Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. May I commend my friend and colleague from Nebraska for his usual eloquence. When he reflects on past experiences and provides some insight into some of the actions that this country has taken, and those who wear the uniform of this country have taken, all Americans do well to listen, in my judgment. I have enormous respect for him. He has drawn our attention today to some important developments that have taken place or will take place in the next week. And I continue to commend him for his leadership in those areas. I have enjoyed an association that goes over a long time. We did not know each other in Vietnam, but we served together as Governors, and we came to this institution together. And I am very proud to call him a friend.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I was pleased to be able to yield to my distinguished senior colleague notwithstanding an earlier conversation that appeared to combine two very fine States in ways that might not work to the complete satisfaction of the two junior Senators from those States. Mr. President, the defense bill before us today is a solid package. It represents a bipartisan effort on the part of the committee and a delicate balance between funding our readiness today and preparing for the wars of tomorrow. We are hearing a familiar ring with regard to defense spending. Force structure and end strength have been slashed by over 30 percent. Overseas commitments have increased significantly and are pushing our troops to their limits. Procurement funding is down by over 70 percent. And our vehicles, ships, and aircraft inventories are too old and cannot be sustained at current production rates. On the other hand, we are now, in the context of imminent major military challenges, in a relatively benign period. The end of the cold war has allowed us to reduce force structure and end strength by roughly one-third and procurement by well over half. Despite this, we are still spending at 85 percent of the average cold war peacetime spending levels, and we will continue to do so at least through 2003-- 85 percent. We have gone from 18 to 10 Army divisions, 36 to 20 fighter wing equivalents, and 15 to 11 carriers. Yet we have only cut the budget top line by 15 percent. How do we explain this? In part, Mr. President, by increased overseas commitments. Yet even Bosnia involves only about a third of the division and is costing us less than 1 percent of the defense budget. In part, we are spending more for weapons. But weapons procurement is down by over 70 percent, and each new weapon is much more lethal than its predecessor, allowing us to buy fewer. In part, we are having to spend much more for maintenance per vehicle or ship or aircraft or weapon because many of these systems are so old. But new systems entering the inventory require far less maintenance, and much of the maintenance is now being done for less by the private sector. How then can we explain to the American taxpayer that we have cut forces by over a third but have only cut the budget by half? And that amounts to only about 15 percent. The obvious and unequivocal answer is infrastructure. Infrastructure means the facilities and other assets that support our troops on the front line. Above all, it means bases. Last month, we received a BRAC report required by last year's defense authorization bill. The report involved analysis of 259 bases that the military departments identified as major installations and concluded that DOD has about 23 percent excess capacity. The report went on to indicate that new base closure commissions in 2001 and 2005, if bold enough to close the bulk of the remaining excess, will add $21 billion in the years 2008 through 2015 and $3 billion every year thereafter. Needless to say, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this Congress is unwilling to authorize another base realignment and closure commission at this time. If we don't have the courage to shut down these unneeded facilities to quit wasting so flagrantly the taxpayers' money, we will continue to stress our forces to their limits, to lose troops in droves that we've spent billions to recruit and train, and to fail to invest in the weapons, that will maintain our substantial military edge. I am especially troubled by those who will not support another BRAC then turn around and attack the Administration and the Congress for underfunding the military for deploying U.S. forces to contingencies overseas, or for procuring too few weapons. Mr. President, I understand, objections to BRAC, related to privatization-in-place of depot work in Texas and California even though this issue is mostly behind us, the atmosphere, remains unnecessarily charged. But the real issue here concerns who is being punished by Congressional indignation, with the BRAC process as a result of the recent depot controversy? In the end, we only punish those who most need the benefits of infrastructure savings. First, we punish the nation's taxpayers when we fail to make the best use of the resources with which they entrust us. Second, we punish today's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, whose readiness depends on sufficient reliable resources for equipment, training and operations through the year. Finally, we punish tomorrow's force, as we continue to mortgage, research, development, and modernization of equipment necessary to keep America strong into the 21st century. At its most basic level, getting rid of excess infrastructure, consistent with American public expectations, is just a good government. I reiterate may disappointment that we do not have the support needed to deal with this wasteful situation. Mr. President, I nonetheless support the bill in its current form. It includes many badly needed provisions, including a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops, funding for Bosnia, and funding for numerous modern systems to replace those that are simply too old to effectively wage future battles and to be maintained at reasonable costs. I look forward to the continued deliberations on this important legislation, not only with my fellow members of the Senate Armed Services Committee but with the entire Senate on the important issues and challenges that face our Nation today. With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, but I just wanted my colleagues to be put on notice about my concerns with this bill. I appreciate the work of my two Senate colleagues who developed this bill, and my concerns about this bill actually fall with what is not included in the bill, rather than what is in the bill. Mr. President, we have a very serious problem at the USDA that no one seems to be very interested in solving. As some of you may know, there are a number of minority farmers who filed discrimination complaints with the USDA back in the 1980's and were told that the USDA was on the case. In fact, they weren't and didn't intend to be. After the statute of limitations passed for these farmers to file their discrimination complaints in a court of law, the USDA acknowledged that they never investigated or attempted to resolve these complaints. Since the statute of limitations has now passed for a number of these farmers, these farmers have been left with no remedy for the alleged acts of discrimination they suffered, all because of the inaction of the USDA. It seems to me we ought to address that matter at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr. President, many here may also be aware of several provisions which took effect with the enactment of the 1996 Farm bill which have resulted in the denial of credit to farmers, based on a write-down of a previous loan. This has a particularly disproportionate effect on minority farmers, even though in a number of cases it was the USDA that encouraged the individuals to take a write-down. This body added language to the Emergency Supplemental earlier this year which addressed this problem. However, that language was taken out in a conference with the House. It would seem to me that the least we could do here is to add that language to this bill. In sum, Mr. President, I do not object to proceeding with this bill, but I want to work with the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas to see if we can address these issues in this bill.