Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to note my opposition to the effort to overshadow the name of our first President, which graces the airport that serves as the gateway to the city bearing his name. Washington National Airport is located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the birthplace of George Washington. It lies adjacent to the city of Alexandria, the hometown of George Washington. The people of Alexandria are proud to live in George Washington's city and have asked this Congress not to displace Washington's name on the airport. In fact, the original airport terminal, whose facade reflects the design of Mount Vernon's portico, was preserved when the airport was recently renovated. The people of Arlington County, the local municipality that surrounds Washington National Airport, have expressed their strong opposition as well. The Greater Washington Board of Trade, as well as local businesses that would be harmed by this bill, oppose the legislation that has been offered. In 1986, Mr. President, legislation was approved by the U.S. Congress transferring the operation of Washington National Airport from the Federal Government to the Metropolitan Airports Authority. The Airports Authority is a nonfederal entity established by interstate compact between the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. President Ronald Reagan, who championed State and local control, rather than Federal control, whenever and wherever it was appropriate, was the President who signed that legislation. Former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, a Republican and the chairman of the Airports Authority, said, ``Unilateral action by the Congress to take the drastic action of changing the name of the airport is inconsistent with both the spirit and the intent of the transfer.'' It is highly ironic that this Congress is attempting to impose its Federal will on local governments, a State/local airports authority, and the local business community, in the name of Ronald Reagan, whose career and legacy centers on his deep commitment to limiting the reach of the Federal Government. Mr. President, creating a controversy that is contrary to his legacy does not honor Ronald Reagan. Like the vast majority of Americans, I have long admired President Reagan's personal courage, his strong convictions, his infectious spirit, and his leadership of our Nation and the international community. There are many appropriate ways to honor the name and the legacy of this great American. On May 5, we will dedicate the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in downtown Washington. It is the largest Federal building ever built in Washington, DC. Among all Federal buildings throughout the entire Nation, only the Pentagon is larger. In addition, Congress has appropriately named the next aircraft carrier after President Reagan in a resolution I heartily supported and was pleased to cosponsor. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan will be a magnificent and, indeed, a fitting tribute to a Commander in Chief who stood for U.S. military strength throughout our world. There will undoubtedly be many more opportunities to honor Ronald Reagan and his legacy--and, indeed, jurisdictions where it might be particularly appropriate, such as California or Illinois, might choose to put his name on an airport. But overshadowing the name of our first President, ignoring the expressed views of local governments and their people, as well as the local business community, interfering in operations of an airport, that because of a bill signed by Ronald Reagan is no longer truly Federal, is not the way to do it. Mr. President, in summary, there are many appropriate ways to honor the name and the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Renaming Washington National Airport is not one of them. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation, not out of disrespect for the man, but as a symbol of respect for the principles for which he has lived. It may be that after appropriate consultation with the local jurisdictions directly involved, and indeed with the President and particularly Mrs. Reagan, whose views on this particular matter have not been publicly ascertained, that some action regarding Washington National Airport would be in order. But to move forward without that consideration would detract from the honor intended, as well as the very appropriate and fitting ceremonies planned for May 5.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for yielding me time that was to be his, and which I would ask unanimous consent not be charged against the 90 minutes that are allocated to him.

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on behalf of many tobacco growers with whom I have worked, I rise today to introduce the Tobacco Market Transition Act. The comprehensive tobacco settlement announced on June 20 of last year simply did not include provisions for tobacco growers. This provision is designed to fill that void. This legislation is truly the result of a grassroots effort and elaborates the concepts I discussed in the Chamber on November 3. Tobacco-dependent regions realize that their lives will be directly affected by comprehensive tobacco legislation and they want to prepare for that future. Key members of my staff and I have worked with tobacco growers, leaders in tobacco growing communities and members of the public health community to develop legislation which will provide a soft landing to those regions that have so long depended on the production of tobacco. In short, because Government action is about to erode the value of quota, there would be a buyout of existing quota at $8 a pound. A privatized tobacco program limiting supply would be reinstituted, providing growers with a license to grow tobacco based on historical average production for that grower. To provide long-term economic security in tobacco communities, $250 million will be provided annually for economic development. Finally, a transition payment would be offered to growers as the system changes from its present form to a new one. Tobacco quota, Mr. President, represents the amount of tobacco allowed to be produced domestically. Over the years, individuals have accumulated the right to grow a certain proportion of that total quota. This individual quota, this right to produce, has liquid value that can be bought or sold or leased. Many have acquired quota over the years and planned to retire or in some cases have retired on the funds received from selling or leasing quota. When the Government depresses demand for tobacco, it depresses the value of that asset. The legislation I am introducing recognizes the value of that quota asset by paying quota holders $8 a pound for the quota they own over 5 years. Once the quota holder has been made whole, a new supply-limiting program would be instituted giving licenses to grow tobacco to actual producers of tobacco. Unlike the present system, those licenses would not cost money to acquire. Eliminating the crushing cost of quota, which adds 40 cents a pound to the cost of producing flue-cured tobacco, will allow these growers to become more competitive even as demand declines in the United States as a result of any comprehensive bill that we pass. By becoming more competitive with imported tobacco, U.S. growers could keep the demand for their product from declining as steeply as demand for cigarettes and other finished products if we pass comprehensive legislation. The legislation also provides a transition payment for existing tobacco producers as we move into the new system and provides $250 million annually to tobacco-growing communities for economic development. These economic development funds can be used for local communities to improve education, enhance transportation, promote small business incubators or develop high technology infrastructure. In short, these economic development funds will help keep these