Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I request about 2 minutes from the time allocated to the minority side to talk about an amendment pending that I hope to have cleared in just a few moments.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. Amendment No. 2135 (Purpose: To reform agricultural credit programs of the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment to correct a measure that was in the 1996 agriculture bill. There are $48 million in this emergency bill to provide for direct operating loans to farmers. But most of the minority and small farmers are not able to get to those loans because of a disqualifying provision. This corrects that. We will try to work it out so it will be accepted when it is taken up on the floor. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to improve access to the USDA's lending programs for farmers. The emergency supplemental appropriations bill we're considering contains enough funds to allow $48 million more money to be available for direct operating loans. These loans are crucial to farmers, especially in the spring, because they use the borrowed funds to buy the seed, fertilizer and other material essential for planting, which they repay after harvest. Unfortunately, there are many minority and socially disadvantaged farmers who will not have access to these critical loan funds because of a provision in the 1996 farm bill. That provision bars a farmer-- forever--from turning to the USDA's loan programs if they have ever defaulted previously on a federally-backed agricultural loan. This inflexible provision permanently eliminates the farmers' access to these loan programs, even if the cause of the previous default was the result of racial discrimination against the farmer perpetrated by the Federal Government, or a disaster beyond the farmer's control, or a medical condition which affected the farmer's ability to pay. My amendment addresses this situation. farad

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, every day small and minority farmers are struggling to survive. They struggle in the field as they try to grow a plentiful crop, they struggle with the ever unpredictable Mother Nature, and they struggle to compete with large farm operations. They have a very tough job, but they provide us, the consumers, with the abundant food supply we take for granted. Historically, when credit is unavailable from private sources, farmers have turned to USDA to finance land, seed, equipment and fertilizer, or for funds to offset disaster losses. USDA direct and guaranteed operating loan programs allow small farmers to be self-sustaining, successful, contributing members of their rural communities. But Mr. President, a little, unknown provision in the 1996 Farm Bill is prohibiting farmers and ranchers from receiving USDA loans if their farm debt has been written off, or forgiven, by the Department in the past for any reason. This provision constitutes a lifetime ban, is more severe than private sector lending policies, and particularly disadvantages small and minority farmers who often have difficulty securing credit. It is a one strike you're out policy and Mr. President, it is simply un-American. I believe this provision that prohibits farmers who have had their farm debt written-off or restructured from ever receiving a USDA loan again was probably added to the 1996 Farm bill to protect the public interest. However, it is actually forcing some small and minority farmers into impoverished retirement. That is why I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Credit Restoration Act of 1998. While safeguarding the integrity of USDA lending programs, this bill provides credit-worthy farmers and ranchers a second opportunity to participate in lending programs. The legislation, which was formulated by the USDA, eliminates the lifetime ban. It limits eligibility to two write-downs and farmers and ranchers are given a second opportunity to participate in USDA lending programs. Secondly, an exemption from the ban is included for one write-down that may result from a natural disaster or medical condition affecting farmers or their immediate family, or where discrimination by USDA has occurred. Thirdly, the bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to give loan funds for socially disadvantaged farmers to states where need is greatest. In my state, Virginia, and throughout the South, farmers have been denied or delayed loans by USDA local agents because of their race. This has been confirmed by USDA and acknowledged by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and President Clinton. This discrimination has forced farmers into bankruptcy and statistics show that the black farmer is dwindling at three times the rate of other farmers in the United States. In the Dakotas, farmers were devastated by the great floods of 1997. Due to a terrible act by Mother Nature, they lost everything and had to declare bankruptcy. Whether it is a man-mad or a natural disaster, conditions beyond a farmer's control have left him or her in a desperate position. This does not mean these are bad farmers with bad business sense. They have simply experienced bad times, and USDA, the lender of last resort, should not be forbidden from lending these farmers a helping hand. Last year, responding to complaints by Virginia farmers, I added $50 million in direct operating loan funding to the 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill. Many deserving farmers were unable to access these funds because of the lifetime ban included in the 1996 Farm bill. Mr. President, it is time to repeal this unjust one strike you're out provision. We need to do so now, before another planting season goes by and farmers are denied the resources they need to get their corps in the ground. Small farmers are hardworking individuals with many daily struggles. The Federal government should be there to offer them a chance to survive, not forcing them to move out of the farming business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be inserted in the Record, and I urge my fellow colleagues to support small farmers and pass this legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, every