Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Nebraska for sponsoring this legislation. My own experience in combat in Vietnam, having had over 100 of my men wounded and over 20 killed, seeing directly the impact of landmines and booby traps, I know exactly the kind of devastation they can inflict. In my travels around the world where landmines are a principal impediment to farming and other civilian activities in areas where combat had been previously conducted, I have seen its hideous effects, the maiming of many, many individuals. I am pleased to join Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel in this bipartisan effort to eventually eliminate antipersonnel landmines. This legislation reflects a principled first step on our part to halt the spread of these dangerous weapons. If an international consensus is to be achieved ultimately banning their manufacture and deployment, the United States will have to lead by example and restrict its own activities in this area. During peacetime, most Americans reasonably assume that military weapons are safely stored away. That is not the case, regrettably, with landmines. Many countries, particularly developing countries, continue to actively lay mines with tragic consequences. These devices indiscriminately kill or maim an average of 70 individuals a week, or some 26,000 civilians annually. In Bosnia alone, over 250 soldiers of various countries have been injured by landmines. Mr. President, two-thirds of the Senate is formally on record supporting a moratorium on our use of landmines. While this does not get to the heart of the issue, in my mind, beginning the process of demining an estimated 100 or more million mines scattered across the world today, and cutting off funds for new deployments, will sharpen the debate on the utility derived from placing landmines, compared to the damage they inflict. I recognize this is a debate underway for expedited consideration of a comprehensive ban treaty this year through what is known as the Ottawa conference, or embracing the United Nations approach of negotiating a multilateral agreement over a longer period of time. This legislation steers clear of the controversy by formally endorsing neither, but noting each in hortatory language. Moreover, given the belief of some that landmines continue to function as a useful deterrent on the Korean Peninsula, the legislation creates a national security exception for that particular situation. We have a long way to go before we rid ourselves of these insidious devices. Someday I look forward to considering a permanent and international treaty banning the production, stockpiling, sale, and use of these weapons. For now, the legislation proposed by Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel is a modest proposal, eliminating funding for new deployments and, in my judgment, it heads us in the right direction and it has my full support. With that, I yield the floor. I yield any time I may have.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, nearly 7 years ago President Bush invoked emergency economic sanctions against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. Freezing Iraqi financial assets made sense at the time because it prevented Saddam Hussein from funding his war campaign. Now, we need to take steps to unwind the sanctions regime to permit payment to United States businesses who sold products to Iraq but have never been paid. Four years ago this month I introduced legislation--S. 1119, the Secured Payment Act of 1993--with 13 bipartisan cosponsors achieving that purpose. The bill clarified that certain moneys on deposit in United States banks belong to United States companies, not Iraq, and therefore should not be subject to the Iraqi assets freeze. Amendment language similar to S. 1119 was appended to the last State Department Authorization bill following a rollcall vote in the Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate. Unfortunately, the language was dropped in conference, leaving this matter unresolved. The legislation I am introducing today represents a compromise on creating a settlement process for private preinvasion claims. The Iraq Claims Act of 1997 I believe takes a progressive step forward in disseminating the $1.2 billion in frozen assets. First, it vests currently blocked assets in the President. Second, an Iraq Claims Fund will be created by the Treasury Department where those assets will be deposited. Third, within 2 years of enactment of the legislation, payment on private claims--certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission--will be made out of the fund. Fourth, after payment has been made in full on all private claims, any funds remaining shall be made available to satisfy claims of the U.S. Government. Mr. President, although much of the debate over my previous legislation concerned the minutiae of letter of credit law, international business transactions, and economic emergency powers, the Iraq Claims Act of 1997 lays aside those issues and establishes an equitable procedure for considering claims on a prioritized basis. While I understand that the administration is working on a proposal for similar legislation on Iraq claims, I would encourage the State and Treasury Departments to reevaluate their concerns about the approach I am proposing. I would submit that this legislation is the most suitable, and politically viable, compromise available to come to closure on this issue. Mr. President, these frozen assets were blocked to prevent Iraq from using the funds to support its aggression against Kuwait and its allies. That freeze--designed to hurt Iraq--is now hurting American companies. Some of those firms were a mere electronic transfer, a keystroke on a computer, away from receiving their payments when the emergency freeze was imposed. After 7 years, it is time to act expeditiously in their favor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, nearly 7 years ago President Bush invoked emergency economic sanctions against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. Freezing Iraqi financial assets made sense at the time because it prevented Saddam Hussein from funding his war campaign. Now, we need to take steps to unwind the sanctions regime to permit payment to United States businesses who sold products to Iraq but have never been paid. Four years ago this month I introduced legislation--S. 1119, the Secured Payment Act of 1993--with 13 bipartisan cosponsors achieving that purpose. The bill clarified that certain moneys on deposit in United States banks belong to United States companies, not Iraq, and therefore should not be subject to the Iraqi assets freeze. Amendment language similar to S. 1119 was appended to the last State Department Authorization bill following a rollcall vote in the Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate. Unfortunately, the language was dropped in conference, leaving this matter unresolved. The legislation I am introducing today represents a compromise on creating a settlement process for private preinvasion claims. The Iraq Claims Act of 1997 I believe takes a progressive step forward in disseminating the $1.2 billion in frozen assets. First, it vests currently blocked assets in the President. Second, an Iraq Claims Fund will be created by the Treasury Department where those assets will be deposited. Third, within 