communities from exporting their most valuable asset, and that is their children. Finally, this proposal recognizes the benefits of a supply-limiting program for tobacco. A supply-limiting program is absolutely essential to stabilize the income of tobacco farmers and to protect tobacco- growing communities from the utter destruction that would follow if the program is totally eliminated. A supply-limiting program is also appropriate in the unique circumstance of tobacco. Unlike other commodities where we are trying to lower the cost to consumers, pending Federal legislation is designed to do just the opposite. Every comprehensive tobacco proposal I have seen would increase the cost of tobacco products to lower demand. Indeed, the President said last night that he would approve something up to $1.50 a pack. There has been much healthy discussion in tobacco growing communities about whether to retain the current Federal tobacco program or to avoid the annual battles that threaten it and privatize the program, allowing growers and others to operate it. This is an important debate. The Federal program has served tobacco- growing communities well for over 60 years, and it is my judgment--and the judgment of many, many with whom I have consulted--that it should not be dismantled cavalierly. The question we face is how best to maintain a supply-limiting program that protects tobacco communities. If we could guarantee that the Federal program would remain intact for the next 25 years, that may be the best way to proceed. But I have detected a great deal of unease about whether we can keep the program, and I think many on both sides of this issue are growing tired of annual fights which, if we lose, will destroy many tobacco-growing regions. That is why this legislation contains provisions to privatize the tobacco program. For those who have questions about how this program will work, I invite them to assist in answering those questions and improving this legislation. For those who are nervous about such a change, I can say I appreciate their apprehension. It is easier to understand the world as it is rather than how it could be. But I believe this offers us the best opportunity to retain a supply-limiting program over the long term. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that will protect the communities that will be devastated if we fail to act, and will, in the words of the President, make growers and their communities ``whole.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation as well as the section-by-section summary be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on behalf of many tobacco growers with whom I have worked, I rise today to introduce the Tobacco Market Transition Act. The comprehensive tobacco settlement announced on June 20 of last year simply did not include provisions for tobacco growers. This provision is designed to fill that void. This legislation is truly the result of a grassroots effort and elaborates the concepts I discussed in the Chamber on November 3. Tobacco-dependent regions realize that their lives will be directly affected by comprehensive tobacco legislation and they want to prepare for that future. Key members of my staff and I have worked with tobacco growers, leaders in tobacco growing communities and members of the public health community to develop legislation which will provide a soft landing to those regions that have so long depended on the production of tobacco. In short, because Government action is about to erode the value of quota, there would be a buyout of existing quota at $8 a pound. A privatized tobacco program limiting supply would be reinstituted, providing growers with a license to grow tobacco based on historical average production for that grower. To provide long-term economic security in tobacco communities, $250 million will be provided annually for economic development. Finally, a transition payment would be offered to growers as the system changes from its present form to a new one. Tobacco quota, Mr. President, represents the amount of tobacco allowed to be produced domestically. Over the years, individuals have accumulated the right to grow a certain proportion of that total quota. This individual quota, this right to produce, has liquid value that can be bought or sold or leased. Many have acquired quota over the years and planned to retire or in some cases have retired on the funds received from selling or leasing quota. When the Government depresses demand for tobacco, it depresses the value of that asset. The legislation I am introducing recognizes the value of that quota asset by paying quota holders $8 a pound for the quota they own over 5 years. Once the quota holder has been made whole, a new supply-limiting program would be instituted giving licenses to grow tobacco to actual producers of tobacco. Unlike the present system, those licenses would not cost money to acquire. Eliminating the crushing cost of quota, which adds 40 cents a pound to the cost of producing flue-cured tobacco, will allow these growers to become more competitive even as demand declines in the United States as a result of any comprehensive bill that we pass. By becoming more competitive with imported tobacco, U.S. growers could keep the demand for their product from declining as steeply as demand for cigarettes and other finished products if we pass comprehensive legislation. The legislation also provides a transition payment for existing tobacco producers as we move into the new system and provides $250 million annually to tobacco-growing communities for economic development. These economic development funds can be used for local communities to improve education, enhance transportation, promote small business incubators or develop high technology infrastructure. In short, these economic development funds will help keep these communities from exporting their most valuable asset, and that is their children. Finally, this proposal recognizes the benefits of a supply-limiting program for tobacco. A supply-limiting program is absolutely essential to stabilize the income of tobacco farmers and to protect tobacco- growing communities from the utter destruction that would follow if the program is totally eliminated. A supply-limiting program is also appropriate in the unique circumstance of tobacco. Unlike other commodities where we are trying to lower the cost to consumers, pending Federal legislation is designed to do just the opposite. Every comprehensive tobacco proposal I have seen would increase the cost of tobacco products to lower demand. Indeed, the President said last night that he would approve something up to $1.50 a pack. There has been much healthy discussion in tobacco growing communities about whether to retain the current Federal tobacco program or to avoid the annual battles that threaten it and privatize the program, allowing growers and others to operate it. This is an important debate. The Federal program has served tobacco- growing communities well for over 60 years, and it is my judgment--and the judgment of many, many with whom I have consulted--that it should not be dismantled cavalierly. The question we face is how best to maintain a supply-limiting program that protects tobacco communities. If we could guarantee that the Federal program would remain intact for the next 25 years, that may be the best way to proceed. But I have detected a great deal of unease about whether we can keep the program, and I think many on both sides of this issue are growing tired of annual fights which, if we lose, will destroy many tobacco-growing regions. That is why this legislation contains provisions to privatize the tobacco program. For those who have questions about how this program will work, I invite them to assist in answering those questions and improving this legislation. For those who are nervous about such a change, I can say I appreciate their apprehension. It is easier to understand the world as it is rather than how it could be. But I believe this offers us the best opportunity to retain a supply-limiting program over the long term. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that will protect the communities that will be devastated if we fail to act, and will, in the words of the President, make growers and their communities ``whole.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation as well as the section-by-section summary be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I note the temporary absence of anyone else seeking to speak. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the life and service of William B. Spong, Jr., a distinguished statesman, a former U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a mentor to many of us who entered politics inspired by his extraordinary conviction. Bill Spong died in Portsmouth, VA, on October 8, 1997, at the age of 77. He left behind a son, a daughter, five grandchildren, and a legacy of public service to the people of Virginia unmatched in his lifetime. As his childhood friend, Dick Davis, said so eloquently, ``the state has lost a leader that may never be replaced.'' Bill Spong epitomized the professional commitment and personal integrity that was his hallmark. He was a quiet giant. The product of two outstanding Virginia universities--Hampden Sydney College and the University of Virginia School of Law--Bill Spong could have gone anywhere and made money. But he went home to Portsmouth, set up a law practice with his friend, Dick Davis, and successfully ran for the Virginia House of Delegates and then the State senate. A philosopher once said, while ``every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, very few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time.'' We, in Virginia, will be forever grateful that Bill Spong was one of those rare individuals who thought--and acted-- ahead of his time. While in the House of Delegates, he joined a moderate group of ``Young Turks'' to pressure the legendary Byrd Machine into investing more money into education. And as a member of the State senate in 1958, he exhibited what would become a lifetime understanding of the value of learning by chairing a statewide Commission on Public Education. Then, in 1966, Bill Spong made history. In a Democratic primary, he challenged U.S. Senator A. Willis Robertson, a 20 year Byrd machine- backed incumbent, and won by 611 votes. ``We called him Landslide Spong,'' remembered his friend and campaign manager William C. Battle. As a member of this body, Mr. President, Bill Spong focused not on politics, but on policy and principle. ``He agonized over legislation in his quest to do what he believed to be right,'' his former Press Secretary, Pete Glazer, said recently. ``Bill Spong was the kind of public servant we all try to emulate,'' said Congressman Robert C. Scott, ``a man of integrity who courageously stood by his convictions and his principles, even when it might not be the immediately popular thing to do.'' As Alson H. Smith, Jr., reflected: ``If Bill Spong thought it was right, he did it.'' Mr. President, Bill Spong was a statesman. But 1972 taught us that Senators with great courage can be demagogued and out spent, and Bill Spong lost his Senate seat amidst George McGovern's landslide defeat to Richard Nixon. ``In the Watergate year of 1971,'' remembered his college friend, and former U.S. attorney, Tom Mason, ``Bill Spong became an early victim of the 11th hour 30-second television spots that continue to plague our political system.'' ``In my judgement,'' Mason said, ``Bill Spong's defeat in 1972 was one of the worst developments in Virginia's political history.'' The Senate's great loss, however, was the Commonwealth's great gain, as Bill Spong left this institution to continue his extraordinary service to Virginia. He became dean of William and Mary's Marshall- Wythe School of Law in 1976 and his stewardship brought our Nation's oldest law school from near ruin to national prominence. In 1989, he became the interim president of Old Dominion University in Norfolk. ``He had a real intellectual bent,'' remembered Bill Battle. ``He was probably more comfortable as Dean of the Law School at William and Mary than at any other time of his life.'' ``His sense of humor was unbelievable,'' Battle continued. ``When we were in law school together after World War II, he was always where the trouble was but never in it. It's hard to believe he's no longer around.'' Mr. President, we may mourn Bill Spong's death. We may remember his life. But we may never know the breadth of his legacy, or the inspiration he lent along the way. No political leader in the Commonwealth was more responsible for my own entry into Virginia politics than Bill Spong. Dick Davis entered public life because he was angry that his lifelong friend--who he described last week as ``a great Virginian and a great Senator'' --lost his Senate seat. There's no question that Bill Spong was an enormous force in the leadership of our State that began in 1981. In fact, in 1977, when I was Lieutenant Governor and our party was fractured and discouraged, I asked Bill Spong to help us put the pieces back together. I'll always be grateful that the Spong Commission Report, as we called it, laid the groundwork for the unity we needed to succeed 4 years later. Mr. President, during the time I served as Governor, I appointed Bill Spong to the Council on Higher Education and asked him to Chair the Governor's Commission on the Future of Virginia. The latter produced an extraordinary report that helped guide public policy--and progress--in Virginia for over a decade. Just last summer, I asked Bill Spong to chair a judicial nomination committee to recommend a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As always, his extraordinary judgement and unique vision were invaluable. ``Bill worked hard throughout his public and private life to bring Virginians together to make a better world for all of us,'' Congressman Scott said. ``I will miss his leadership and his friendship.'' ``He never forgot where he came from,'' remembered his former press aide, Pete Glazer, ``and he died in the city where he was born.'' ``Two hundred years ago, we were fortunate to have dedicated and enlightened leaders of this Commonwealth,'' said H. Benson Dendy III. ``Truly Senator Spong was such as a leader of our time.'' I will close, Mr. President, with two eulogies delivered at Bill Spong's memorial service in Williamsburg by Robert P. Crouch, Jr. and Timothy J. Sullivan. Their eloquence is a shining tribute to a man who has been an inspiration to so many. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, farmers face a great deal of uncertainty. The uncontrollable forces of nature or a volatile market can destroy a farmer's livelihood without warning. When the crops are planted, growers worry about whether they'll be enough rain--or too much; whether supply will be too great or demand too small; whether prices will be too low, or production costs too high. For tobacco growers, these unavoidable concerns were compounded when the tobacco industry and the 40 states' attorneys general unveiled their global settlement of tobacco issues on June 20 of this year. The parties did not address how the settlement would affect America's tobacco growers and their communities. Much has happened since that time. Congressional hearings have been held, legislation has been drafted, and the President has reviewed the global settlement. A common theme runs through these separate actions, and that theme is that tobacco farmers and the families and communities that depend on them should not be punished by comprehensive tobacco legislation. I believe the President said it best when he remarked during his discussion of the tobacco settlement in September that: We have a responsibility to [tobacco growers]. They haven't done anything wrong. They haven't done anything illegal. They're