day small and minority farmers are struggling to survive. They struggle in the field as they try to grow a plentiful crop, they struggle with the ever unpredictable Mother Nature, and they struggle to compete with large farm operations. They have a very tough job, but they provide us, the consumers, with the abundant food supply we take for granted. Historically, when credit is unavailable from private sources, farmers have turned to USDA to finance land, seed, equipment and fertilizer, or for funds to offset disaster losses. USDA direct and guaranteed operating loan programs allow small farmers to be self-sustaining, successful, contributing members of their rural communities. But Mr. President, a little, unknown provision in the 1996 Farm Bill is prohibiting farmers and ranchers from receiving USDA loans if their farm debt has been written off, or forgiven, by the Department in the past for any reason. This provision constitutes a lifetime ban, is more severe than private sector lending policies, and particularly disadvantages small and minority farmers who often have difficulty securing credit. It is a one strike you're out policy and Mr. President, it is simply un-American. I believe this provision that prohibits farmers who have had their farm debt written-off or restructured from ever receiving a USDA loan again was probably added to the 1996 Farm bill to protect the public interest. However, it is actually forcing some small and minority farmers into impoverished retirement. That is why I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Credit Restoration Act of 1998. While safeguarding the integrity of USDA lending programs, this bill provides credit-worthy farmers and ranchers a second opportunity to participate in lending programs. The legislation, which was formulated by the USDA, eliminates the lifetime ban. It limits eligibility to two write-downs and farmers and ranchers are given a second opportunity to participate in USDA lending programs. Secondly, an exemption from the ban is included for one write-down that may result from a natural disaster or medical condition affecting farmers or their immediate family, or where discrimination by USDA has occurred. Thirdly, the bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to give loan funds for socially disadvantaged farmers to states where need is greatest. In my state, Virginia, and throughout the South, farmers have been denied or delayed loans by USDA local agents because of their race. This has been confirmed by USDA and acknowledged by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and President Clinton. This discrimination has forced farmers into bankruptcy and statistics show that the black farmer is dwindling at three times the rate of other farmers in the United States. In the Dakotas, farmers were devastated by the great floods of 1997. Due to a terrible act by Mother Nature, they lost everything and had to declare bankruptcy. Whether it is a man-mad or a natural disaster, conditions beyond a farmer's control have left him or her in a desperate position. This does not mean these are bad farmers with bad business sense. They have simply experienced bad times, and USDA, the lender of last resort, should not be forbidden from lending these farmers a helping hand. Last year, responding to complaints by Virginia farmers, I added $50 million in direct operating loan funding to the 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill. Many deserving farmers were unable to access these funds because of the lifetime ban included in the 1996 Farm bill. Mr. President, it is time to repeal this unjust one strike you're out provision. We need to do so now, before another planting season goes by and farmers are denied the resources they need to get their corps in the ground. Small farmers are hardworking individuals with many daily struggles. The Federal government should be there to offer them a chance to survive, not forcing them to move out of the farming business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be inserted in the Record, and I urge my fellow colleagues to support small farmers and pass this legislation.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to authorize the Coast Guard to issue the appropriate endorsement for the vessel Betty Jane Virginia Registration number VA 7271 P to engage in the coastwise trade and fisheries. This legislation is necessary to resolve an issue regarding official documentation of the Betty Jane's chain of title. The Betty Jane was built in the United States in Deltaville, Virginia by an American private boat builder in 1970. It is a 36-foot wood hull, in-board gas propulsion boat, which is planned to be used for the excursion tourboat trade. The builder and the only former boat owner are deceased. The lack of an appropriate affidavit from these persons has left a gap in the chain of title of the vessel. The Coast Guard has informed the owner of the Betty Jane that if the gap is left unresolved, a coastwise endorsement cannot be issued for the vessel, even though the present owner is a U.S. citizen, the only former owner was a U.S. citizen, and the vessel was built in the United States. The Congress passes a number of these technical bills every year. I'm introducing this bill today so that the Senate Commerce Committee may act upon it with the upcoming coastwise bill this session.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to authorize the Coast Guard to issue the appropriate endorsement for the vessel Betty Jane Virginia Registration number VA 7271 P to engage in the coastwise trade and fisheries. This legislation is necessary to resolve an issue regarding official documentation of the Betty Jane's chain of title. The Betty Jane was built in the United States in Deltaville, Virginia by an American private boat builder in 1970. It is a 36-foot wood hull, in-board gas propulsion boat, which is planned to be used for the excursion tourboat trade. The builder and the only former boat owner are deceased. The lack of an appropriate affidavit from these persons has left a gap in the chain of title of the vessel. The Coast Guard has informed the owner of the Betty Jane that if the gap is left unresolved, a coastwise endorsement cannot be issued for the vessel, even though the present owner is a U.S. citizen, the only former owner was a U.S. citizen, and the vessel was built in the United States. The Congress passes a number of these technical bills every year. I'm introducing this bill today so that the Senate Commerce Committee may act upon it with the upcoming coastwise bill this session.