Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. My colleague is correct. But I wish to stress that this case was not a profit-seeking endeavor, but an emergency situation to replace sand on a federally-authorized beach that was washed away during a severe storm.

Mr. ROBB. The City of Virginia Beach was assessed a fee of $0.18 per cubic yard, and they were forced to enter into a lease agreement with MMS before being allowed to obtain critical sand for the emergency beach erosion project. The money paid in MMS fees, which totaled $198,000, would have allowed the City to place an additional 40,000 cubic yards of sand on this badly eroded beach. In conclusion, we hope our colleagues agree that the MMS should have utilized their option to waive the fee for sand replenishment in this emergency situation, and as a result, the City should be reimbursed for protection Sandbridge Beach. Not only did the MMS assess a fee on a federally-authorized project which protects federal land, but they took advantage of the City during an emergency situation. Under the time constraints the City had no other alternative to find sand elsewhere, and was forced to pay the fee. It is for these reasons that my colleague and I believe that the MMS has an obligation to reimburse the City of Virginia Beach for this incorrectly assessed fee.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his offer. Given the absence of other Senators who I know want to debate this particular issue, I look forward to resuming that debate when the Senate returns to session on September 8.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the New Markets Tax Credit Act, innovative legislation that will benefit both rural and urban America. As its name suggests, the New Markets bill is designed to create new markets within our nation for investment, for job growth, and for renewal. While most of the nation experiences record economic growth, there are some places that have been left behind. Too many communities in both rural and urban America haven't been able to share the wealth, and without willing investors, that wealth may never come. Capitalism cannot flourish where there is no capital. This legislation we're introducing today addresses the need for investment in all our communities, and I believe the tax credits contained in this bill provide a way for America to lift as it climbs. Under this bill, tax credits would be allocated to Community Development Entities located within the neighborhoods and rural areas where help is needed. Those who invest in these Community Development organizations would receive tax benefits, and the funds they invested would be used by the organizations to invest in local businesses, provide start-up capital, or make low interest loans. The investment decisions would be made at the local level by those who best know the community, would attract private enterprise to create economic growth, and would use federal tax credits to achieve these objectives. This local, federal, and private sector partnership holds the key to improving communities across this nation. The New Markets Initiative can use both the business incubator and community action models that have proven so successful in many communities. An example of such success can be found at People, Incorporated in Southwest Virginia, a community action agency that promotes economic growth by leveraging funds and lending expertise to new or expanding businesses. This legislation, along with the Enterprise Zone bill I recently introduced, gives lcoal communities the tools they need to spur economic growth where they live. Attracting investments to the neediest communities will pay dividends, not just in economic terms, but in quality of life terms as well. Prospering communities can provide quality education, improved transportation and better police protection. And improving communities can provide a draw for those who would otherwise be tempted to move out to the suburbs, thereby reducing the pressures that have created suburban sprawl and increasing commutes and diminishing open spaces. Mr. President, I hope we can move this legislation quickly.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the New Markets Tax Credit Act, innovative legislation that will benefit both rural and urban America. As its name suggests, the New Markets bill is designed to create new markets within our nation for investment, for job growth, and for renewal. While most of the nation experiences record economic growth, there are some places that have been left behind. Too many communities in both rural and urban America haven't been able to share the wealth, and without willing investors, that wealth may never come. Capitalism cannot flourish where there is no capital. This legislation we're introducing today addresses the need for investment in all our communities, and I believe the tax credits contained in this bill provide a way for America to lift as it climbs. Under this bill, tax credits would be allocated to Community Development Entities located within the neighborhoods and rural areas where help is needed. Those who invest in these Community Development organizations would receive tax benefits, and the funds they invested would be used by the organizations to invest in local businesses, provide start-up capital, or make low interest loans. The investment decisions would be made at the local level by those who best know the community, would attract private enterprise to create economic growth, and would use federal tax credits to achieve these objectives. This local, federal, and private sector partnership holds the key to improving communities across this nation. The New Markets Initiative can use both the business incubator and community action models that have proven so successful in many communities. An example of such success can be found at People, Incorporated in Southwest Virginia, a community action agency that promotes economic growth by leveraging funds and lending expertise to new or expanding businesses. This legislation, along with the Enterprise Zone bill I recently introduced, gives lcoal communities the tools they need to spur economic growth where they live. Attracting investments to the neediest communities will pay dividends, not just in economic terms, but in quality of life terms as well. Prospering communities can provide quality education, improved transportation and better police protection. And improving communities can provide a draw for those who would otherwise be tempted to move out to the suburbs, thereby reducing the pressures that have created suburban sprawl and increasing commutes and diminishing open spaces. Mr. President, I hope we can move this legislation quickly.