good, hardworking, tax-paying citizens, and they have not caused this problem. And we cannot let them, their families, or their communities just be crippled and broken by this. And, I don't think of the public health community wants to do that * * * We're trying to change America and make everybody whole. And they deserve a chance to have their lives, and be made whole, and to go on with the future as well. My staff and I have been working for a number of months on a proposal I believe may offer a means of making tobacco growers whole and providing the resources necessary to expand economic opportunities in tobacco-dependent regions. While we have discussed these concepts with various people, I would like to describe it more fully now so I can get broader feedback from interested parties. In putting together this proposal, we have talked to tobacco growers, local government officials interested in economic development, agricultural economists and members of the public health community. To reduce youth smoking, health advocates seek an immediate and substantial increase in the price of tobacco products. If Congress adopts this strategy, it will have a substantial effect throughout the tobacco-growing regions, and I believe we have an obligation to provide a soft landing for the people who would be affected. The plan we developed contains several components. First, it would compensate quota owners for the value of their quota, which is likely to be eroded over time by this government action. Second, it would dismantle the existing Federal tobacco program, which has been under annual assault, and reinstitute a privatized supply-limiting program. Third, it would target economic development funds to tobacco-dependent communities, to be used to attract quality jobs and train individuals for them. The effect of these changes, which I will describe in more detail, would be to give quota holders the value of their asset, guarantee that producers retain a program stabilizing the supply and price of tobacco, reduce operating costs to the grower by eliminating the expenses associated with buying or leasing quota, make domestic tobacco more competitive, and provide long-term economic development. Buy-out of quota asset.--Tobacco quota refers to the amount of tobacco that can be produced domestically. Last year, there were 1.5 billion pounds of tobacco quota. Today, quota owned by an individual, which represents the proportion of the total amount of domestic quota an owner has the right to produce, is an asset which can be bought or sold or leased. Its value has accrued over time, and for many in tobacco-producing regions it is the major asset used to pay for retirement. Farmers acquire quota throughout their lives so they can grow tobacco to sustain their families, and then in retirement sell or lease it to others for income. A substantial and immediate increase in the price of tobacco products will decrease demand and will reduce the amount of quota. This erodes the value accrued by quota-holders, as their proportionate share declines with demand. Since so many have invested in this asset, many of whom rely on it for retirement, it is appropriate to compensate for the decline in value caused by a radical change in government policy. I propose giving quota owners $8/pound for their quota. The funds would be paid out in five annual installments of $1.60/pound based on the 3-year average--1995-1997--of their basic quota. To avoid serious tax consequences, which would be the government giving with one hand and taking away with the other, the funds could be placed in a tax- deferred 401(k)-type plan, or used tax-free to reduce debt associated with acquiring the quota. This program would convert existing quota into cash, it would terminate the existing tobacco quota system, and a new program would be instituted to give growers the right to grow tobacco through the issuance of licenses. New Tobacco Program.--It is crucial that we reconstitute some form of supply-limiting tobacco program. Without one, production shifts to large agribusinesses that are encouraged to grow as much tobacco as possible. The price for tobacco would plummet, and many communities where tobacco is now grown would be immediately devastated. A supply- limiting program stabilizes the price of tobacco, so that wild swings don't put small growers out of business, and limits production. While many agricultural commodity programs have moved away from the supply- limiting approach, I believe it is still appropriate in the unique case of tobacco. There is no other farm product where the ultimate goal is to increase the cost to consumers, not decrease it. In addition, the free market isn't so free in the tobacco industry, because there are essentially only four buyers who have unparalleled control over the market. To require farmers to contract individually with the few large buyers is to put the farmers at a gross competitive disadvantage. The new tobacco program should be privatized to the extent possible. No one enjoys the annual uncertainty that follows from constant attempts to end the tobacco program. Growers, who benefit from the program, should be willing to take on the obligation of running it. Once all the quota has been bought out, the new system would grant licenses to actual tobacco producers. These licenses would go to all producers, whether they were quota holders, tenant farmers or quota leasees. There would be no significant cost associated with acquiring the licenses. These licenses would give the farmer the right to continue growing tobacco, but unlike the previous system that right could not be bought or sold or leased. In other words, that license, unlike quota, would not be a liquid asset. If the grower decided to stop exercising the right to produce granted by the license, the license would be surrendered to the issuing authority, which could then reissue the license to another grower. By wringing the value out of quota through the buy-out, producers will no longer face the expense of leasing or buying quota. Once that cost of operation is eliminated-- which represents about 40 cents of the price of a pound of flue-cured tobacco--the producer can be more competitive, both here and overseas. And by being more competitive, the decline in quota will not be as steep, and growers will not suffer the severe dislocation that a sudden drop in quota would create, whether that drop is caused by decreased demand or increased costs of production. I would like to see the creation of a privatized authority that would govern the production, marketing, importation, exportation, and consumer quality assurance of U.S. farm produced tobacco. This authority, which I'll call the Tobacco Production Control Corporation, could have a varied membership, and one option would be to have an authority with 21 members. The members would include the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator of EPA, the U.S. Trade Representative, nine representatives of Tobacco Loan Associations, four rotating representatives of the public health community, one representative from domestic cigarette manufacturers, one representative form the domestic export leaf dealers, one representative from tobacco marketing facilities, one representative from the Tobacco Marketing and Quality Assurance Corporation, and one representative from the agriculture department of a tobacco state university. The Tobacco Loan Associations would be comprised of all licensees of each respective type of tobacco. Initially, licenses would be issued to all tobacco growers based on the 3-year average--1995-1997--of tobacco they produced. The Tobacco Loan Associations would issue licenses to control the quantity of tobacco production, and would assure compliance by levying fines. Additionally, they would arrange for financing and administration of price supports, including the right to receive, process, store, and sell any U.S. produced tobacco received as collateral for