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise to address a problem that threatens to overwhelm the Nation's Capital and surrounding jurisdictions: traffic. As our colleagues know, driving in the greater Washington area can raise your blood pressure and test your patience. Our regional traffic jam, which is rated as second only to Los Angeles, will get worse, not better, over the next few decades if we fail to act. Projections indicate that the number of people and jobs in this area will grow by about 50 percent over the next two decades and the number of vehicle miles traveled will grow by nearly 75 percent. Unfortunately, transportation funding will fall short of our needs by $500 million each year, and this shortfall will be even larger if we don't get the higher funding levels agreed to in ISTEA II. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration predicts that highway funding for the Nation as a whole in 1999 will be $12 billion less than we need just to maintain our current system, and, again, that is assuming the higher funding we have already agreed to in ISTEA II. Unfortunately, State funding in Virginia will not be able to make up this shortfall. A recent report by the Virginia Department of Transportation shows that the spending shortfall in Virginia alone will be $1.74 billion in 1999, and this shortfall is projected to get worse, rising to $2.44 billion in the year 2009. This paints a very grim picture for the future when our present situation is already intolerable. Today, on average, every man, woman and child pays a congestion tax in fuel expenses, lost salaries and productivity, and pollution of $860 every year. Some have predicted by the year 2020 commuters will spend 50 percent more time getting to work. Imagine increasing your drive time from an hour up to an hour and a half or even from 30 minutes up to 45 minutes, depending on where you live and where you work. Given our predicament, our failure to act may seem surprising, but when we stop and think about it, the Capital region encompasses two States and a Federal district within a single metropolitan area. And although the area has common needs, it is understandably hard to get everyone to agree. Some have suggested creating a regional transportation department to tax the region and build needed roads. But Marylanders really don't want Virginians helping to choose what roads to build in Maryland, and Virginians don't want their tax dollars paying for projects in DC, and District residents don't want their interests overwhelmed by the suburbs. In short, everyone wants to have a say in how he or she will be taxed, how their money will be spent, and where roads will be built in their neighborhoods. Earlier today, I submitted an amendment to assist the region in reaching consensus on how to meet its transportation needs. Under this proposal, which my office has vetted with a number of State and local officials and with the Greater Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, the metropolitan planning organization for this region would come up with a set of projects and a regional funding mechanism to get those projects built. The region would then work toward consensus and an interstate agreement on the projects and funding. The amendment that I have submitted offers several incentives for the region to reach agreement on this package. First, the Federal Government would provide a small amount of administrative funding to assist the metropolitan planning organization for this region, the National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. This board would work to find a way to fund and implement its regional transportation plan, which is ready to go but for the funding. I believe the region has no real choice but to look at a regional funding mechanism to meet its needs, because Federal and State money will not be enough to address the spending shortfall. I understand that reaching an agreement will be a lengthy process. So the proposal creates a corporation to provide short-term action on transportation needs. The corporation, acting alone, with the express consent of the region, would have the power to issue bonds to pay for regional projects. At first, the corporation would obtain revenue by expanding transportation options. For instance, current Federal laws bar single drivers from using HOV lanes in this region during peak hours. This legislation would permit single drivers to use HOV lanes if they pay a toll and if the region agrees to spend the proceeds on transportation. In this way, drivers would have more options than they have today and the region would have more transportation revenue. I realize that tolls are controversial, and part of the controversy comes from the fact that toll collection can slow down traffic. This legislation bars the use of tolls if they would result in slowing down drivers. There is no reason the region could not collect tolls through advanced technology, called ``hot lanes,'' which allows drivers to pay their tolls without slowing down. ``Hot lanes'' use sensors to measure a driver's mileage on a toll road and bill the driver accordingly, without requiring them to slow down. Obviously, the tolls would not go into effect immediately. As with all the provisions of this amendment, the region would have to consent, as it would have to consent to any proposal advanced by the Transportation Planning Board. Finally, this proposal provides for the expedited congressional approval of the region's interstate compact or agreement. Once the region reached consensus, it would not have to wait for Congress to act. This amendment would give automatic approval of the consensus plan unless Congress rejected the plan within 60 days. I should reemphasize that this