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Mr. William M. Dempsey who will retire from the U.S. Marshals Service on August 28, 1999. He has served as a Public Affairs Specialist with the Marshals Service for 23 years. Mr. Dempsey has more than four and a half decades of experience in public affairs positions with various civilian, government and military organizations. For twenty years, from 1955-1975, he served with the U.S. Air Force in several positions. During the period 1959-1961 he served as a Public Information Officer with the U.S. Taiwan Defense Command. He later served a tour of duty in South Vietnam as Director of Information for all U.S. rescue and recovery activities. From 1968-1972 he served on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force. In late 1976, Mr. Dempsey joined the U.S. Marshals Service as a Public Affairs Specialist. In that capacity, he implemented a public affairs strategy for the agency, advised senior officials on public information aspects of major operational matters, and was frequently the agency's spokesman to the media. His extensive experience with national, regional, and local media organizations has benefitted the Marshals Service and the American public for more than two decades. Mr. Dempsey graduated from St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1954 with a bachelor's degree in Political Science. He also has completed graduate level study in Public Relations/ Communications at Boston University. He resides in Fairfax, Virginia, near the Arlington headquarters of the U.S. Marshals Service. I am honoring Mr. Dempsey on the Senate floor today as a way of thanking him for his service to the law enforcement community, the public affairs community, and our nation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Robert Tobias, a man who has shown untiring commitment to the concerns of Federal employees. Recently I had the opportunity to attend one of the receptions in his honor hosted by the many Federal employees he has represented and led so effectively. Mr. Tobias, who is retiring after four terms as president of the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, has proven his dedication to the fair treatment, professional development and quality of life for Federal workers time and time again. During his 31 years of service, the organization has grown to the point that it now represents over 155,000 men and women who serve our Federal Government. For the past 16 years, Mr. Tobias led the NTEU, spearheading initiatives to ensure fair workplace policies for Federal workers and pursuing effective labor- management policies for more efficient service from Federal agencies. But perhaps most importantly, he's championed family friendly policies to help our outstanding Federal workers continue to meet demands and increase productivity. These innovations include implementing alternative work schedules and negotiating child care facilities for busy Federal families. Because of his outstanding reputation, he's won many awards and appointments, most notably his appointment to the National Partnership Council and the Commission to Restructure the IRS among them. Under his leadership, he's ensured that Federal employees are included in the many decisions to help Federal agencies run more efficiently and that they are publicly recognized for all the hard work they perform. Robert Tobias leaves an indelible mark on the Federal workplace by the hard work he has done on behalf of NTEU--indeed, the nation--and we are indebted to him for his service. I wish him continued success as he moves on to teaching and writing, knowing we can still rely on his voice and experience when it comes to the critical needs of Federal employees.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today important legislation that will help low-income rural and urban areas nationwide reinvigorate their communities. The Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Act will fully fund the Round II Enterprise Zones authorized by Congress in 1997. The Enterprise Zones/Enterprise Community (EZ/ECs) concept combines tax credits and social service grants to promote long-term economic revitalization. The most important aspect of Enterprise Zones are their inclusive approach--by design--so local government, the private sector and non-profit and civic groups together create a vision and a plan to implement that vision, with the federal government playing a supportive role rather than the lead role. I'm sure many Senators can point with pride to the successes within their own states, but I'd like to take a moment to talk about the Norfolk-Portsmouth Enterprise Zone (EZ) in my state of Virginia. The Norfolk-Portsmouth EZ won its new designation in 1997. One of the many services Norfolk-Portsmouth provides through Norfolk Works, Inc. the entity implementing the many activities of the EZ, are GED classes and job training and apprenticeship programs. There's even a Multi-media Training Course, which includes an 15-week internship at a media company. Norfolk Works also recruits and screen applicants for jobs. And they don't do this alone: Norfolk Works coordinates with many agencies, organizations and businesses to help the residents within the Norfolk-Portsmouth Zone. Already, the Norfolk Works has produced impressive results--from May 1995 to June 1999, 60 percent of those completing training are employed with another 16% involved in additional training. The success of the Norfolk-Portsmouth Enterprise Zone is just one example of the promise and results of Enterprise Zones. But unlike Round I EZ/ECs, Round II EZ/ECs did not receive the Social Service Block Grant (SSBG) that provides resources for social services such as job training and child care which complements the tax incentives and bonding authority already approved. Communities competed for these designations with the understanding that Congress would give them the full funding to implement their vision. We have a responsibility to fulfill our obligations to these communities, that worked very hard to win the resources to make their vision a reality. I look forward to working with our colleagues to fulfill this promise.