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, from the outset I had hoped to be able to vote for a bill that would effectively reduce underage smoking and I still hope to do so during this session of Congress. I continue to believe that a resolution of the issues surrounding tobacco are in the best interests of all interested parties--not just children, but also the public health community, plaintiffs, tobacco workers, tobacco companies, tobacco farmers and their communities. After nearly four weeks of Senate debate on this bill, however, the bill currently before us has lost its focus and falls well short of a reasonable resolution of the issues involved here. In fact, it actually undermines the original goals of the legislation. And with as little discernible benefit to the public health in the legislation as it currently stands, I cannot support a bill which unfairly places too heavy a burden on too many people I was sent here to represent. First, this legislation currently places no limits on the liability of tobacco companies. While I understand the desire of many of my colleagues to punish the companies for their past behavior, the fact of the matter is that a liability cap is needed to entice consent from the companies to modify their speech and limit their advertising and marketing practices. Second, this legislation now contains tax and spending measures which have nothing to do with the underlying purpose of reducing teen smoking. By approving amendments to add tax relief and anti-drug spending to the bill, we have usurped valuable funds for medical research and public health efforts to combat teen smoking as well as put in jeopardy funds for tobacco farmers, tobacco workers and their communities as they transition into a new era. Third, this legislation relies on highly regressive taxes to accomplish its goals rather than individual responsibility. If raising the price of cigarettes by $1.10 a pack was the only way to tackle the problem of teen tobacco use, I would not hesitate to assess it. But I don't believe that is the case. In my view, there is too little certainty on the question of what will actually stop teens from smoking to assess such a large and regressive tax on adults. Since only 2% of the cigarettes purchased are actually used by children, I would prefer a much more precise approach than a tax on the other 98%, particularly when that tax disproportionately affects lower income individuals. A much better approach in my view is to enhance marketing and advertising restrictions, toughen retail enforcement, and make adolescents more accountable for the decisions that they make, like taking away their car keys if they use tobacco products. In sum, Mr. President, I said from the outset that I was not only willing to support a tobacco bill but believed it was in the best interests of the country to resolve these issues. I applaud the President for his leadership on the issue as well as our colleagues who have worked in good faith to create a fair and effective bill. But this bill, as it currently stands, has become a patchwork of initiatives that are entirely unrelated to the issues surrounding tobacco and teen smoking. For this reason, I cannot in good conscience lock in the current provisions of this bill by voting for cloture. I sincerely believe that this body has the ability and the desire to craft a piece of legislation that is both an effective tool in the fight to reduce teen smoking as well as an effective resolution of all issues surrounding tobacco. I don't intend to give up on resolving these difficult issues and I look forward to working with those colleagues who sincerely want a bill, not just an issue. I believe we can and will succeed in due course. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the motion to strike the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, title XV. I have a very high regard for Senator Lugar. He and I have worked closely together on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we have fought to open foreign markets and to promote free trade. I share his tenacious belief in the free market. Harnessing the drive that motivates individuals to succeed yields the benefits of a free market. But government has a role in checking the excesses that can flow from an unfettered free market. The market won't educate children. The market won't protect workers. The market won't check monopolies. And the market won't safeguard our natural resources. Left completely unchecked, the free market will always seek the lowest cost, even at the expense of other social goals. So our charge, as policymakers in a capitalist economy, is to allow individuals and entrepreneurs and businesses the freest rein possible while safeguarding society's other concerns. Defining those concerns and implementing those safeguards without destroying the benefits we achieve from the free market is one of the most difficult tasks we face. The Lugar-McConnell provision eliminates the Federal program that limits the amount of tobacco that can be produced in the United States. Arguments advanced for killing the supply-limiting program center on the desire to see a free market in tobacco. Since the argument is to create a free market, we ought to examine just what benefits we would gain from such a system. Economists estimate that going to a system allowing unlimited production of tobacco would likely increase the amount of tobacco grown in the United States by 50 percent. This increased supply would cause the price of tobacco to decrease by approximately 30 percent. Without a tobacco program, tobacco could be grown anywhere in the United States, so it is likely that tobacco would be grown in many more States than it is grown in today. That production would migrate from where it exists in many areas today with hilly terrain and small farms to larger, flatter farms. So the benefits to be gained from going to a free market would be cheaper tobacco, more tobacco production, dislocated communities, and unregulated production. The small farmer would not be able to produce enough volume at the lower price to make the farming operation economical. Without some certainty as to price, it is unlikely that any financial institution would extend the credit so necessary for small farming operations to survive. Therefore, if the tobacco program were to be wiped away, the only true beneficiaries would be large corporate farms and tobacco companies, because tobacco would then become cheaper. The public health community has increasingly focused on what would happen if we eliminated a program to restrict the amount of tobacco production in the United States and has concluded that the benefits are simply not worth the costs. They note that it would be the height of irony if--in the same bill where we increased the regulation of the manufacture, marketing, advertising and retailing of tobacco--we deregulated the production of tobacco, which is why the public health community, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Preventive Medicine all support retaining a supply-limiting program. In fact, these public health groups, and a number of tobacco grower associations, have been meeting for a number of years, which has admittedly intensified since June 20 of last year, to see whether they could find common ground. I am proud to say that these discussions have been under the auspices of the University of Virginia and involved a number of growers from Virginia. From these discussions, the groups were able to agree on a set of core principles. The first of these core principles is that a tobacco production control program, which limits supply and which sets minimum purchase prices, is in the best interests of the public health community and the tobacco producer community. The public health groups support controls on production because they cannot support what would happen without them: Uncontrolled tobacco production, plummeting tobacco prices, devastated farm families and farming communities, and enormous benefits for the tobacco companies. Despite the opposition of both the grower community and the public health community, there are those who continue to insist that the market in tobacco must be unfettered and uncontrolled. The argument for eliminating the supply-limiting program is a philosophical one, focusing on the natural benefits of a free market regardless of the consequences. But the aim of a free market system is to insure that the consumer efficiently gets the lowest-cost product. We want consumers to be able to get the highest quality, lowest-cost products, like cotton shirts and cereal, and anything else you can think of. The argument for a free market in cotton, wheat, corn, or any other commodity, is to lower cost to benefit consumers and increase exports. This tobacco legislation, however, is seeking exactly the opposite goal. The very heart of this legislation is to have the Government interfere in the free market by raising prices to reduce consumption. It is highly ironic that some of those calling for a free market for tobacco voted a couple of weeks ago to have the Government add the cost of $1.50 to the price of a pack of cigarettes. That is not a free market, Mr. President. In fact, the entire aim of the comprehensive tobacco legislation is to increase the cost to consumers, not decrease them. Eliminating a tobacco program to achieve a free market system would destroy existing communities and the livelihood of existing farmers without realizing the goal of a free market, which is to increase efficiency and lower costs to the consumer. There is no other agricultural product that faces this unique situation, where the Government's policy is to increase the costs to the consumer, not decrease them. Tobacco is simply unlike any other commodity covered by the Freedom to Farm Act. The Freedom to Farm Act did not authorize the Government to run advertisements telling people not to use the farmers' products. The Freedom to Farm Act did not tax cotton shirts, or cereal, or ethanol to raise the revenues that went to make the payments to farmers. The Freedom to Farm Act did not limit the Government's ability to open foreign markets. In short, there are few parallels that can be drawn between the commodities covered by the Freedom to Farm and tobacco, other than that the commodities are all grown by decent, hard-working, dedicated people whose lives are profoundly affected by what we do. Tobacco is also different in another crucial respect, which bears directly on the question of whether eliminating the tobacco program would in fact produce a free market, which is the stated aim of the proponents of the Lugar-McConnell provision. A market that is dominated by a limited number of buyers, by definition, is not a free market. And that is the situation with tobacco. There are four buyers in the marketplace who purchase 98 percent of the tobacco produced by our Nation's 124,000 tobacco farmers. The economists, of course, have a name for such a controlled market. It is called an ``oligopsony.'' According to the Encyclopedia of Economics, ``oligopsony exists when a few buyers of a commodity or service deal with a large number of sellers.'' According to this text, this ``situation can lead to tacit collusion among buyers to depress their buying prices generally at the expense of the sellers who supply them.'' One of the examples they give for an oligopsony is ``markets for leaf tobacco.'' Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines oligopsony as ``a market situation in which each of a few buyers exerts a disproportionate influence on the market.'' So that is the market that these farmers would face if they had to deal individually with each of the four major buyers. This would not be a free market. This would be a market where the buyers would dictate the price to the sellers and reap the rewards. In fact, the USDA estimates that by ``terminating quotas and phasing out price supports, cigarette manufacturers and leaf exporters are projected to have windfall gains of about $800 million annually . . . The cigarette manufacturers would continue to receive this windfall over time once the price support system is phased out. Over 25 years, this windfall could amount to $20 billion or more.'' The money the companies save would be money that formerly went to tobacco farmers. Eliminating the program would result in a transfer of money from farm families to cigarette manufacturers of about $800 million annually. In the face of all this, why do some still want to eliminate a production controlling program? One of the arguments I have heard is that tobacco is bad and so the Government shouldn't be involved in it. Mr. President, this whole bill, however, is about Government involvement in tobacco. It makes little sense to have the Government involved in controlling every aspect of cigarette making and selling except the production of the key ingredient. The Government is not promoting tobacco, it is restricting it. A supply-limiting program limits supply. That does not promote tobacco. The fact that farm families benefit from that restriction, in my view, is not a reason to abolish the program, because without the program, it is not the public's health that would benefit, it is the companies'. There are those who advocate reducing the number of tobacco farmers in this country. Under the LEAF Act, we provide a voluntary buyout, which we believe will encourage but not force tobacco farmers to move to other pursuits. We believe that is a sounder and much more humane approach than the one advocated by proponents of the Lugar-McConnell bill which simply pulls the rug out from under farm families after 3 years and forces them to scramble for survival. In fact, the comprehensive legislation we are considering is likely to be incentive enough for many farmers to make a transition out of tobacco farming. As consumption falls over time, as counteradvertising mounts, and as economic development funds start creating infrastructure in tobacco communities, there will be migration out of the tobacco fields. Tobacco farming is hard work, and while it is more lucrative than growing other crops, it does not make the average tobacco farmer rich. In fact, the average farm income of a tobacco farmer is less than $22,000 a year. If we can create opportunities in tobacco growing communities for children to pursue other paths, that is what we need to do. But that cannot be done in 3 years, and I believe it would be cruel to try. There are those who support the Lugar-McConnell provision because they foresee the death of the tobacco program. Programs, however, do not die of natural causes. They have to be killed. And those who vote for the Lugar-McConnell provision are voting to kill the program. So do not be fooled by those who vote for the Lugar-McConnell provision saying they support the program while voting to kill it. Finally, I strongly oppose the Lugar-McConnell provision because I believe it holds out false hope. Under the provision, farmer compensation would be paid out over 3 years. Under the LEAF Act, farmer payments would be paid out over 10 years. In order to make the payout over 3 years, we would have to dedicate over 40 percent of the proceeds from the legislation to farmers during those first 3 years. That 40 percent is more than the share to the States, more than the share to medical research, and more than the share to public health. And when you consider that we have already diverted funds away from these accounts, with the addition of the Coverdell amendment and the Gramm amendment, the addition of a mandatory 3-year buyout under the Lugar- McConnell provision would collapse this bill's budget. I urge my colleagues to look at the numbers. In the first year after this bill is approved, the National Tobacco Trust Fund would receive total revenues of $14.4 billion. Yet, to make the payout over 3 years, as the Lugar-McConnell provision mandates, we would have to spend over $17.2 billion in the first year. And that is without spending a single dime on medical research or public health programs. Are those who support the Lugar-McConnell provision willing to take away money from medical research and public health programs to finance a 3-year buyout? Are they willing to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty tax cut or the antidrug programs offered by Senator Coverdell to pay for this plan? Because voting to retain the Lugar-McConnell provision will make it impossible to fund each of these other programs contained in this bill. The LEAF Act, in contrast, recognizes the funding constraints of the underlying legislation and would not take funds away from the other programs contained in this bill. This is not to say that I wouldn't very much like to be able to pay the growers over 3 years, and, in fact, a number of us tried to figure a way to get compensation to growers in less than 10 years. Unfortunately, there were simply too many other competing demands on the funds. In conclusion, Mr. President, I oppose in the strongest terms elimination of controls on the production of tobacco. It would destroy small family farms, decrease tobacco prices, increase tobacco production, and transfer wealth from growers to the companies, all without any discernible benefit to the people. For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the motion made by the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, to strike the Lugar-McConnell amendment and to support the LEAF Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to return to a discussion of the bill that is currently before the Senate. I voted against cloture today, and barring some major shift in the direction of this legislation, which now, regrettably, appears unlikely, I will have no choice but to vote against cloture again tomorrow. Mr. President, I have a keen interest in the pending legislation. I have three children, all now grown. No member of my family smokes now, and I hope they never do. In the Senate, we represent millions of parents who have the same wish for their children. There are thousands of Virginians who belong to the American Heart Association, the Virginia Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, Virginians who have fought for years against the scourge of smoking-related disease. There are also, however, thousands of honest, hard-working, God- fearing, law-abiding, taxpaying Virginians whose lives and livelihoods would be dramatically affected solely by the actions this Congress may take on the tobacco issue. For example, there are thousands of Virginians who work to manufacture tobacco-related products, and thousands more who work in associated industries, like the dock-workers at the Ports of Hampton Roads, foil manufacturers, and filter makers. And there are the thousands of Virginia families who work the soil and grow tobacco, who face not only the uncertainty other farmers face regarding the weather and other uncontrollable forces, but must contend with the added uncertainty of what Congress may do to affect their lives. In short, to an extent not shared by many of my colleagues I represent virtually every interest affected by this legislation. While some would argue that because I'm from a tobacco state I must be biased on this issue. I believe that because I'm from a tobacco state, I'm in a unique position to be objective. I'm willing to listen with an open mind to public health advocates, who want to protect the Commonwealth's children, but I'm also willing to listen with an open mind to tobacco workers and tobacco growers whose very livelihood is under attack. Indeed, I've worked closely with both the public health community and the tobacco grower communities--as well as the tobacco worker communities--whose concerns were not fully represented in the June 20 agreement. I have believed from the outset that a resolution of the issues surrounding tobacco is in the best interests of all interested parties--children, the public health community, tobacco workers, plaintiffs, tobacco companies, tobacco farmers and their communities. I've said that from the very beginning and my position has not changed. I still want very much to support comprehensive legislation that will address these concerns. Comprehensive legislation, however, must be reasonable. While by its very nature complicated legislation will not be perfect in any one individual's eyes, it must be fair and responsible. And indeed, it must meet its stated objectives. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that as it now stands, this legislation has lost sight of its objective and will do more harm than good. When we began this process of crafting legislative solutions to the problem of tobacco use among our children, we all understood it would not be easy. We knew that difficult and complicated issues needed to be addressed, and consensus would be hard to reach. But as I stand here today, I've become convinced that this effort has hopelessly faltered, tripped up by an unholy alliance of those who wanted to toughen the bill and those who wanted to kill it. We've lost our focus on our original goals. The lure of money to pay for both expensive tax cuts and federal programs, and the politics of punishment, have unfortunately proven irresistible. We had, and regrettably for now we've lost, an historic opportunity to address underage tobacco use. While I did not agree with every element of the proposed resolution of tobacco issues that emerged with the original settlement agreement on June 20, 1997, I did see it as a chance to resolve many of the issues surrounding tobacco that have proven intractable in the past. The process of reaching the conclusion was not perfect, and there were parties who were not invited to participate, most notably in my view the tobacco growers and tobacco workers, to the extent their interests did not coincide with the companies'. But the framework for a resolution was there, representing compromise by the states, the tobacco companies, and the public health community. A carefully crafted, moderate compromise, however, is no match for a hot political issue. Between those who focused on punishing tobacco companies, and those who focused solely on opposing a tax increase, we have a political free-for-all. And these two factions, one of which believes it is protecting the children and the other which believes it is protecting the taxpayer, have united to create legislation in its current state that has become unworkable, irresponsible and unlikely to solve the problem it is designed to address. This legislation should be about developing a plan to stop children from using tobacco products. And I do not doubt the commitment of those who have worked so hard on this bill to achieve a reduction in youth smoking. In my view, however, the amendments to the underlying bill that we have adopted recently do not get us closer to that goal. To the contrary, they make the essential compromise unreachable. It is clear that the advertising and marketing rules the FDA put in their regulations represented the outer limits of what the government could do to restrict speech without the consent of those being restricted. To entice consent from the tobacco companies to modify their speech, the bill contained a cap on the amount of money a consenting company could be required to pay during any one year. That cap did not shield any company from paying any judgment rendered by a court; it merely regulated the time period over which such payments would be made. During the amendment process, we've witnessed the emergence of an unlikely coalition of those who seek to punish the companies and those who seek to kill the bill who teamed up to strip that provision from the bill, virtually ensuring that no company will consent to greater restrictions, and preventing us from further limiting the advertising and marketing practices of the tobacco companies which many have come to the floor to denounce. However gratifying that vote may have been for some, I believe that amendment moved us away from our objective to combat teen tobacco use. I believe the absence of liability protection does even further damage to the goal of the legislation. Without some limitation on liability, a ``Powerball'' plaintiff could hit a jackpot with a lone jury and walk away with the keys to the company. If that occurs, the company's funds will not be there to spend in the public interest as elected representatives see fit, but will be spent however the winning plaintiff sees fit. No funds for counter-advertising, no funds for smoking cessation programs, no money for cancer clinical trials and, yes, no money for farmers. This is a perverse result, which may satisfy a short-term craving for revenge but will leave the programs we want to support starved for funding over the long-term. A better approach, in my view, would be to eliminate punitive damages for prior bad acts in exchange for a substantial up-front payment by the tobacco industry. This approach would have the benefit of allowing those ``punitive damages'' to go toward the public good, rather than to plaintiffs and their attorneys who ``hit the jackpot.'' Without liability protection, a single runaway jury could wipe out a major U.S. corporation, without any corresponding public benefit except the satisfaction of some from ``slaying the beast.'' But it would come at great social cost. It would destroy the jobs of those employed by those companies, and all of those in related jobs whose livelihoods depend on the company. And because there would still be a demand for cigarettes, other companies, both foreign and domestic, would simply step into the market and continue selling cigarettes, so there would be no guarantee of any perceptible public health benefit. I'm not convinced that this is the most rational course. I'm also uncomfortable with the look-back provisions. The look-back provision sets up a performance standard, requiring certain goals of tobacco use reduction by minors. If those goals are not met, a strict liability scheme imposes penalties on those who manufacture tobacco products. While I certainly favor performance standards, I question their application when meeting the standard is not within the control of the entity charged with reaching it. Meeting the goals of the look- back provisions depend entirely on controlling the behavior of adolescents. I'm not convinced that either the government or the tobacco companies really know how to control teen behavior, and while we should certainly try to develop methods of eliminating the use of tobacco products by adolescents, I don't believe we should assess damages against companies if those strategies don't work. The way the look-back provisions are currently structured, if the tobacco companies do everything this legislation requires them to do, and it doesn't work, they are still assessed damages, regardless of culpability. I believe this overestimates the power of the tobacco companies, because it requires companies to be responsible for the behavior of adolescents. Finally, with regard to the tax increase on tobacco products, I'm not unalterably opposed to raising the price. In fact, I voted against the amendment that would have eliminated any tax from this bill. I have in the past supported necessary tax increases when I believed them to be in the national interest, such as the 1993 deficit reduction package which has helped spur the economy. But I believe we should think long and hard before levying a tax that disproportionately taxes those at the bottom of the economic ladder. If we determine that raising the price by $1.10 per pack is the only way to tackle the problem of teen tobacco use, then I believe we have an obligation to assess it. But given the uncertainty as to what will actually stop teens from trying to act like adults by smoking, it seems to me we should try other approaches first. A massive, regressive tax ought not be the first resort, it should be the last resort. In its 1996 regulations, for example, the Food and Drug Administration indicated that marketing and advertising restrictions, and tougher retail enforcement, could cut teen tobacco use in half. While that estimate was likely overly optimistic, I think that we can expand upon the approach taken by the FDA to achieve the goal we all share. In the proposed rule, the FDA stated that ``the agency has examined many options for reducing tobacco use by children and adolescents, and believes an effective program must address the two following areas: (1) Restrictions on cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales that will make these products less accessible to young people; and (2) restrictions on labeling and advertising to help reduce the appeal of tobacco products to young people along with requirements for a manufacturer-funded national education campaign aimed at those under 18 years of age to help reduce the products' appeal to these young people.'' I would prefer enhancing these proposals, and determining whether they can solve the problem, before assessing a major tax on adults. Since only 2% of the cigarettes purchased are used by children, I would place emphasis on a far more precise tool than a tax on the other 98%, unless such a tax is the only weapon left in our arsenal. For example, I would like to focus more on requiring those children who smoke to accept some short-term consequences of the decisions they make, such as taking away their car keys. This is the type of approach that would be a more exact tool. But it is not to say that I could not have supported some look-back provision, or some tax increase, so long as they were contained in an otherwise balanced bill and the proceeds targetted toward supporting and enhancing the objective. In fact, I agreed to serve on the tobacco task force to try to help develop a balanced approach that would solve the problem. I knew going in that no proposal would be completely to my liking, and I was prepared to accept some less palatable provisions as part of a workable package I could have embraced. For example, although I've always believed the look-back provisions were not sound public policy, despite the support they had from the companies, as part of a fair and reasonable resolution, I could have supported this approach. I was willing to accept a certain level of variance from my ideal in the interest of