private price support loans. The Tobacco Marketing and Quality Assurance Corporation would be created to determine and describe the physical characteristics of U.S. farm-produced tobacco and unmanufactured imported tobacco, operate a crop insurance program, and assure the physical and chemical integrity of U.S. produced and imported unmanufactured tobacco. This would insure that the tobacco being used in domestically manufactured tobacco products is of the highest quality and is free from prohibited physical and chemical agents. The Quality Assurance Corporation would consist of a CEO hired by the Tobacco Production Control Corporation and a staff experience in the sampling and analysis of unmanufactured tobacco and capable of collecting data and monitoring tobacco production and consumption information. These are the elements that could constitute a new tobacco program. Under this proposed program, once the quota holder has received the value of the asset, a new system of regulating the production of tobacco would be created. This approach honors the value of quota, retains the price stabilizing benefits of the tobacco program but eliminates the current costs associated with acquiring quota, making domestic tobacco more competitive in the future. I'd like to acknowledge the insightful contribution of Henry Maxey, a tobacco grower from Pittsylvania County, who first presented this idea to a member of my staff in a meeting a few months ago in the Halifax office of Delegate Ted Bennett. While I've gotten input from an number of people since then, Mr. Maxey should be credited with getting the ball rolling. Economic Development.--I would like to devote $250 million annually for economic diversification in tobacco-dependent communities. Unfortunately, the biggest export in many of the tobacco-growing regions is the children. They leave the area because there aren't enough high quality jobs in the community. Tobacco legislation provides us a unique opportunity to address this situation. The economic development funds should be used for two purposes: attracting quality jobs and training people to fill them. I believe that economic development activities are best generated from those most familiar with a community's needs. Generally speaking, I believe that economic development funds should go to counties to carry out those activities that best suit their needs. I would envision that the funds would be distributed to localities based on their proportionate share of the amount of tobacco produced annually, which is a rough approximation of how dependent each community is on tobacco income. In order to foster long-range thinking and coordination in the region, the communities should develop and submit economic development plans. In the case where an independent city is surrounded by a tobacco-dependent county, but doesn't itself produce tobacco, representatives from the city should have a voice in the development of the county's economic development plan, due to the economic interdependence of the two independent governments. In some circumstances, counties have banded together to form regional economic development commissions, like the A.L. Philpott Southside Economic Development Commission in Virginia. In that case, the commission should be given the authority to coordinate the economic development funds, allowing the various counties to benefit from a regional approach. Such an approach would avoid duplicative efforts to provide the same services or attract the same industries as a neighbor in the region, making the funds more effective. When coordinating the economic development investments, the commission will be required to target a certain percentage of the funds to the most tobacco-dependent counties as determined by their proportionate share of the amount of tobacco produced annually. This approach combines regional planning with local investment. The funds can only be used for specific purposes, such as improving the quality of all levels of education in the region, promoting tourism through natural resource protection, constructing advanced manufacturing centers, industrial parks, water and sewer facilities and transportation improvements, establishing small business incubators, and installing high technology infrastructure improvements. We will need to insure, however, that these funds are not used to reduce the amount of funding that would otherwise be provided by the local, State or Federal governments. Whenever there is a major shift in a program like the one this proposal contemplates, we need to be concerned about providing a smooth transition. In fact, the uncertainty created by the mere possibility of major tobacco legislation will undoubtedly affect tobacco growers next year, who expect a serious decline in quota because these issues remain unresolved. To make sure that current producers can survive until this new system is implemented over the 5-year buy-out period, we should consider giving a minimum of income protection during this period. One option would be to add protections in the event tobacco quota falls by more than 10 percent from 1997 levels. If that occurs, tobacco producers would be eligible for a $1/pound payment for lost quota from their 1997 level. This is especially important to farmers operating without much margin, as we make the transition to a more competitive marketplace. I hope that these ideas generate some discussion and ultimately I intend to introduce legislation incorporating these ideas. My purpose is to find a mechanism that recognizes the changes facing the tobacco industry, and provides some degree of certainty to tobacco growers and their communities so they are not faced with cataclysmic upheaval as a result of those changes. I look forward to working toward this particular goal with colleagues who are interested in this particular challenge.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I simply acknowledge that no one has been more eloquent or consistent in their position that this is not appropriate legislation. From the very time that I entered this body I have known that the distinguished Senator, who was then chairman of the Appropriations Committee, felt that this was not a proper allocation of power under the Constitution, that it should be reserved for the legislative body. It was not appropriate to give this to the executive branch. We have a disagreement on that matter in terms of the distribution of power, but as to the interpretation of the Constitution, I suspect that the Court will probably ultimately verify or validate the distinguished Senator's views and this debate may be moot. My concern today, and I accept the Senator's view that nothing in West Virginia is included, but I am concerned if there were 69 of us, if that indeed is the count, who were willing to vote for the line-item veto and now come back simply because there is an item in our States and say we are against it because it happened to gore the ox in our pasture, then we are not maintaining the kind of principle that most Members of this legislative branch believe in in all the other dealings they take part in.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, without the power to amend, this Senator will observe that we would not have had the Bill of Rights, much less the other amendments to the Constitution. So there is a procedure that is set forth for subsequent generations to reconsider the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and it appears that the Founding Fathers accepted the fact that there might have to be some changes even in their seminal document, the Constitution. I don't intend to continue the debate, Mr. President, with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I understand his point of view. I respect him and I respect him for it. I expect that this particular bill will probably achieve something in excess of 95 votes. So I am not sure that we need to protract the debate on this particular issue.

Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ROBB. With all due respect to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, that is the reason that we are proposing, proposed, and have effected the line-item veto, and propose it as a constitutional amendment, recognizing that the Constitution of the United States did not grant this power to the President that it grants to 40-some Governors and their respective States.

Mr. ROBB. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to respond very briefly to my friend and colleague and the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, for whom I have enormous respect. I suggest two things: No. 1, that I share the concern about the imperfect process that was followed in this particular instance. I have shared my concerns directly with the White House, and I hope we will not have a repeat of the lack of prior consultation, et cetera. So I am not in disagreement with that particular aspect. But the matter of how many dollars are actually involved is not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. It is the principle. If we believe that the President ought to have this particular authority because we believe only a President can reconcile all of the disparate interests of 535 Members of Congress who may have an interest in a project that may not have true national interest, then we have given him the authority to veto that particular item, and given us an opportunity to override it. If this particular legislation were designed to collect only those about which there was agreement or only those individual projects which we could consider on their merit, I might well support the distinguished Senator's bill. My objection with this legislation is that we have, in effect, taken every single request by any Senator who asked to have one of the items that was vetoed included in this bill and said, ``We are going to, in one single bill, notwithstanding whatever merit or lack of merit may be evident in these particular items, we are going to tell the President he can't do that.'' I simply disagree. Second, I disagree with the principle that if you are for the line- item veto in principle but can't stand the heat when it applies to a project in your particular district, then, indeed, you ought not to be for the line-item veto. I would not argue with the basic premise of the Senator's remarks that if the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia's legislation to repeal the line-item veto were offered again today, that it might well garner overwhelming support, although I am in a position to suggest that it might not be unanimous.

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for yielding me time because he knows, as I have already alerted him to the fact, that I am going to speak against the position that he has taken for so long and with such eloquence. And as the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas departs, let me say, I agree with almost everything he said, save one small part of the speech that he just made. And I have joined him in voting against most of those other amendments. But I rise today to oppose S. 1292 because I believe the credibility of the Senate is on the line. Just last year, 69 U.S. Senators voted to give the President line- item veto authority. As a former chief executive who had the line-item veto authority, as indeed most Governors have that authority, I supported that decision. I did not use it in the way the senior Senator from Arkansas used it, but I had the authority. And I support it because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to reconcile the competing spending interests of all 535 Members of Congress and make decisions that will be based on our national interests. Today, unfortunately, we stand ready to emasculate completely the line-item veto authority. I realize that many distinguished Members of this body, some of whom have been heard today, many of whom have been heard from on previous occasions, oppose the line-item veto, and have consistently opposed the line-item veto, and indeed believe it is unconstitutional. I would concede that it is quite possible that the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional when they consider it on the merits in a suit brought by plaintiffs who have standing to do so. But let's not pass a bill disapproving the President's veto of nearly every single project he lined out in the military construction appropriations bill. What credibility can supporters of the line-item veto have if, in the first appropriations bill out of the gate, we vote to disapprove the President's action simply because one of our projects is on the list? Mr. President, I don't diminish the political difficulty this legislation poses for Members who have projects on this list. I have three projects on the cancellation list that are in my home State of Virginia. Since I believe these projects have merit, I will work to fund them in future bills. While I do believe strongly that we need to develop some objective criteria for the President to follow when making veto decisions, I never thought that the implementation of the line- item veto would be popular with either the President or Congress. What I find objectionable about this legislation is that we didn't even try to determine the merits of the President's cancellations except for individual Members within their individual States. Instead, to maximize political support, we gave, in effect, every Senator line-item veto authority in reverse--allowing each Member to decide whether appropriations for his or her own projects would be restored. The result is that funding for 34 of the 38 projects vetoed by the President are included in this bill. Is that what line-item veto supporters had in mind last year? It is certainly not what I had in mind, Mr. President. Mr. President, quite simply, this legislation is a test of our resolve to stick by our decision to impose a measure of fiscal discipline on the appropriations process. We gave the President the authority. We expected him to use it. Even those who opposed the legislation expected him to use it. And he did. I am simply not prepared to say that all of the President's actions were totally without justification. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this disapproval bill. Passage of this bill will increase the deficit and set a dangerous precedent that I believe will lead to the emasculation of the line-item veto. But most importantly, Mr. President, passage of this bill would illustrate once again our own failure to make the tough choices, our own failure to be fiscally responsible. Mr. President, I am under no illusions about what is going to happen in this particular case. But I hope before Senators cast their votes, they will think about what it was they thought they were doing when they voted for the line-item veto last year and vote in accordance with the convictions they had last year when they vote on this bill this year. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, with particular thanks to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, who knew I was going to speak against the legislation, which I know he has so eloquently opposed for so very long.