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today important legislation that will help low-income rural and urban areas nationwide reinvigorate their communities. The Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Act will fully fund the Round II Enterprise Zones authorized by Congress in 1997. The Enterprise Zones/Enterprise Community (EZ/ECs) concept combines tax credits and social service grants to promote long-term economic revitalization. The most important aspect of Enterprise Zones are their inclusive approach--by design--so local government, the private sector and non-profit and civic groups together create a vision and a plan to implement that vision, with the federal government playing a supportive role rather than the lead role. I'm sure many Senators can point with pride to the successes within their own states, but I'd like to take a moment to talk about the Norfolk-Portsmouth Enterprise Zone (EZ) in my state of Virginia. The Norfolk-Portsmouth EZ won its new designation in 1997. One of the many services Norfolk-Portsmouth provides through Norfolk Works, Inc. the entity implementing the many activities of the EZ, are GED classes and job training and apprenticeship programs. There's even a Multi-media Training Course, which includes an 15-week internship at a media company. Norfolk Works also recruits and screen applicants for jobs. And they don't do this alone: Norfolk Works coordinates with many agencies, organizations and businesses to help the residents within the Norfolk-Portsmouth Zone. Already, the Norfolk Works has produced impressive results--from May 1995 to June 1999, 60 percent of those completing training are employed with another 16% involved in additional training. The success of the Norfolk-Portsmouth Enterprise Zone is just one example of the promise and results of Enterprise Zones. But unlike Round I EZ/ECs, Round II EZ/ECs did not receive the Social Service Block Grant (SSBG) that provides resources for social services such as job training and child care which complements the tax incentives and bonding authority already approved. Communities competed for these designations with the understanding that Congress would give them the full funding to implement their vision. We have a responsibility to fulfill our obligations to these communities, that worked very hard to win the resources to make their vision a reality. I look forward to working with our colleagues to fulfill this promise.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Motion to Recommit

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, despite the opportunities we have had in this bill and in the Finance Committee to address the $112 billion school repair needs in this country, this tax bill is simply inadequate in terms of infrastructure assistance for our Nation's schools. We know 14 million children attend schools in need of extensive repair or complete replacement. We know we need to build 2,400 new schools by 2003 to accommodate record school enrollments. We know we need to equip our schools with modern technology and the infrastructure necessary to support that technology. We know all these things. Yet we have reported a tax bill that only helps build and renovate 200 schools. We cannot starve our schools of resources and then criticize them when they are overcrowded or dilapidated. On behalf of Senators Lautenberg, Conrad, Harkin, and Wellstone, I move to recommit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions to report back to the Senate within 3 days with an amendment reducing or deferring by $5.7 billion over the next 10 years certain new tax rates in the bill that benefit those who least need relief.

Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment simply delays the effective date of the tax cut that is proposed. There are many who believe that a tax cut of this magnitude at this time would be ludicrous. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we ought to go ahead with a tax cut notwithstanding the fact that we have not protected Social Security and Medicare. Most of the people who have spoken so far have talked about their concern for doing just that. The lockbox provisions were proposing to do just that. If you want to save Social Security and Medicare, this is an incentive. It will delay the implementation of the act, but it will not negate the effectiveness of the act. I ask that our colleagues vote to support this particular amendment, save the one-half of 1 percent of the total which would be expended this year, and not lock in cuts that would cost $792 billion, which would be almost impossible to reverse should that prove to be the case.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first of all let me thank my distinguished colleague from New Mexico for his continued leadership on virtually every aspect of education and our public responsibility in that particular area. I am pleased to join him on this amendment, and would say that I agree completely with my colleague from New Mexico about the need to make critical investments in our future. Not only does this tax bill fail to ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, it provides an inadequate level of investment in education. My own State of Virginia has long been proud of its history and support of education. You may recall it was a Virginian who is widely acknowledged as ``the father of free public schools in America.'' Thomas Jefferson's vision to provide a free public education to all citizens was designed to preserve a fledgling democracy. But at the dawn of a new millennium, a strong and vibrant system of public education has many other benefits as well. Education breeds opportunity. And it