legislation is not intended to impose a solution on the region. Neither the transportation planning board nor the new corporation would have the power to raise taxes or build roads in anyone's backyard. Instead, the legislation is designed to promote cooperation among the local governments. The region would have to find a set of projects and a funding mechanism that is fair to everyone. Only a balanced plan could gain the required approval of the regional and State governments. In addition, the transportation planning board would need to make sure the plan is cost-effective. Voters and local governments will not agree to extravagant or impractical projects. Voters would have to be convinced that the TPB has come up with an affordable and practical strategy to reduce this region's growing traffic problem. The TPB could come up with any number of solutions to our gridlock problem, but let me describe one possible vision for the region's transportation plan. First, we could add an extra lane in each direction on the beltway. We could add an additional Potomac River crossing. Alexandria and southern Maryland, in particular, would benefit from a southern crossing to divert traffic away from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We could use these large-scale efforts simply to keep up. Additional mass transit and alternative transportation are also critical if we are going to reduce congestion and pollution and provide transportation for the disabled and for those who cannot afford cars. We could direct funds to maintain, upgrade and expand the Metro system. And to further reduce automobile traffic, we could expand bus service and improve bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Additional commuter rail and commuter ferry service on the Potomac are also possibilities. Finally, we could improve local roads to create a more web-like highway system instead of our current hub-and-spoke approach. In the future, more people will be commuting along the edges of DC rather than into the city itself. A plan of this magnitude would probably cost between $8 billion and $15 billion above current spending. I should emphasize that the vision I just suggested is that only, a vision. The Federal Government could not impose a plan on anyone. Local citizens would participate in creating a regional transportation proposal, and the regional governments would have to consent to any agreement. The State departments of transportation in Virginia and Maryland and the Department of Public Works in the District of Columbia would also have to consent to the agreement. The Federal Government would contribute only a small sum, less than $1 million divided over 3 years, for the region to move toward consensus on action. This small investment, however, would yield enormous returns as this region's economy grew in strength. More important, this is the kind of investment the Federal Government should be making. Traffic in and around our Nation's Capital is an interstate problem, creating regional challenges that warrant Federal action. Indeed, congestion threatens the very livelihood of our Nation's Capital. The Federal Government certainly cannot be expected to foot the bill for every transportation need, and that is not what I am suggesting today. Indeed, I am proposing that the Federal Government should help create a framework for the region to help itself. There was some understandable anxiety expressed by the departments of transportation of the States and the District when we began to explore this initiative several months ago. But I believe we have addressed those concerns by giving the jurisdictions involved absolute veto power over any action they choose not to support. Madam President, that is the outline of the proposal that I have introduced in the form of an amendment to the pending legislation. It is my hope that we will be able to clear this legislation at the appropriate time so that we can take action upon it. But at this time I simply wanted to explain to our colleagues what it was that was in this particular amendment so they could consider it, and if it is necessary, tinker with any of the specific provisions. We can do so either between now and the time we complete action on the ISTEA II bill, or in conference, or with subsequent amendments down the road if we need to do any fine-tuning. But I thought it was appropriate to provide our colleagues with some suggestions as to how I believe we should approach this particularly vexing problem for our Nation's capital.

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to note the death of Dr. Wendell C. Somerville, who passed away on Sunday, December 28, 1997. Dr. Somerville served his nation in the United States Navy and, at the age of 27, received his call to preach. In 1927, he was ordained in the Mill Neck Baptist Church of Como, North Carolina, by a council consisting of representatives of seven churches. From that time until his death, he pastored the First Baptist Church in Rocky Mount, North Carolina and, in 1934, he served as the first full-time Executive Secretary for the General Baptist State Convention. By 1940, Dr. Somerville took on the assignment for which he is most remembered: Executive Secretary of the Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention, an organization to which dozens of Virginia churches belong. He served with distinction in this position for more than 55 years when he was unanimously elected Executive Secretary- Treasurer Emeritus, an office he held until his death. During his active tenure, he traveled extensively, making 28 trips aboard and one around the world where he met with foreign leaders in an effort to spread his positive message. We cherish his memory as his work touched the lives of men, women and youth alike. Mr. President, I commend to the United States Senate and to the American people the life and public service of Dr. Wendell C. Somerville.