Mr. ROBB. If the Senator will yield to respond on that particular matter, Mr. President, I remind the distinguished Senator from Alaska that I could not agree with him more. I think it is wrong. I agree with the Senator from Arizona, with whom I discussed the problem earlier, that we ought to establish clear criteria, and those criteria ought to be made known to those who would be affected by them, as well as all the rest of the Members of this body.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last spring, a bright young Fairfax County high school senior was murdered while visiting friends in Washington State. Ann Harris was an honor student, a student leader, a gifted athlete, and a member of the Virginia All-State Chorus. Although she didn't live to graduate from Mount Vernon High School--where I graduated over 40 years ago--she carried a 3.4-grade point average and had been accepted, early admissions, to Purdue University. Last spring, Ann had a future filled with unlimited possibilities. This fall, as I know her family continued to struggle with their loss, many of her friends in Mount Vernon's Class of 1997 left home to attend the college of their own choice. But they left home with a chilling loss of innocence--the innocence of those who don't know what it's like to lose someone you care about to a senseless act of violence. We want our young people to be safe. Safe in our schools. Safe in our homes. Safe on our streets. We want them to live and learn and contribute to our country. Ann's family joins us in the gallery today. Let us take this time to recommit ourselves to working for a safer America for all our children. Ann Harris deserved a future limited only by the borders of her dreams. And her friends deserved the innocence of not knowing someone--when you're l7 years old--who loses their future to a senseless act of violence. I will conclude by commending Ann's family for creating Ann's Campaign for a Safer America. This campaign encourages all of us to live life as their daughter would have lived--to ``smile more, care more, love more and understand more.'' As the father of three daughters whose smiles have brightened many rooms, I thank you for your efforts.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct a wrong that has been done to an unknown number of Federal retirees in computing their annuities. Through a letter from Mr. L. David Jones, I was informed that the 1986 Civil Service amendments contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act were being misapplied to penalize career Federal civil servants who had some part-time service at the end of their careers. Mr. Jones, and I'm sure many others, was encouraged to transition to retirement by working part-time for several years rather than just retiring after a 30-year career. Imagine Mr. Jones' surprise when he calculated his annuity after 30 years of full-time service and five years of part-time service and realized that he would have been better off if he had just retired after 30 years. At first I believed this problem was simply a matter of the Office of Personnel Management misunderstanding the intent of Congress and that the situation could be corrected through administrative action. The Office of Personnel Management, however, has firmly stated that they are carrying out the letter of the law, and any change to the current annuity calculation will require congressional action. That is why I am here today. Mr. Jones, and any others who are in a similar situation, deserve to have an annuity that accurately reflects their many years of service. This bill will allow those retirees to have their annuities recalculated to ensure that they are not penalized for not retiring outright. Realize also, however, that this bill does not authorize back payments for any lost annuity--the legislation simply tries to put things right for future payments to retirees affected by this previous error and to ensure that no future retirees are similarly penalized. We must also look ahead and realize that any policy which discourages part-time service in these situations threatens to lead to a ``brain drain'' as baby boomers begin to retire. Many agencies have already expressed concern about their graying workforce and the difficulties they will face as these experienced workers retire. One option often mentioned is to encourage part-time service, so that the experience remains and allows for a transition of responsibilities to younger workers. As it stands now, a civil servant would be ill-advised to agree to that part-time transition to retirement. For both of these reasons, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee to see that this bill is considered as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague from Washington. Change Of Vote

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 245 I was erroneously recorded as voting ``aye'' when in fact I voted ``no,'' as verified by the C-SPAN tape. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official Record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today because I believe the amendment before us is simply another thinly veiled attempt to attack the President's American Heritage River Program and to prevent any American river from participating in this innovative initiative. Rivers have always been an integral part of our Nation's history, and throughout Virginia and across the United States activities are already underway to enhance the economic, historic, cultural, recreational, and environmental value of our rivers. Local government officials, conservationists, and riverfront developers, however, have complained that they cannot figure out which Federal programs they can use to pay for their redevelopment and river restoration projects or how to make their way through the red-tape. The American Heritage Rivers Program is designed to lend a hand of assistance to these community-led waterfront projects. The program will assist localities in gaining access to existing Federal resources and will help bring their plans to life. Mr. President, the American Heritage Rivers Program is voluntary and locally driven. This is a citizens-up effort to revitalize our hometown rivers. Communities will nominate outstanding stretches of America's rivers and 10 rivers will be rewarded special recognition. Each American heritage river will have access to a river navigator, a full- time liaison who is knowledgeable about the needs of the community and the multitude of Federal agencies and programs that could help meet their needs. The river navigator will help cut redtape and match priorities identified by the community with the services of the Federal agencies. The river navigator, however, will not have any power over local decision-making. The American Heritage Rivers Program is solely an effort to increase local access to Federal programs that affect rivers, not to increase Federal management or regulation of rivers. The Federal Government will only respond directly to community needs. Mr. President, the Federal Government has the authority and responsibility to coordinate the use of its limited resources in the best possible manner. If Federal agencies already have programs authorized and appropriated by Congress that are relevant to preserving and revitalizing our rivers, then an initiative that will help to ensure these services are delivered more effectively and efficiently is exactly what we need. I'm not sure when this program became so misrepresented that individuals suddenly began to fear that the implementation of the American Heritage River Program would place an unprecedented Federal stranglehold on property owners. Today I heard the American Heritage Rivers Program referred to as an aquatic assault on the American people launched by President Clinton. That 13 Federal agencies will participate in the takeover of our Nation's rivers and a Federal employee will be appointed