is opportunity that knows no class, no gender, no race, no income level, no street address. Because when we invest in education, we invest in our people, we invest in the economic strength of our communities, and we invest in the international competitiveness of our Nation. That is why I have always believed that all three levels of Government--local, state, and federal--should work together in the area of education. That is why I believe that the Federal Government can be a constructive partner in education. And that's why I believe this tax bill falls short of our responsibility to our nation's children and to our nation's future competitiveness. The stakes for our country, and all who live here, couldn't be greater. Despite these stakes, the tax bill we debate today still falls short in its investment in education. In addition to the concerns expressed by my friend from New Mexico, I am particularly concerned about the inadequate level of school construction assistance provided in this bill. Mr. President, we know that 14 million children attend schools in need of extensive repair or, in some cases, complete replacement. We know that 7 million attend schools with safety code violations. And we know there are thousands and thousands of trailers in use because of school overcrowding--over 3,000 in Virginia alone. Loudon County, Virginia, Mr. President will need to build 22 new schools to accommodate its enormous growth in student population. My home county of Fairfax, VA has capital needs of $1.2 billion over the next ten years. But it isn't just a Virginia phenomenon; it's a national crisis. And we have known about this crisis since 1995, when the GAO informed us that our national school repair needs total some $112 billion. We have known that we need to build and repair over 6,000 schools across the Nation. And yet we are considering a bill today which builds and renovates only 200 schools. Mr. President, later in our debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the tax bill to the Finance Committee to force us to take another look at our priorities. I have recently introduced legislation which combines various bipartisan school construction proposals, and which I hope brings us one step closer to the compromise I know we can reach on this issue. I look forward to that debate, but for now I will simply say that Senator Bingaman is right: we need to pay more than lip service to our most critical societal investment--education. I thank the chair and I yield back any time remaining to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1401 (Purpose: To delay the effective dates of the provisions of, and amendments made by, the Act until the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare programs is ensured)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that we consider it for debate at this time and that the vote occur on this amendment at the time previously designated under the unanimous consent agreement.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this particular amendment with my long-time friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and others who join us. Both Senator Graham and I served as Governors before coming to this body, and our views on fiscal matters are frequently very much in sync as they are on the amendment we offer this evening. Having served as executive officers of our States, we share a somewhat unique perspective, and it is from that particular unique perspective that we offer this amendment. The amendment simply states that if it is the will of a majority of the Members of this body to enact the tax cut before us, let's at least accept responsibility for strengthening Social Security and Medicare first. In short, let's get our priorities straight. We all understand the allure of tax cuts. I do not know many Americans who would not like to have a few extra dollars to spend on something, and I do not know many Americans who truly enjoy writing a check to the IRS. Most of us work hard to minimize legally what we have to pay to Uncle Sam to run our Government, and most of us can find areas where we would like to see Government spending cut or eliminated altogether. Sure, we like and, indeed, expect many of the services and protections Government offers, but we do not like to have to pay for them. To enact a tax cut of this magnitude at this time when the economy is not in need of an economic stimulus, when we have not fixed Social Security, when we have not fixed Medicare, when we backload all of the tough decisions future Congresses will have to make to pay for the cuts, when we frontload only the politically popular promise of more than we are actually delivering, when we know that discretionary spending assumptions are unrealistic and unattainable, when we are already breaking the spending caps we have pledged to adhere to in the Balanced Budget Act we passed just 2 years ago, when we know defense spending is going to have to increase well beyond the current baseline, when we know that correcting a course of action will be far more difficult than anything we are bent on doing with this bill, Mr. President, I submit that to pass this bill at this time without this amendment would be ludicrous. It would be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. It would be as fiscally irresponsible as anything Congress has contemplated during the 11 years I have served in this body, and we are doing it all in the face of a certain Presidential veto. Is it any wonder people lose faith in their Government? Enacting massive tax cuts today before addressing the obligations we know we have tomorrow is reckless. Those who propose this approach are, in effect, buying political benefits by using our children's credit cards. We curry favor today and leave the bill for others to pay. A surplus is what is left over after we have met our obligations, and we will not know what our obligations are until we reform Social Security and Medicare. I am pleased to offer this amendment with my distinguished colleague from Florida and many others who are acting as cosponsors. I say in the spirit of the amendment that we all have enormous respect for the chairman of the committee and the bipartisan effort that has preceded this particular point in the debate. But we are simply--I am simply unwilling--we are simply unwilling to accept the fact that we should move forward with the tax cuts before the surplus upon which those tax cuts are premised has actually materialized. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Florida. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his comments. I think he is absolutely correct in that there is much that we agree upon. I would like to commend him for his effort to reach the bipartisan consensus that is going to be required if we are going to solve either challenge that we are discussing this evening. Social Security will not be saved without a bipartisan effort, and it is going to require the hard, politically risky work that the Senator from Tennessee just alluded to. The same thing is true with saving Medicare. Those are not easy decisions. That is one of the principal reasons that we are suggesting we ought to address those tough questions first. Let me suggest I understand in terms of the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee that taking on something that is not on the table is effective. But we are not really defending all of the President's plan in this particular instance. We are using a couple of numbers that happen to coincide with the President's. But ours is much simpler and much more specific. We are talking about simply postponing this tax cut. The Senator from Tennessee made the point that it might be difficult to actually achieve whatever is necessary for some actuary to come to the conclusion that we had in effect saved Social Security or that we had saved Medicare. I would not contest that assertion by the Senator from Tennessee. But we are not saying you can never have a tax cut. We are saying only that we will not have this tax cut, this tax cut that we believe at this time is excessive. It may be that a time will come when tax cuts, particularly targeted tax cuts, are appropriate. I suggest to my friend from Tennessee that while the time may be difficult to envision in terms of major tax cuts, it seems to me a time that does not cry out for tax cuts is a time when the economy is not in need of the economic stimulus that would come with a tax cut. The one thing that the Fed seems to suggest to us is that a tax cut could overheat the economy and would have consequences that we are trying to avoid at this particular time. But the bottom line is this: We are not suggesting anything but, hold up. We are saying in effect, What is the hurry? There is no compelling urgency to cut taxes, particularly when we are talking about a tax cut of this magnitude that can be addressed next year, or the year after, or whenever we find that we can afford to make that kind of a tax cut after meeting our obligations, such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. That is all we are saying. We are only suggesting that, because of the magnitude of this particular bill, we ought to suspend this particular tax cut until we have achieved those objectives. I suggest that is a relatively modest restraint on our activities, but it is a fiscally responsible approach to take. I have to tell the distinguished Senator from Tennessee that there are many on this side of the aisle at least who are not all that enamored with some of the suggestions that our brethren have made with respect to tax cuts at this time, and indeed we voted for the Democratic alternative only because it would substitute for the bill that is on the floor today. But we are not against tax cuts altogether for all time. Indeed, there are some areas where we should provide cuts--the extending, for instance, of the R&D tax credits and others that we know we are going to do anyhow--it is something that would provide a sense of realism and would allow some certainty in terms of planning for those companies that are doing the cutting edge work, that make our economy strong, and that make us a leader in the global economy. But we are just saying this tax cut is so big and so difficult to justify that we ought to at least hold up until we have, again to quote the distinguished Senator, ``done the hard, politically risky work'' to protect Social Security and Medicare. Again, I commend the Senator because he is willing to engage. He is willing to roll up his sleeves and engage on a bipartisan basis in trying to make those tough decisions. I wish we could find more on both sides of the aisle who were willing to roll up their sleeves and work on these decisions. The distinguished Senator from Florida and I are saying, let's simply not make this tax cut effective until we have solved those problems facing both Medicare and Social Security. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee, we are not solving these problems just by saving some of the surplus generated by Social Security. That does not bring about the systematic change we are going to need to have if we are going to solve the long-term solvency question with respect to Social Security. We are not doing that at this point with respect to Medicare. To that extent, I agree with the Senator. We have the tougher decisions to make. We are saying let's not take advantage of a projected future surplus since that would, indeed, make all of the other decisions more difficult. Another point where I differ with the Senator from Tennessee, he says it is always easy to come back and, in effect, reverse the decisions; if we cut taxes too deeply, we can turn around and raise taxes. With all due deference and respect, raising taxes is not easy to do. There are very few in this body on either side of the aisle who like to be tagged with either authoring or voting for a tax increase. That is the problem with tax cuts of this magnitude, particularly when they would be so difficult to reverse, and we splurge without making the tough decisions first. In the meantime the current surplus can be used for constructive, long-term debt reduction. Lastly, I have been concerned about the focus on publicly held debt as opposed to the total debt. We used to be very much concerned about the total debt. I have told my friends from the White House and