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and oppose the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky which would eliminate it. This amendment, at least, implies that there is something wrong with supporting socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. I see nothing wrong with supporting socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. I believe it is entirely appropriate we do whatever we can, legally, to help small businesses flourish, businesses that might otherwise get swamped by larger, better financed competitors. Mr. President, it is a sad fact that as we near the end of this century, socially and economically disadvantaged businesses tend to be minority owned. If we don't focus our attention on helping these businesses succeed, we are never going to achieve the dream of an economically colorblind society. The evidence of this, regrettably, is compelling and disturbing. White-owned construction firms receive 50 times as many loan dollars as African American-owned firms that have identical equity. Where DBE programs at the State level have been eliminated, participation by qualified women and qualified minorities in government transportation contracts has plummeted. There is no way to know whether this discrimination is intentional or subconscious, but the effect is the same. This experience demonstrates the sad but inescapable truth that, when it comes to providing economic opportunities to women and minorities, passivity equals inequality. If we don't exercise diligence, we are going to stifle businesses owned by qualified women and minorities. It is that simple. I do not support numerical quotas and I never have. I would never advocate awarding work to anyone who is, or any business that is unqualified for the task. But I do support lending a helping hand to individuals and businesses that, without special attention, might be overlooked, even though they are perfectly capable of performing the necessary work. And that, Mr. President, I believe is the key to eliminating discrimination over the long-term. We cannot simply declare that a world where inequality exists is otherwise an equal world. We need to recognize that inequality and address it by making an affirmative effort to give qualified businesses a realistic chance to participate. As Julian Bond remarked recently in a sentiment that I think is right on mark in this case: Affirmative action isn't a case of unqualified people getting a leg up, but of qualified people getting an opportunity. Finally, I would like to commend the managers of the bill and, in particular, my colleague from Virginia for taking a courageous stand to support the DBE, despite the pressure that I am sure he is getting on this particular issue. Mr. President, the managers are on the right side of this particular issue, and I urge my colleagues to support them by opposing this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today marks what would have been the 94th birthday of the late Dr. Ted Geisel, better known to most of us as Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss has touched and continues to touch the lives of millions of people with books like ``Horton Hears a Who,'' ``One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish,'' ``The Cat in the Hat,'' ``Green Eggs and Ham.'' Dr. Seuss' work continues to make reading fun for children and their parents. While the good doctor is no longer with us, he left an invaluable gift: works which foster in our children a joy and appreciation for books and the wonderful treasures contained in them. To honor Dr. Seuss and his legacy, today has been declared ``Read Across America Day,'' a day when millions of students and parents, educators, many of our colleagues and others across the country have been engaged in hundreds of events to renew our Nation's commitment to literacy and to teach every child the importance and joy of reading. Today, every child should be in the company of an adult who will read to him or her. Last week, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution I submitted, along with Senator Jeffords, in recognition of this very special day, and I thank the Senator from Vermont for his comments this morning about this particular event, and several of our colleagues who participated actively in it. In addition to my 92 colleagues on both sides of the aisle who cosponsored this resolution, I commend the efforts of groups like the American Library Association, the National Family Literacy Council, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, Reading is Fundamental, the International Reading Association, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the I Have a Dream Foundation and the National Education Association that have organized events across the country in support of this very special day. In communities and schools in my home State of Virginia, there are at least 40 events that I know of to promote literacy and reading. Tonight in Culpeper County, dozens of families will attend an event called ``Culpeper Reads,'' where parents and children will attend a community dinner dressed as their favorite storybook characters. Parents will have the chance to sign their children up for library cards, and community members will read with families and explain how reading is used in their occupations. In Hampton, VA, Cooper Elementary has planned an all-day event where individuals will read Dr. Seuss' books to children. And just across the river in Alexandria, Mt. Vernon Elementary School hosted hundreds of high school students and community volunteers as they read with elementary students there. This morning, I visited Mt. Vernon Elementary School, where I read some of my daughters' favorite books to a class of first graders and to a class of fourth graders. After that, I also had the pleasure of reading to about 50 third graders at Patrick Henry Elementary School in Arlington. This morning, Mr. President, I was reminded of how much fun it is to see children's faces light up when you read to them. I was delighted to see so many individuals at each school committed to promoting literacy among our children. It is my hope that today's activities will motivate individuals to read across America, not just today but every day. Mr. President, the best way we can help a child learn to read and want to read is by reading to them and with them as often as possible. Time and again, research has shown that children who read