers the question, let me thank him for his accommodation in many areas. I am not in any way diminishing the number of changes the Senator from Arizona has made to try to address legitimate concerns that he recognized could be addressed. And this is a less bad bill than we had earlier with respect to this particular component of it. But we are still not where the deal said we ought to be. We are still not where we can represent to the people that we are not going to be creating additional delays in an obviously constricted area.

Mr. ROBB. The Senator would definitely like it.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague. He and I were away from the Senate floor for the signing of the defense authorization bill, which was the work of my colleague from Virginia and the committee he chairs. I thank him for his kind comments. Very simply, this amendment is about a 1986 agreement, on which the senior Senator from Virginia and I both worked, as well as many others. It was an agreement between the Federal Government and the local governments and the State governments involved to make sure that we addressed the serious concerns that were then holding up any progress on improvements on National Airport. At that time, we recognized that the two airports, Dulles Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, work in tandem; they should be viewed as a single airport. Together, they serve consumers and the Washington region well. It was agreed that a local authority would best manage the airports, just as all other airports across the nation. In this particular case, if we were to approve an increase in flights at National Airport, we would be breaking that deal. We would also increase the delay and increase the disruption to local communities. Most importantly, we would be going back on a deal--we would be reneging on a deal that was made so the Federal Government would stay out of the business of trying to micromanage the only two airports in the area. I hope the Members will respect the agreement that this body, the Federal Government, and the State governments and the local governments entered into in 1986, and move to strike the additional slots that are in an otherwise meritorious bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Unless my senior colleague has additional remarks or the Senator from Arizona, I would yield back.

Mr. ROBB. The Senator from Virginia yields back any time remaining.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. Madam President, first, I join my distinguished colleague from Connecticut in his eloquent address and the passion he brings to that subject. I share that passion. I certainly join many of our colleagues who have spoken about the need to adequately fund our public education system, but I want to respond to an argument the distinguished majority leader made on Friday regarding the condition of our Nation's schools. The Senator from Mississippi indicated it is not the Federal Government's job to fix leaky roofs. He indicated it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to build local schools. He indicated that every State has a budget surplus so the Federal Government should not get involved. As a former Governor who was able to pump over $1 billion of additional money into public education without a tax increase, I might ordinarily agree with that premise, but there are times which call for extraordinary partnerships among localities, States, and the Federal Government. I believe we are experiencing one of those times. We have three phenomena that are colliding to put the greatest level of stress on our educational infrastructure that we have seen since the 1950s. Our school facilities across the Nation are over 40 years old on average, our school-age population is skyrocketing, and our States and localities simply do not have the resources to do what needs to be done despite their surpluses. To say that providing school construction funding is not a Federal responsibility is easy. It is an easy way to sit on our hands and do nothing to help children who wade through puddles to get to class, to do nothing to help children who suffer in up to 100-degree temperatures in buildings with no air conditioning, to do nothing to help the countless mayors across this country who stated they desperately need our help. In Virginia alone, despite our Commonwealth surplus and plans to invest more money in school infrastructure, we still face a $4 billion shortfall in school construction and repair needs. I have heard from superintendents, local officials, State legislators, parents, and, most important, students who have all asked for Federal help in this area. For those colleagues who fear Federal intrusion in the area of education, I simply say, if Federal officials want to help local officials pay for school buildings and repairs, things we all acknowledge we need urgently, how do we encroach on local school control of education? Localities have asked for our help, and it is help we can provide without telling them how to run their schools. I believe this is actually one of the least intrusive things that we can do to help from the Federal level. Providing school infrastructure assistance is not intended to be a panacea for all the challenges we face with respect to increasing academic achievement, but it is certainly a critical need. Under the leadership of a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, our predecessors in Congress summoned the political will to fund a massive national infrastructure initiative. We did help build roads. We did help build schools. We did it because our States and localities needed our help. We did it because our population was booming. And we did it to try to ensure that the United States would have the infrastructure it needed to be economically sound and competitive. It is my hope that we can summon that will once again. With that, Madam President, in full support of the statement made by our distinguished Democratic leader and my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and in opposition to the proposal from the other side of the aisle upon which we will vote momentarily, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Vote On S. Res. No. 186