accomplishing the objective. This legislation, however, has reached the point where the burden is too heavy and the variance too great. I cannot in good conscience support legislation which places too heavy a burden on people I represent without some guarantee that their legitimate concerns would be addressed and without some certainty that the objective of reducing youth tobacco use would be met. All along, I've wanted to achieve the dual goal of reducing teen tobacco use and looking out for the economic well-being of the hard-working people I'm here to serve. This bill in its current form no longer has enough emphasis on these objectives, which is why I now am not supporting it. An unusual confluence of those who want to punish the companies and those who want to kill the bill have shaped legislation which many of us who wanted a responsible bill can no longer support. I had hoped to come to a different conclusion about this process. I still believe that a properly crafted global settlement is in the best interest of those concerned about tobacco. A resolution of the issues that have dogged the tobacco industry for decades, if done correctly, would be good for growers and their communities, children, tobacco workers, the tobacco industry, smokers, non-smokers, and the public health community. The uncertainty that now surrounds these issues is good for no one. Discussed rationally, I believe we could develop a solution that would address these uncertainties. On the floor of the Senate during an election year, as we all know, rational discourse doesn't always carry the day. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I began this process with an open mind and a sincere belief that comprehensive tobacco legislation that could be both reasonable and effective in reducing smoking among our youth was in the best interest of all parties involved. I would have supported that legislation. But in the last three weeks, in amendments aimed at punishing tobacco companies, we have weakened the ability of this legislation to do what we all say we want it to do: reduce teen smoking. Again, this has been done by an unfortunate alliance of those who want a bill that's too punitive and those who want simply to kill this bill. In the end, I cannot support legislation that brings great and unnecessary economic harm on working people, and does not effectively achieve the benefit of preventing young Virginians--and young Americans--from becoming young smokers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB. I withdraw my request.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to just share with those of our colleagues who are watching the floor at this moment a ceremony that I just attended, that a number of our colleagues just attended, for the promotion of then Colonel Terry Paul to Brigadier General Terry Paul, the U.S. Marine Corps. This is somewhat unusual, because General Paul has been serving as the Marine Corps liaison in the U.S. Senate for almost a decade. He came as a lieutenant colonel, he was promoted to the rank of full colonel, and this afternoon was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, where he will move across the Potomac to serve as the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Many generals, officers of the Marine Corps, admirals of the Navy, representatives of the Department of Defense, and some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were there, to recognize an extraordinary Marine and an extraordinary patriot, someone who has worked very, very hard and very, very professionally in a job that many of us appreciate. Mr. President, during his nearly 10-year assignment with the Marine Corps Liaison Office here in the Senate, General Terry Paul has championed a number of programs--like the M1A1 tank, the Maritime Pre- positioned Forces (MPF), the V-2 Osprey, and the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)--that have helped sustain the Corps as the premiere expeditionary force in readiness and have helped mold the Corps for the twenty-first century. To those of us who worked with him, General Paul has been a strong advocate for his beloved Corps. He has poured his heart and soul into every facet of an issue, championing the best interest of the Corps and the nation, regardless of scope or monetary value. He has also never lost sight of the individual Marine--working just as hard to secure a piece of gear that would keep a Marine dry during inclement weather as he would for a multi-million dollar modernization program that enhances the overall capability of the Corps. As the Marine Corps' representative to the United States Senate, General Paul has also been instrumental in planning and assisting with countless congressional oversight missions here and abroad. And as the only Senator serving on all three national security committees, I have personally embarked upon many a mission with General Paul. On numerous occasions, I have been grateful for his invaluable assistance to me and to other Members of this body on what are inevitably grueling visits overseas. General Paul unfailingly represents the Corps and country with great commitment and dedication. Not only does General Paul do his job with extraordinary efficiency, with immense dedication, and with enormous pride, but he also does his job with great humor. Whether it's Marine Corps ear-marks in the DOD bill, or racing to an airport in Ashgabat at 0-dark-30, or showing us the mettle of the Marines at Paris Island, Terry Paul is a consumate professional. In my judgment, no one has better represented the Marine Corps on Capitol Hill. And so, Mr. President, it is with high hopes and great appreciation that I wish General Paul godspeed as he embarks upon this new mission. He moves to the Pentagon having contributed greatly to our work here--and having represented the Corps here in the Senate with enormous conviction. We will miss him as a regular colleague--or at least an honorary colleague--in the Russell Senate Office Building--but he will be with us in spirit as he moves across the river. I look forward to continuing to work with him. I will end by saying: to a Marine's Marine, to a man who epitomizes the motto of the Corps--Semper Fidelis, General Terry Paul. And with that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to recognize the extraordinary service of a very fine Marine and a very fine and patriotic American, and I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to speak briefly on behalf of a fellow Virginian, Patrick Mulloy, who is the Administration's nominee for Assistant Secretary for Market Access and Compliance at the U.S. Department of Commerce. In this position, Mr. Mulloy will play a critical role in shaping our nation's future. International trade continues to become increasingly important to our own economic development and it is vital that we strive to improve access to overseas markets for American businesses. The Assistant Secretary for Market Access and Compliance will also play a primary role in strengthening the overall international trade and investment position of the United States. Mr. Mulloy has worked for many years in the public sector. He served as a foreign service officer at the Department of State and as an attorney at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division before coming to Capitol Hill in 1983. During his time on Capitol Hill, Mr. Mulloy has worked on most of the international trade and finance issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, such as third world debt, international economic coordination and exchanges, trade promotion, export controls and international banking. I'm confident that Pat Mulloy will serve with distinction as Assistant Secretary for Market Access and Compliance. As a long-time Counsel for the Senate Banking Committee, he has already contributed a great deal to much of the legislation that has guided our trade policies. I know that the Banking Committee staff will miss Pat Mulloy, but I'm pleased the nation will continue to benefit from his excellent service at the Department of Commerce. I urge my Colleagues to approve his nomination.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. I do so fully supporting what the authors of the amendment seek to achieve--a reduction in teen smoking. I, too, want to keep tobacco out of the hands of children. And I'm convinced that the best way to achieve that goal is to pass a reasonable, comprehensive tobacco bill. I have not abandoned hope that such a reasonable bill can still be achieved. But I am convinced that this amendment will make it more difficult to pass comprehensive legislation, and I therefore will vote against it. For over a year, I have been saying that I believe a resolution of these issues that have dogged the tobacco industry are in the best interests of all concerned, including children, public health advocates, tobacco farmers, workers and their communities, the states and yes, the companies. To achieve the delicate balance that is a prerequisite to enacting such a complex bill, however, we need to remain centered. If the bill becomes too punitive in the one direction, or too protective in the other, we will fail ultimately to take advantage of this historic opportunity to resolve these issues. In that same spirit, I intend to oppose other amendments which would, if adopted, make final passage of a reasonable bill much less likely. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, S. 1873 calls for deployment of a limited national missile defense system as soon as is technologically possible. Although a case can be made for near-term deployment of this type of capability, I do not believe it is a wise policy to pursue a limited national missile defense system absent any considerations of costs, cost-effectiveness, or treaty implications. In fact, if this legislation were to become law in its current form and unilaterally breach the ABM Treaty, the international condemnation India is receiving for its nuclear testing during the last 48 hours could quickly shift to the United States. There is no question that an accidental or unauthorized ICBM or SLBM launch by the Russians or PRC, however remote the possibility, would have devastating consequences. Such a threat alone, it could be argued, merits a limited national defense system. Indeed, there were extensive debates in the late eighties in the Senate regarding ALPS, or accidental launch protection system, as proposed by Senator Nunn. But even in the debate over ALPS, it was understood that we should only go forward if it could be made affordable and cost-effective and deployed within the constraints of the ABM Treaty or a variant of this treaty, as agreed to by the Russians. Admittedly, the threat situation has changed since the late 1980s. A new ICBM threat, such as a North Korean capability, could present itself in less than 20 years--a relatively short timeframe for deploying and refining a system as complex as a national missile defense. Such threats would become even more ominous in the event technology were transferred in part or in whole to a rogue regime, which is unlikely but not impossible. Having a viable national missile defense system would not only provide a limited capability for meeting these threats but, far more importantly, it could serve to deter a rogue regime from even expending scarce resources on developing a long-range delivery system. And rogue regimes would not be the only nations deterred. One of the most troubling strategic developments of the next century will be the rapid expansion of the PRC's strategic nuclear force through MIRVing-- placing multiple warheads on each of its ICBMs--thus multiplying its nuclear strike capability many times over. This is not a remote possibility. MIRV technology is over 20 years old, and press reports indicate that, in fact, the Chinese are testing a MIRV capability. Facing a limited U.S. missile defense system which could, if necessary, be expanded to meet a potential Chinese threat, Beijing might choose to abandon any thought of pursuing this destabilizing course. A limited national missile defense could also serve to deter a breakout by signatories, including the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France, to future arms limitation agreements, especially those involving a very low number of offensive systems where temptations could be high for rapidly rebuilding capabilities in a crisis. But we cannot simply dictate deployment of a national missile defense without consideration of costs and treaty implications. Despite decades of multibillion-dollar research and development and testing efforts, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to effectively and consistently hit a bullet with a bullet in either our national or theater missile defense programs, as was demonstrated even yesterday, even in controlled settings against relatively easy threats. The reality may be that we can get there only with exorbitant expenditures that will siphon funding excessively from U.S. military programs for other more pressing threats. S. 1873 makes no account of costs and is, therefore, not, in my judgment, a prudent policy. A limited capability could probably be achieved within the confines of the ABM Treaty or a slightly modified treaty. But to call for a defense system without regard to the arms control consequences is very shortsighted. If our rush to deploy a national missile defense system undermines Russian ratification of START II and, worse yet, pushes the Russians to abrogate START I, the gains of a national missile defense system will be offset overwhelmingly by a restoration of a very costly and destabilizing offensive nuclear arms race. This, again, supports the condition that S. 1873 is simply not a prudent policy. Legislation similar to S. 1873, but calling for a cost-effective and treaty-compliant limited national missile defense system, would be a much more sensible and responsible approach. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it is not my intention today to belabor the points, so eloquently made by the principal proponents of this Resolution of Ratification--including the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the leadership of this body, and the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Foreign Relations Committee--about why enlarging NATO is in our national strategic interest. The three national security committees on which I serve have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time to this issue, examining the full ramifications of enlarging NATO in over a dozen hearings, and following that intensive process I remain persuaded, that we ought to move ahead. I certainly don't discount the concerns, that have been raised, by a number of highly respected opponents of ratification, most of whom I am normally in agreement with on national security matters, but I find the arguments advanced by the advocates more persuasive. I would like to focus my remarks more narrowly on the implications for American leadership in Europe and beyond. The critical notion in my mind, is not simply that NATO is inviting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into its ranks, but that through our leadership, we've played a fundamental role in casting the light of freedom across Europe, and are prepared in peacetime or war, to guarantee the security of these new democracies. Keeping the peace is something NATO has been doing well for 50 years. When an entity works as well as NATO has, in fact, the American people tend to either ignore it or take it for granted. Perhaps that explains the lack of widespread public interest in expanding NATO. We have come to think of Europe mostly as a market for our goods, no longer as a territory under Soviet threat. Public apathy aside, we forget the lessons of history that made the 20th Century the single bloodiest of all, at our peril. On two occasions American isolationism has led to world wars. What we thought was benign neglect of Europe turned out to be an abject failure of our leadership. Harry Truman was right when he said that if NATO had existed in 1914 or 1939, we never would have seen the toll in human lives that followed. Mr. President, it is an undeniable fact that NATO has contributed dramatically to Europe's peace, stability, and democracy the past 50 years, and hence to our own security. The alliance was integral to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s, to tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1989, and to hastening the overall demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Now, some wonder, if it is still relevant, and express serious doubts as to whether or not we should expand it. Mr. President, it will be decades before we know with any certainty whether central Europe establishes itself in toto as a model of democratic rule, or something less. But it is not difficult to conjure up images of exclusive ethnic and latent ultra-nationalism underlying future conflict. The historical legacy of the region generally is worrisome. World War I started with a mere gunshot in Sarejevo. And even recent history in the region shows that stability can't be treated as a foregone conclusion given the conflagration of the former Yugoslavia after Tito. And now Kosovo threatens to inflame the area all over again. NATO has performed admirably in restoring a semblance of order in Bosnia. Yet the job is far from finished. We face years of civil and political reconstruction. But NATO and American leadership have made the difference in resuscitating that country. Mr. President, Bosnia demonstrates that the stakes are far too great to view NATO as some kind of anachronism. NATO is a vibrant, meaningful, omnipresent military institution that helps preserve a favorable security environment. And let me emphasize that it safeguards American vital interests. We don't lead NATO as a favor to Europe. Mr. President, perhaps the greatest challenge, or opportunity, in all this lies in developing a partnership between Russia and an expanded NATO. The Permanent Joint Council we've established with the Russians secures an important role for them in the new security architecture of Europe. We should welcome their input and value their advice in charting a new course for the Continent. Russia, after all, has been a player in Europe for better than 300 years. We can, and should, pursue those mutual security concerns with Russia that contribute toward peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. At the same time, an expanded NATO will retain the right to act independently, as has been the case for fifty years. Its core purpose will continue to be to ensure its own security through collective defense. Where there might be disagreements, Russia should not interpret NATO actions as trampling on its national security prerogatives. Rather, the aim of the alliance, in Vaclav Havel's words, ``is first and foremost an instrument of democracy, intended to defend mutually held and created political and spiritual values * * * [and is] the guarantor of Euro-American civilization.'' NATO's expansion will erase the artificial lines drawn by Stalin, but is not and should not be perceived as a threat to Russia's security. It is in our interest, and we should provide tangible support to further develop Russia as a peaceful democracy. Expanding