aloud in the early years with their parents perform better in school. Experts say that the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children. Likewise, the effects of illiteracy can be devastating. We know now that 85 percent of high school dropouts and 85 percent of those in juvenile courts are functionally illiterate. Just as alarming is the fact that 51 percent of American high school graduates are functionally illiterate as well. In a country with resources as plentiful as ours, the fact that our literacy rates are so low is not only shocking; it is shameful. Mr. President, the earlier in life we can interest children in books, the sooner we can get children into the habit of reading. When children have access to books, when their parents are involved, and when their communities are invested in education, children turn to books for information and enjoyment. Reading means empowerment. Helping our children understand the value and the pleasure of reading is one of the greatest gifts we can ever give them. Whether it is to obtain knowledge or to understand history, to experience adventure or gather inspiration, we need our children to love reading. But eager and competent readers are made, not born. By taking just a half hour every day to read with our children, we can foster a genuine interest in reading that will stay with our children throughout their lives. In celebrating Dr. Seuss' birthday today, Read Across America Day will generate new enthusiasm for reading nationwide. I urge every American today to spark and rekindle our children's and our communities' and our own interest in reading. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask the Senate to proceed under the order already agreed to.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while this Congress was in recess, the President of the United States awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our country's highest civilian honor, to James Farmer. The Medal was given to Mr. Farmer on January 15, 1998, the birthday of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., in a symbolic gesture that reminded us again of the value of freedom, and the debt we owe those who sacrificed greatly for racial equality in America. Mr. President, James Farmer was one of the six major civil rights leaders of the civil rights era, joining A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr. He helped establish, and later led, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). He was the father of the famous Freedom Rides through the South. He organized and inspired. He placed himself in great personal danger again and again. Today, he teaches civil rights history to some very lucky students at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Last year, I was pleased to join Congressman John Lewis and others in asking that the President award the Medal of Freedom to James Farmer. Last month, Lynda and I were privileged to be at the White House when President Clinton officially presented the Medal to Mr. Farmer. Before the White House ceremony, Congressman Lewis and I prepared a tribute to James Farmer, which I ask be printed in the Record following my remarks today. In this tribute, we thank James Farmer for a lifetime of fighting for racial equality in America. We challenge our nation to continue to learn from this great American hero, to continue to reach for a truly colorblind society, to finally lay down the burden of race. The tribute follows:

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while this Congress was in recess, the President of the United States awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our country's highest civilian honor, to James Farmer. The Medal was given to Mr. Farmer on January 15, 1998, the birthday of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., in a symbolic gesture that reminded us again of the value of freedom, and the debt we owe those who sacrificed greatly for racial equality in America. Mr. President, James Farmer was one of the six major civil rights leaders of the civil rights era, joining A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr. He helped establish, and later lead, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). He was the father of the famous Freedom Rides through the South. He organized and inspired. He placed himself in great personal danger again and again. Today, he teaches civil rights history to some very lucky students at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Last year, I was pleased to join Congressman John Lewis and others in asking that the President award the Medal of Freedom to James Farmer. Last month, Lynda and I were privileged to be at the White House when President Clinton officially presented the Medal to Mr. Farmer. Before the White House ceremony, Congressman Lewis and I prepared a tribute to James Farmer, which I ask be printed in the Record following my remarks today. In this tribute, we thank James Farmer for a lifetime of fighting for racial equality in America. We challenge our nation to continue to learn from this great American hero--to continue to reach for a truly colorblind society--to finally lay down the burden of race.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as one man who had the privilege to march and demonstrate alongside this dedicated pioneer during the Civil Rights Movement, and another who has long respected his courage and is proud to represent him in the U.S. Senate, we both have enormous respect and admiration for James Farmer. Now, all Americans are being given the opportunity both to learn more about this man and to appreciate his lifetime of contributions to our nation as a civil rights activist, community leader and teacher. Yesterday, on the birth date of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., President Clinton presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our country's highest civilian honor, to fifteen distinguished Americans. We are grateful that James Farmer, one of the ``Big Six'' leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the father of the Freedom Rides, was among them. As the Nation prepares to officially celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it is also fitting that we join the President in recognizing one of the great soldiers and leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1940's, while still in his early twenties, James Farmer was already leading some of the earliest nonviolent demonstrations and sit-ins in the Nation, over a decade before nonviolent tactics became a vehicle for the modern Civil Rights Movement in the South. Early in his academic career, James Farmer became interested in the Ghandian principles of civil disobedience, direct action, and nonviolence. In 1942, at the age of 22, he enlisted an interracial group, mostly students, and founded the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), with the goal of using nonviolent protest to fight segregation in America. During these early years, James Farmer and other CORE members staged our Nation's first nonviolent sit-in, which successfully desegregated the Jack Spratt Coffee Shop in Chicago. Five years later, in what he called the ``Journey of Reconciliation,'' James Farmer led other CORE members to challenge segregated seating on interstate buses. In 1961, James Farmer orchestrated and led the famous Freedom Rides through the South, which are renown for forcing Americans to confront segregation in bus terminals and on interstate buses. In the spring of that year, James Farmer trained a small group of freedom riders, teaching them to deal with the hostility they were likely to encounter using nonviolent resistance. This training would serve them well. During the journeys, freedom riders were beaten. Buses were burned. When riders and their supporters--including James Farmer and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.--were trapped during a rally in Montgomery's First Baptist Church, Attorney General Robert Kennedy ordered U.S. marshals to come to their aid and protect them from the angry mob that had gathered outside. In reflecting on the ride from Montgomery, Alabama to Jackson, Mississippi, James Farmer said, ``I don't think any of us thought we were going to get to Jackson * * * I was scared and I am sure the kids were scared.'' He later wrote in his autobiography, ``If any man says that he had no fear in the action of the sixties, he is a liar. Or without imagination.'' James Farmer made it to Jackson and spent forty days in jail after he tried to enter a white restroom at the bus station. On November 1, 1961, six months after the freedom rides began, the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered all interstate buses and terminal facilities to be integrated. Six years ago, James Farmer told a reporter that while the fight against racism in the 1960's ``required tough skulls and guts * * * now it requires intellect, training and education.'' Not surprisingly, James Farmer continues to do his part. Just as he taught his freedom riders how to battle segregation over three decades ago, he has taught civil rights history at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia, for the past twelve years. He teaches his students how to remember and how to learn from history. James Farmer has, in truth, spent a lifetime teaching America the value of equality and opportunity. He has taught America that its most volatile social problems could be solved nonviolently. He has reminded us of the countless acts of courage and conviction needed to bring about great change. He has shown us the idealism needed to act and the pragmatism needed to succeed. His respect for humanity and his belief in justice will forever inspire those of us privileged to call him mentor and friend. As we celebrate the Martin Luther King Holiday on Monday, and as we honor James Farmer with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, let us vow to continue to learn. If we truly believe in the idea of the beloved community and an interracial democracy, we cannot give up. As a nation and a people, we must join together and strive towards laying down the burden of race. And we must follow in the footsteps of a courageous leader, to whom, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, we can finally say: thank you, James Farmer.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution to designate the week of May 2, 1998 as ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week.'' Mr. President, this resolution gives needed recognition to the vital role that correctional personnel play in our communities. Correctional officers and employees put their lives on the line every day to protect the public from dangerous criminals. These brave men and women also protect incarcerated individuals from the violence of their circumstance, and they help prisoners work toward returning to lawful society. I urge my colleagues to join with me to recognize the work and contributions of our nation's correctional officers and employees.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I suggest that the lack of time is part of the problem that we are dealing with here, as just alluded to by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. This is not the right way to do what we propose to do, even if that is our objective. This amendment, crafted by the minority leader's office, would simply provide a procedure whereby there would be input from the local jurisdictions. The problem right now is that this bill was introduced, held at the desk, and there were no committee hearings, no committee votes, no public hearings on the matter. We have heard from countless people who have a local interest. Those jurisdictions--Alexandria, Arlington, Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority, Greater Washington Board of Trade--are against it. Normally, even in judgeships we give the local Senators input on whether the judge who would be sitting in their particular jurisdiction ought to go forward without some additional debate. You do not have the support of either of the local Senators or the local Members of Congress on this. I normally don't suggest this is scientific or pay that much attention to sheer numbers, but the calls are overwhelmingly against proceeding with this. This sets up a procedure so that we can consider it in an