others who have focused on this, I think what we are doing to reduce the public debt is a good thing. However, the plan promises too much. We are really not reducing the total obligation we have simply by making the IOU a statutory obligation instead of having it part of the publicly held dealt. Reducing the publicly held debt does good things. It makes our financial future better. It means we don't have to go out and borrow on the markets. However, the same obligations we have with respect to Social Security now, with respect to Medicare now, are still there. We are simply transferring them to a different form so our financial picture looks a little better. I suggest again this is a limited amendment. It is simply saying, what is the hurry with respect to huge tax cuts that may or may not materialize? Let's do the responsible thing. Let's do that hard, politically risky work of extending Social Security and Medicare solvency first. Then we can address the question of whether or not we provide additional tax cuts and what form and what magnitude they might take. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly, if I can, to our distinguished chairman and friend from Delaware with respect to the question of timing. The distinguished Senator from Delaware mentioned the fact that the tax cut this year is only $4 billion out of some $792 billion that is proposed in the bill. That is about one-half of 1 percent of the total promise that would be incorporated in statutory law if, for any reason, we are wrong. That is what we would have to find a way to change, against all of the forces that are normally arrayed against any tax increase. Why squander the opportunity to pay down or to begin to pay down the national debt--not just the publicly held debt, the national debt, the national unified debt? This is the first time in well over a generation there has been any opportunity to pay down the debt. We are not proposing additional spending. I have not checked with my distinguished colleague from Florida for certain, but if the distinguished chairman of the committee were willing to accept an amendment that would suggest some similar restraint on spending which would correspond to the restraint we are attempting to place on cutting taxes, I will suggest to the chairman of the committee, I think we could find a place to make a deal. We are not suggesting profligate spending. We are suggesting that we put that money in the bank, that we pay down the national debt. Again, in terms of urgency, one-half of 1 percent is what we would do right now. But the other 99.5 percent would be locked into the law that we would be obligated, by law, to change at the appropriate time. That is the reason we are suggesting that we do not want to rush to judgment with respect to what many of us believe would simply not be a responsible tax cut of this magnitude at this time. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. I will just respond to one point made by my distinguished friend from Tennessee. He was suggesting, correctly, that if we were to reserve, save, all of the surplus, we would not save Social Security and we would not save Medicare. We do not disagree. We concede. Indeed, I suggest that that makes the case for why we believe we ought to save this surplus and, at the very least, not squander it, because it might increase the incentive to make those tough political choices we have not made to protect these two programs. So saving all of the surplus is not going to save Social Security. It is not going to make Social Security solvent in the context that the Senator from Florida and I are discussing, nor is it going to do that for Medicare. We understand that. But it might focus the mind a little bit. As Samuel Johnson said: when a man knows he is to be hanged it concentrates his mind wonderfully. That is not an exact quote, but that is fairly close to it. Delaying the effective date of the tax cuts might give us some incentive, some focus, to conduct that hard, politically risky work that the Senator from Tennessee so accurately described it is going to take if we are to solve the problem with either Social Security or Medicare. All we are saying is, let's not squander this money. It isn't just a matter of correcting it next year, it exacerbates the problem, because it is going to increase the amount of money we are going to have to carry in terms of the debt. So we are saying: Hang on; $4 billion, one- half of 1 percent; it is not worth locking in the kind of a tax cut some are suggesting until we've done first things first. It has been a good debate. I am particularly grateful, first of all, to my friend and colleague from Florida for his leadership and cosponsorship, and to the distinguished chairman, who is also good natured--notwithstanding differences we may have which may be fairly significant, but I have never heard a cross word uttered by him--and to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for engaging in this dialogue which I think does at least illustrate the choice we are going to have to make and the choice that, in fact, we are asking our colleagues to make. We are simply saying do not squander the surplus by making this kind of humongous tax cut this year when we can wait until next year or the year after and find out exactly where we are going and, hopefully, increase the pressure to actually save Social Security and Medicare. With that, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues. The Senator from Florida and I happily yield back the remaining time on our side.