to control all land use and management activities within the designated area. My only guess is these fears are rooted in a general distrust of anything that mentions the involvement of the Federal Government. But, in this instance, I find this distrust and these fears unwarranted. The American Heritage Rivers Program simply promises to make a better use of existing sources of Federal assistance and will only coordinate the delivery of those services in a manner designed by the community. And communities can terminate their participation at any time. Mr. President, the sponsor of this amendment says his constituents want a community-led process that will make the right decisions for their particular community, not a federally dominated process that could dictate to property owners how they can use their land. If that is what the people of Arkansas want, then that is exactly what the American Heritage River Program has to offer. But, Senator Hutchinson's amendment does not improve the American Heritage River Program, it only interferes with the President's initiative. This amendment would add unnecessary delays and burdensome requirements to an initiative designed to streamline Federal assistance to community-led efforts. This amendment would even allow Members of Congress to block designations in other regions of the country, where community and congressional support are strong. Additional congressional bureaucracy will only stifle these citizen-led efforts. Right now in North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia, our rivers are under assault and the attack is by a cell from hell, a fishing-killing microbe called pfiesteria. We should be focusing our resources on finding the source of this microorganism and ensuring our water bodies are safe for swimming and for fishing. We should not be considering amendments that attack any new or innovative approaches to river protection and revitalization. That's why Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the citizens and communities from around the country who continue to express resounding support for the American Heritage River Program and to vote against the Hutchinson amendment which stands in their way to protect and revitalize their rivers. I agree entirely with my colleagues from Connecticut and Rhode Island, from whom we will hear in just a moment. This was designed to simplify the process. As I listened to the amendment actually read, it will complicate the process. It will add additional burden to something that is entirely voluntary. There is no new money; there are no new mandates; no applicable provision of Federal law is in any way disturbed. This is simply an attempt to help communities that want to enhance both their environment and their prospects for economic development to do so with the aid of a navigator who will simply coordinate the assistance. The Federal Government is already authorized to bring to bear on the project. That is what the National heritage river initiative is all about. I hope my colleagues will recognize that by adding a very significant regulatory burden you would very substantially undercut the prospects for the success of this particular initiative. It is entirely voluntary. Anybody who does not want to be a part of it does not have to be a part of it. In my own State of Virginia, there is enormous excitement by the business community, by the environmentalists, by all who want to preserve and enhance our environment and who want to take advantage of economic development that flows from it. I hope at the appropriate time, Mr. President, our colleagues will vote against this particular amendment. And with that I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I had planned to make a longer formal statement today, but I will be very brief given the lateness of the hour. Most of the things that I wanted to say have already been said, and in most cases said more eloquently than I suspect I could say them. I really do not enjoy being the burr under the saddle when there is so much euphoria. Many good people have worked long and hard to achieve this compromise which I think is ultimately the only way that the system works in terms of the major proposals that we deal with in this institution. I applaud the President and the Republican leadership for working together. I applaud the ranking members and the chairs of the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee. I have had the privilege of working with the chairman of the Budget Committee for almost 20 years. In my prior incarnation as a Governor, Senator Domenici was always one of the most respected Members of either party from Congress on matters that related to fiscal policy. I know for him this budget agreement represents a major milestone. I know how hard he has worked and I know of his personal commitment to fiscal responsibility and to bringing down the deficit. It is real. I have seen him make tough decisions and without compromising his view of the deal that was finally struck between the President and the leadership in Congress. My guess is that he is at least as enthusiastic, if not more so, about the deficit reduction portion than perhaps some of the timing on the tax cuts. I would say that there are very few people that I know, Mr. President, who wouldn't like to have their taxes reduced. My problem is with the timing of the tax cuts. We have been making real progress on the deficit in the last few years. We are on the right course. We have, as the Senator from Maryland indicated just a minute ago, some of the most favorable economic statistics and optimistic projections we have ever had. If ever we were going to make real long-term progress, not only in reducing the deficit but in actually beginning to reduce the debt, so that we would not be passing on to our children and grandchildren the kinds of burdens that we continue to accumulate, now is the time to address that challenge. And yet we fail to do so at this particular time. We are providing tax cuts that will be gratefully received by many. We are providing incentives for many good programs. And again I applaud the President and the leadership of Congress and all of those who have been involved in this effort. But we are missing an opportunity that may not come again to make a substantial effort toward long-term fiscal responsibility. I am even more concerned that some of the proposals that we are going to pass today will have some very unfortunate consequences in the outyears. I think we will have to look back upon our time on watch and answer to future generations as to why, when we had this opportunity, this window of opportunity in our history, when so many of the economic indicators are so good, we were not willing to make the tough choices. I voted for the package this morning with a tinge of regret. As I have been committed to deficit reduction for my entire public career, I was disappointed that we failed to include in that particular package some rather modest, but important, restraints on entitlement growth, restraints that made sense for our long-term future. They were among the very first parts of the proposal that we moved away from. Just as we failed to show the political courage to take the kind of steps that we could have taken when respected economists told us what the Consumer Price Index was doing to all of the programs that were related to it and the impact a revision would have on the long term. What we are doing here today is providing the kind of good news in the short term that many of our citizens will respond favorably to, but in the long term all of us are going to have to answer for the consequences of our actions. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I applaud those who have worked hard to reach this particular agreement, but I respectfully dissent. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

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