appropriate manner. With that, I think my two minutes are about up. I ask for the support of this amendment. Senator Daschle has an amendment that is even more precise and specific, if we want to deal with this issue in a very short period of time. But the problem is the lack of time to thoughtfully consider the implications for the renaming, as well as for all of the local jurisdictions concerned. With that, I yield whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Georgia wishes to take the floor at this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in accordance with the unanimous consent agreement, I would like to send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. I thank you for the characterization of Virginia. Amendment No. 1643 (Purpose: To provide an orderly process for the renaming of existing Federal facilities)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I was going to go ahead and allow the amendment to be read because it is not terribly long, and I think it is fairly straightforward. I am also conscious of the fact that there are sufficient votes to pass the Coverdell bill as it was introduced. I would point out, however, that the bill was not referred to a committee. It was not subject to a hearing and does not have the benefit of any of the local input that would have been so desirable under the circumstances. Because local views on this proposal were not considered, I made a speech in this Chamber yesterday reflecting my own views and, I believe, the views of many Virginians. My comments were similar to the views that were just expressed by the minority leader, who spoke more eloquently but came to the same conclusion. I mentioned yesterday that I have long personally admired President Reagan's personal courage, his strong convictions, his infectious spirit, and his leadership in the national and international community. But I thought this particular legislation, because it was contrary to the wishes of all of the local governments that President Reagan worked so hard to empower, was simply not the right way to proceed. I also suggested that renaming some other international airport, perhaps in his native State of Illinois or his adopted State of California, would be more appropriate. I talked about the fact that the most substantial Federal building ever built in Washington is going to be dedicated in his name on May 5. And I talked about the fact that the next super carrier will bear his name, and that given his role as Commander in Chief and the respect that he generated, not only throughout the United States but around the world, I wholeheartedly endorsed this designation. The difficulty I have with the legislation before us is that it directly contravenes the legacy of the man we hope to honor. We have clear expressions of the views of the local governments. Both of the local governments, the City of Alexandria, and the County of Arlington, have expressed their concern and opposition. In addition, my predecessor, the first Republican Governor of Virginia in this century, and a former chair of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, was very explicit in his description of the intent of the 50-year lease of the National Airport and Dulles airport, and the autonomy it provided for the Airport Authority. I do not quarrel with the characterization of the distinguished Senator from Georgia as to some of the Federal strings that remain attached to that particular legislation. We seldom really ever turn loose anything in its entirety in this body, and I understand that. But the bottom line is, in my judgment, this legislation disregards the views of local officials and business leaders, and thrusts the central government upon a local authority that was divorced from the federal government by President Reagan himself. The amendment I have sent to the desk simply creates an advisory group which would take into consideration the views of the local community, and the history of a particular facility, before any renaming occurs. There may be other approaches to this particular challenge, and in listening to the distinguished minority leader, I believe his approach would be entirely appropriate. The problem here is that we are taking up and considering legislation that has not been considered by any committee of the Senate, that has not had any hearing. Indeed, when we have been able to ascertain the views of those who would normally be considered most interested, they have expressed reservations in various degrees. I think it would be appropriate under the circumstances, since the legislation before us today purports to honor the 40th President, if the views of either the President or Mrs. Reagan, who speaks so eloquently for him, were known on this matter. I think that would be helpful to many Members in considering this issue. It may be entirely appropriate, after appropriate consultation, to go ahead and rename Washington National Airport. In any event, the haste with which we move is designed, I believe, to reflect the coming birthday of President Reagan. And I would simply suggest that some consultation with the family--and specifically the President, or speaking for the President, Mrs. Reagan--might very much be in order. A very nice ceremony, I am informed, has been planned for the dedication of the Ronald Reagan Building on May 5. The former First Lady is planning to participate, and I think all the Members of Congress will certainly be there, if not in body, then in spirit. So I ask my colleagues to think about what we are doing, and think about whether or not this properly honors the man it is designed to honor. The amendment I have sent to the desk will be taken up tomorrow. Again, it would create an advisory group that would deliberate on some of the issues I have raised, and report back to Congress in a timely fashion. It would not preclude any action by the Senate or the House. It would simply provide input from some of the local governments and communities that President Reagan so strongly defended during his long and illustrious tour as President of the United States. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the amendment I have sent to the desk.