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have come before this chamber on numerous occasions to urge our colleagues to find a way to give states and localities the additional resources they so urgently need to build and renovate our nation's schools. In January, Senator Lautenberg and I, with several other colleagues, introduced the Public School Modernization Act of 1999. In March, Senators Lautenberg, Harkin, and I were successful in offering an amendment to this year's budget resolution which called for $24.8 billion in zero-interest bonds as well as direct grants for school construction and repair. That amendment passed the Senate unanimously. Regrettably the Senate Finance Committee tax bill includes only minimal school infrastructure assistance, despite the opportunity we had in Committee to include much more substantial infrastructure relief. Proposals regarding school construction have been offered from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, however, the debate about education infrastructure needs and the federal role to address those needs has too often been partisan and has been characterized by an inability or an unwillingness to recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the school construction dilemma facing many of our nation's school districts. So today, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lautenberg, Conrad, Harkin, Kennedy, Daschle, Reid, Murray, Levin, Cleland, Dodd, Torricelli, Schumer, Lincoln, Johnson, Wellstone, Kerry, Kerrey, and Akaka in introducing legislation designed to combine various bipartisan school construction proposals to create a menu of school construction financing options. The Public School Modernization and Overcrowding Relief Act of 1999 will help school districts build new schools to accommodate the record enrollments of elementary and secondary students we know are coming. It will also help modernize schools to ensure that our children have the benefit of modern technology. And it will help repair old schools which have become outdated and unsafe. Mr. President, 14 million children attend schools in need of extensive repair or replacement. Twelve million attend schools with leaky roofs, and 7 million attend schools with safety code violations. The President of the Maine Education Association testified before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee recently and stated that there are schools in Maine that actually turn the lights out when it rains because the electrical wiring is exposed under their leaky roofs. Compounding the safety problem is the significant overcrowding in the nation's schools. Across the country, there are thousands and thousands of trailers used for instruction--over 3,000 are in use in Virginia alone. So instead of attending science class equipped with the latest technology to conduct biology experiments, our children are going to class in poorly-ventilated portable trailers that can actually be harmful to their health. Mr. President, Loudon County, Virginia will need to build 22 new schools over the next six years to accommodate its enormous population growth. Despite the help that our own Virginia General Assembly has approved, the state will only provide two to three percent of Virginia's total school infrastructure needs. This isn't just a Virginia phenomenon; it's a national crisis. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that by 2003, the nation will need to build 2,400 new schools to accommodate record enrollments in our elementary and secondary schools. In short, school boards should not be forced to choose between hiring an additional teacher or fixing a leaky roof. School superintendents should be installing computer labs, not basic air conditioning. And students should attend schools of the future, not relics of the past. The legislation we offer today will allow school districts to issue tax-exempt bonds for school construction. Localities will be able to save significant amounts of money on capital improvement projects, as the federal government would give bondholders a tax credit in the amount of the interest that the locality would otherwise be required to pay. The legislation also knocks down a statutory hurdle which currently hinders more private sector involvement in public education by allowing private entities to pool resources with states and localities to build and renovate school buildings. Furthermore, if a state or locality has previously issued bonds at a time when interest rates were high, this legislation would allow them to essentially refinance that debt to take advantage of today's lower interest rates. The legislation will also make it easier for small communities to issue a greater number of bonds without being subject to onerous arbitrage requirements. All of these provisions provide states and localities with choices. Under this legislation, our states and localities will be able to avail themselves of those provisions that best suit their financial needs. The bill creates a menu of options through which states and localities can assemble their own financing packages. Mr. President, as a former governor, I acknowledge that education is primarily a state and local responsibility. The federal government, however, can be a helpful partner in education by helping to defray the cost of capital improvements without interfering with the substantive decisions that states and localities are struggling to make regarding their academic reform efforts. Providing a variety of financing options to fund capital improvements, therefore, is an imminently constructive role for the federal government to play. For our public education system to be the best in the world, all three levels of government-- local, state, and federal--will have to work together. I thank my colleagues who have co-sponsored this legislation, and I look forward to working with them to pass it. It's flexible. It's sensible. And it provides the most financing options of any school construction proposal to date. I hope this legislation brings us one step closer to the compromise I know we can reach. Mr. President, in the 1930's and again in the 1950's, our grandparents and parents summoned the political will to build the vast majority of our nation's existing school buildings. It is my hope that we can summon that will again. Our nation's students and families deserve no less.