NATO helps consolidate the hard fought gains of winning the Cold War, and sets a useful example for Russia among its neighbors to continue with democratic reforms internally. Mr. President, the working predicate of a number of the amendments before the Senate seem designed to make the accession process more cumbersome and unwieldy. I believe we need to distinguish this particular matter, however, from common appropriations and authorization legislation we amend and consider in the Senate. I believe, ambiguity regarding the protocol terms of entry, for example, will have a corrosive effect on our ability to lead the organization in the future. Existing and future members begin to focus more on American conditions instead of affirmative American leadership. Mandating a multi-year pause in expansion, for example, would lead us into the same difficulty we encountered setting deadlines for troop withdrawals from Bosnia. Critical national decisions based on carefully reasoned and supported judgments are subjugated to an artificial time line that could actually end up proving harmful to our military interests. We need to be flexible rather than arbitrary about future entrants into NATO: If the first round goes well, the Partnership for Peace program will keep the door open for new members. Present and future security considerations will then dictate the pace and scope of enlargement. Along these same lines conditioning NATO membership on EU membership strikes a discomfiting parallel between two organizations whose core missions are fundamentally different, one being military and the other economic and social. The amendment would, in effect, allow a group of EU nations veto power over a critical decision affecting U.S. national security: our choice of military allies in any future contingency. In all three previous rounds of NATO enlargement--Turkey and Greece in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982--it was clearly understood that expansion presaged European economic development and integration as a key benefit, not the other way around. Now, inclusion in NATO will help establish a climate of confidence for these three countries as they seek foreign direct investment and pursue economic integration. Mr. President, strengthening NATO by expanding its ranks contributes to a peaceful, democratic, free and unified Europe. As the security landscape of central Europe rapidly changes, we ought to take advantage of this historic moment. A static, cautionary approach misses the opportunity to extend democratic principles across Europe. Vaclav Havel, perhaps better than anyone, has stripped away the layers of argument on each side, observing that ``if the West does not stabilize the East, the East will destabilize the West.'' Europe looks to the United States for leadership, and it is time for us to act. I urge my colleagues to support the Resolution of Ratification before us, and oppose burdensome amendments that would weaken an enlarged NATO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, in submitting a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee examine issuing a stamp to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the death of our first President, George Washington. I hardly need to expound on the legacy George Washington has provided our nation--his courageous leadership through the Revolutionary War, his vision as our first President, and his personal example as a citizen. I recently joined Senator Warner and Senator Graham in introducing a resolution, S. Con. Res. 83, calling on the country to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Washington's death with ceremonies and activities that explore the life and legacy of George Washington. Given the formative influence of this distinguished man on our nation, I also believe it is appropriate to ask the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to authorize a stamp in honor of the historic anniversary of President Washington's passing. I encourage all of my colleagues to become cosponsors of this resolution so that we can send a clear message to the Committee and our fellow citizens about the importance we place upon President Washington's legacy.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, yesterday I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a new elementary school in Richmond, VA. It was an important occasion for the city of Richmond because the last groundbreaking for a new public school in the capital city of my State was 13 years ago, in 1985, the last year I had the privilege of serving as Governor. Today, the average age for all public schools in the Richmond system is 55 to 60 years, and two of them have portions of their facilities that date back to 1888, 110 years. Last month, Education Secretary Dick Reilly and I visited Chantilly High School in Fairfax County. Even though Chantilly High is a new school, its enrollment is already 20 percent over capacity. Classes are being taught in 17 trailers that have no bathrooms, bad ventilation and are not wired to the Internet. Some classes have student-teacher ratios as high as 27 or 28 to 1. I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the school construction amendment of the Senator from Illinois because this legislation gives important Federal help to cities like Richmond and counties like Fairfax to help build and renovate public schools. It not only addresses one of the most pressing needs our schools face--the urgent need for school construction money--it also represents an eminently appropriate and constructive role for the Federal Government in education. If we had unlimited resources, there is much more I would like to do for education, and I support many of the provisions in the underlying bill. But because Federal dollars are limited, we are forced to make decisions on what is most important, on how best to spend the limited Federal dollars we have. To me, the provisions of the underlying bill simply do not meet this test. In truth, the simple question before us today is this: How can we best invest $1.6 billion on education? Do we help States face their urgent construction needs? Do we give States additional money to help reduce class size? Do we help States incorporate technology into their classrooms and curriculum? If we look into the language of the underlying bill, the answer to every question is no. But if we look at the language in the pending amendment and we ask this question--will we help States and localities build and renovate public schools?--the answer is an emphatic yes. Mr. President, there is no question the need is great. The Government Accounting Office has estimated that our national school repair and construction needs are $112 billion. Fourteen million children attend public schools that are in need of major repair or complete replacement. In addition, far too many young Americans attend woefully overcrowded public schools. We need to help States repair and modernize existing facilities. In order to hire new teachers and reduce class size, we need additional classrooms in which to place those teachers. In order to increase student access to computers and technology, we need to help some existing facilities undergo complete electrical upgrades to support the use of that technology, and as we debate this bill, we cannot be confused about what this bill is and is not. Just because the word ``education'' is in the name, that does not mean that the bill gives money to schools. In truth, this legislation will not build a single school or hire a single teacher or help incorporate technology into a single classroom. Despite all the rhetoric, this bill is really nothing more than a tax cut for the few when what we so urgently need is a new roof for the many. Encouraging individuals to save their own money is a noble intention, but like every decision we face, we have to acknowledge that there is a cost, and the real cost of the underlying bill lies in every school we don't help build, every teacher we don't help hire, every leaking roof we don't help fix and every classroom we don't help wire for the Internet. Again, we have two choices: We can invest $1.6 billion in support of school construction with the pending amendment, or we can spend $1.6 billion on tax cuts, disguised as education money, with the underlying bill. I hope the Senate will support school construction. I thank the Chair and yield back any time to the sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I regret very much that I am not in a position to do as my two previous colleagues have done because we have a bit of a dilemma for tobacco farmers. Everyone who has proposed legislation to include the legislation reported out of the Commerce Committee yesterday by a vote of 19-1 makes provisions for tobacco farmers in terms of transition. The tobacco reserve fund, however, has been wisely fenced off by the chairman of the Budget Committee so that it might not be raided by those of us who might have other spending plans. But the only source of payment for any of the plans that have been proposed or considered is going to be the money that comes into that particular fund. This amendment would simply make available that particular funding, along with Medicare, to fund any of the tobacco provisions that might otherwise bring down tobacco legislation for the tobacco farmers. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2232.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on amendment 2184, believing it was an up- or-down vote, I voted in the affirmative. It was a tabling motion. Therefore, I inadvertently voted against my intentions. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be switched and that I be recorded as having voted in the negative. It would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, a couple of days ago I introduced formally the Agriculture Credit Restoration Act of 1998. This has now been presented in the form of an amendment to the emergency supplemental, amendment 2135. The purpose is very simple. In the 1996 farm bill a provision was added in conference that was not considered by the full Senate or by the House but was added in the conference that, in effect, precluded anybody who had a write-down or loan forgiveness from ever being eligible for a loan that was made available by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the lender of last resort. They don't lend under any circumstances where at least three private lenders have not already denied credit and they do not lend to noncreditworthy applicants. In this particular bill we have $48 million that is set aside to increase the direct operating loan fund, which is presumably being made available to those who are most in need. But the provision that is currently in the law that this particular amendment would change precludes anyone who has had a write-down or had credit forgiveness or whatever the case may be. In a number of instances, that occurred precisely because the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against those individuals. So it is a Catch-22. The Agriculture Department acknowledges that there was past discrimination. The current Secretary of Agriculture has acknowledged this. They are very much supportive of this bill--this amendment. It would, in effect, correct the inequity of precluding those who, by virtue of a natural disaster, a major family illness, or discrimination, from being eligible--not necessarily getting a loan but simply being eligible--for a loan of last resort under the Direct Operating Loan Fund. It has created problems for many of those who had previously sought loans when they thought the money was available. We put money in last year, and most of the people who then sought the money ran into this particular roadblock. It has been approved by all Senators on the majority side, and only one Senator has yet to see the particular legislation. I hope to have that approval very shortly. But I wanted to explain that this does not create any requirement that the U.S. Department of Agriculture grant credit to any noncreditworthy applicant. Indeed, they have to have already attempted to get credit from three private insurers. But it does correct the inequity where they were previously denied credit because of specific discrimination. We certainly do not want to be perpetuating that. With that, Madam President, I will await the affirmation that it has been cleared on both sides. I thank the chairman of the full committee for his time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ROBB. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I request that amendment No. 2135 be called up for immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Delaware. Mr. President, I rise this evening not to offer a ringing endorsement of Mexico's cooperation on drug interdiction in the last year, but to make the simple observation that we should proceed with extraordinary care before using the stick of decertification on a good friend and ally. Initially, I gave serious consideration to supporting the effort to decertify based on the lack of any tangible results on extradition: not a single Mexican national has yet been extradited to the United States for drug trafficing. Not one, even though I realize progress is being made. Notwithstanding my concerns on that singular issue, however, and the fact that progress on stemming the flow of drugs has been modest at best, I believe it's important to continue working in close quarters with President Zedillo in hopes of building a better record over the long-term. Let's not fool ourselves, Mr. President. Harsh rhetoric, threats, and punitive actions taking the form of decertification will not create goodwill between Mexico City and Washington--just the opposite: bilateral tensions will rise, drug cooperation will decrease, and once more America will be perceived as a sanctions bully. That is not a healthy approach to sustaining a crucial relationship with a country that sits right on our border. It's one thing to let unilateral sanctions fly in distant countries and places, but we ought to be very careful to not stir the pot of anti-Americanism, an inevitable result of decertification, with our nearest neighbor. We simply don't need to increase tensions and decrease cooperation with a country with which we share a 2,000 mile border. The basic point is as follows: breaking down the Mexican drug cartels is critically important, but lets forego the short-term political bashing of Mexico, Mr. President, and agree to work harder and better with our friends South of the Border. I won't review all the minutia--methamphetamine seizure rates, drug related arrests, Mexican cartel behavior, prosecution of corruption, street pricing of heroin, cocaine and all the rest--because I think that misses the point. There are a few simple considerations that come to mind in judging whether to decertify Mexico. First, do we believe that the political leadership in Mexico is honestly committed to solving this problem and working with us toward that goal? I believe the answer is ``yes''. President Zedillo appears willing to engage in comprehensive efforts to seize and eradicate drugs destined for our streets. He's committed to arresting and prosecuting major traffickers and kingpins . . . and I understand that such individuals have received stiff sentences recently, ranging from 9 to 40 years. He's scrapped the discredited National Drug Control Institute and replaced it with a new Special Prosecutor's Office. He's begun the process of weeding out corrupt officials in the Mexican judicial system, dumping three judges so far. He's helped to increase marijuana eradication to record levels, and armed law enforcement allowing cocaine seizure rates to jump 47%. And Mexico has worked closely with us in developing new overflight clearance procedures, while common ground is being established in the areas of money laundering controls and asset forfeiture issues. Second, will economic and diplomatic sanctions on Mexico improve our chances of stemming the tide of drugs? The answer is no. Let's be clear on this point: sanctioning Mexico will likely invite retaliation in a variety of forms . . . anti-Americanism . . . additional political ostracism in the hemisphere . . . and could, over the long-term, have the consequence of creating a broader national security threat right on our border. Third, a Democrat House colleague thoughtfully observed in today's Los Angeles Times that ``It's hard for the United States to cast the first stone.'' Perhaps it's time we take a stone-cold look in the mirror and admit that until we take massive, comprehensive steps to address the demand side of this problem, trying to sort it out, principally on the supply side is doomed to failure. Fourth and lastly, sometime soon I hope we can carefully examine whether we should annually engage in this painful exercise in self- flagellation by openly ripping countries with which we might have strong disagreements on the drug issue but share a great deal in common as well. The present mechanism for evidencing our concerns is self- defeating when it comes to Mexico and deleterious, I believe, to the overall relationship. Mr. President, Mexico's record on drug interdiction has to improve, and I don't fault colleagues in the Senate for demanding results. Many of their concerns are legitimate and deserve to be heard. Like them, I am particularly concerned about the lack of extraditions of Mexican nationals from Mexico, and have been personally assured by officials at the highest level of our government that they will redouble their efforts to get the ball moving in this area. I understand five individuals are presently appealing their extraditions, and I intend to watch closely to see that the Mexican government lives up to its part of the bargain should those appeals fail. For now, however, I believe decertifying Mexico will do more to reverse the limited progress we've made to date, and virtually eliminate any hope we have about future cooperation. That's a risk too great to take. Let's treat Mexico as a friend and partner in this process, instead of blaming it for a problem that starts and ends with the insatiable appetite for drugs on our own streets. We are just about to vote on this particular issue. Mr. President, I must confess I came very close to agreeing with the decertification provision that we are going to be voting on this evening. But upon more mature reflection, I have decided that the consequences for our friends in Mexico and the efforts that President Zedillo and others are putting forward, that would be counterproductive for a neighbor with whom we share a 2,000 mile border and for the kind of reaction that it would elicit from not only our neighbors in Mexico, who are trying, but from neighbors throughout South America. So I urge my colleagues on this particular resolution to vote against the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that I share very real concerns, particularly the failure to extradite a single Mexican national to the United States on drug charges to date. I know there are some in the pipeline. Hope springs eternal. I may come to a different conclusion on this same resolution next year. With that, Mr. President, I yield any time remaining to the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I yield the floor.