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first let me thank my friend and colleague from Delaware, as well as my friend and colleague from New York, for their support. As a cosponsor of the Biden amendment, I would like to express my strong support for the effort to preserve and restore funding for the COPS Program. I believe many of our colleagues share my view that protecting our Nation's citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic, is a critical obligation of the Federal Government. We are committed to try to make all of our communities safer from the threat of crime. Today, by supporting this amendment and the COPS Program, all of us can make good on this commitment. The Biden amendment will prevent the COPS Program from expiring as the underlying bill provides. Over the next year, the $495 million in funding provided by the amendment will put 1,500 new officers on the beat, hire 2,400 school resource officers to reduce violence in schools, keep hundreds more officers out in their communities rather than behind their desks, purchase bulletproof vests, and provide better communications equipment and technology. In short, this amendment will make a difference to the safety of our communities. I am particularly gratified to see the resources devoted to school safety. Even before the tragic killings in schools across the Nation, I worked to amend the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill in 1997 to permit the use of COPS funding for school safety grants. The following year, with the help of Senators Gregg and Hollings, we expanded that program. As a result, this year more than $167 million in school safety grants, including funding to hire school resource officers, is going to communities across the Nation. More generally, the Community-Oriented Policing Services program, or COPS, is one of our best strategies for fighting the war on crime. The rationale is straightforward, and the results are impressive. In the simplest terms, COPS funding means more police on the beat, which means less crime. The dynamics of COPS in community policing are, of course, more complex. The goal is not simply more bodies but better neighborhoods. By giving law enforcement the resources to actively engage their communities, we develop trust and better communications; we allow officers to be proactive and prevent crime before it occurs. The bottom line is that the COPS program works. This Nation has the lowest crime rate in 25 years. The murder rate is at the lowest point in 30 years. In my home State of Virginia, we provided funding to put nearly 2,000 additional officers on the streets. As we have added those officers, we have seen a drop in crime. Between 1992 and 1997, murders declined by 17 percent in Virginia Beach, by 30 percent in Norfolk, and by 48 percent in Newport News. With these statistics, it is not surprising how many are urging the Senate to step up to the plate again. My colleagues have already mentioned the many organizations asking us to continue COPS funding, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the United Conference of Mayors. In a letter to Majority Leader Lott, Sheriff Dan Smith, president of the National Sheriffs Association, stated: It is imperative to effective crime control that the COPS program survive. It is a program that is vital to effective law enforcement, and to sheriffs in both rural and urban jurisdictions. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment. We should not be satisfied with the lowest crime rate in 25 years. We should work for the lowest crime rate ever. This important amendment will help us to achieve that goal. I again thank my distinguished colleague from Delaware for his continued leadership in this important area. I am delighted to work with him and with others, and I look forward to the continuation of this vital program. I yield any time I may have remaining to the principal sponsor of the amendment, the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce legislation today to provide additional federal funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The legislation, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Funding Act, has been cosponsored by the other three Senators from this region, Senators Warner, Sarbanes and Mikulski. We have worked well as a team. And I thank Senator Warner, who will introduce corresponding legislation that authorizes the funding to go to the bridge project, which I am also pleased to cosponsor. These two bills complete the job that was started in the TEA-21 legislation we passed last year. In that bill, the Administration agreed to support $900 million for the bridge. I commend my senior colleague for his tireless efforts to secure those funds. But even with the funding provided by TEA-21, the amount of funding available for the bridge fell $1 billion short of what is needed to build it. Since the passage of the highway bill, I have been pressing the Administration to recognize the federal obligation which is owed to this federally-owned bridge. During the past few months of fits and starts on this project, I have focused on funding as the most serious long-term threat to rebuilding the bridge. I've spoken to Secretary Slater, written letters to the Secretary and OMB Director Jack Lew, and my office has been in constant contact with the Department of Transportation urging a solution to our funding shortfall. So I was gratified when the Administration proposed a solution reflected in the bills we are introducing today. After receiving the Administration's proposed legislation and consulting with the entire regional delegation, from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Potomac River, we decided to divide the legislation into two bills, which will be referred separately to the two committees with primary interest in the legislation. The bill I'm introducing allows direct payments from the Highway Trust Fund to be used to finish this project. It will be referred to the Finance Committee, on which I sit, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that committee to move this legislation forward. Senator Warner's bill will be referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which he sits. Together, these two bills will solve the remaining financing problem facing the Woodrow Wilson bridge. By securing Administration support in advance, we have already travelled a significant distance toward getting a bill that can be signed into law. And it is my hope we can move quickly in the Congress to fill this fiscal pothole. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two bills be printed consectutively in the Record.