2 years of enactment of the legislation, payment on private claims--certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission--will be made out of the fund. Fourth, after payment has been made in full on all private claims, any funds remaining shall be made available to satisfy claims of the U.S. Government. Mr. President, although much of the debate over my previous legislation concerned the minutiae of letter of credit law, international business transactions, and economic emergency powers, the Iraq Claims Act of 1997 lays aside those issues and establishes an equitable procedure for considering claims on a prioritized basis. While I understand that the administration is working on a proposal for similar legislation on Iraq claims, I would encourage the State and Treasury Departments to reevaluate their concerns about the approach I am proposing. I would submit that this legislation is the most suitable, and politically viable, compromise available to come to closure on this issue. Mr. President, these frozen assets were blocked to prevent Iraq from using the funds to support its aggression against Kuwait and its allies. That freeze--designed to hurt Iraq--is now hurting American companies. Some of those firms were a mere electronic transfer, a keystroke on a computer, away from receiving their payments when the emergency freeze was imposed. After 7 years, it is time to act expeditiously in their favor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I want to mention another group of Americans who are suffering as Members of Congress continue to hold up the disaster relief supplemental appropriations bill and prevent us from passing a funding measure that the President can sign. That struggling group is our Nation's low-income farmers. Back in April of this year, a group of farmers came to my office and described to me a crisis as real as the floods faced by Americans in the Upper Midwest. It is planting season and many States, including Virginia, have exhausted their total allocation of direct operating loans. Direct operating loans are the funds made available by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cover the costs of planting and repaid when crops are harvested. Without operating funds, the livelihoods of many farmers, mostly on small farms, are threatened. The Operating Loan Program is especially important for minority farmers, many of whom have suffered from the well-documented discrimination within the Department of Agriculture. Discrimination has caused or contributed to the financial ruin of minority farmers nationwide and has resulted in bankruptcies and impoverished retirements. But as the number of black farmers in the United States has dwindled at three times the rate of other farmers nationwide-- nearly to the point of extinction--a few farmers have managed to survive and keep their struggling farms afloat. USDA acknowledges that ``having direct operating loan funds is critical for low-income minority farmers in their effort to become self-sustaining, successful, contributing members of rural communities.'' After speaking with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and with the assistance of Senators Cochran, Bumpers, Stevens and Byrd, we were able to include an appropriation in the supplemental to provide $100 million in direct operating loan funds to those low-income farmers who cannot obtain credit elsewhere. I believe these funds are as critical to serving the needs of small and limited-resource farmers as implementing the recommendations outlined in the Civil Rights Action Team report to remedy many of the long-standing problems plaguing the Department and eradicating, once and for all, the discrimination that has plagued the Department for decades. Unfortunately for Virginia and the other Southern States, it is now June, and we have reached the tail end of the planting season. As we waste time disputing controversial provisions attached to a disaster relief funding bill, we've denied farmers access to loan assistance and prevented the farmers who have survived decades of discrimination the money needed to get their crops in the ground and to keep their farms afloat. Mr. President, I find this situation frustrating, but my frustration must pale in comparison to the low-income and minority farmers who have struggled and, thus far, have managed to survive this manmade disaster. Again I want to thank my colleagues who are interested in helping our Nation's farmers and helped add my language to the supplemental. But, I ask my colleagues who are keeping this desperately needed money out of the field and out of the hands of our Nation's farmers to stop playing politics and let us pass a bill that the President is willing to sign.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Tinner Hill Heritage Foundation. This Saturday, just across the Potomac River in Falls Church, VA, a street festival will celebrate the birth of the modern civil rights movement in Virginia. In the late 1800's, Charles and Mary Tinner bought the top of a hill in Falls Church and it has been known as Tinner Hill ever since. Currently, the seventh generation of Tinners now live on the hill that bears the family name. While the longevity of the Tinner family in and of itself is impressive, what transpired in June 1915 is what will be celebrated this weekend. That year, the Falls Church Town Council adopted an ordinance to segregate the residences of the town. This would mean that many families of African ancestry would have to give up the homes they owned. Dr. E.B. Henderson, a resident of Tinner Hill, organized the Colored Citizens Protective League and filed a suit to prevent enforcement of the ordinance. Dr. Henderson then called a meeting to form the first rural branch of the NAACP in the Nation. Joseph Tinner, son of Charles, became its first president. As a result, the town council reversed the ordinance. Over the next 50 years, the Hendersons, Tinners, and others organized civil rights activities that set a precedent and a model for the rural South. Today, the Tinners and the Hendersons share the hill with a diverse mix of businesses that represent many cultural backgrounds. We all owe a great debt to the brave former inhabitants of Tinner Hill who risked there lives and livelihoods to defend the Bill of Rights and to start a movement that has had far reaching consequences.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, earlier today I supported and the Senate passed a budget resolution negotiated primarily by the leadership of the legislative and executive branches of our Government. I supported this budget resolution, notwithstanding some major disappointments with both the process and the result. I qualify my support for the final agreement because I believe it falls well short of the goals that we should have for a responsible fiscal policy to guide our Nation over the next 5 years and beyond. But in the end, I recognize that this is probably the best product the congressional leadership and this administration could agree on, and that we're much better off doing something than doing nothing. And reaching this general consensus will free the Congress to get on with many of the important matters that continuing gridlock would have postponed. The commitment to reach a balanced budget early in the next century can trace its roots to the hard work done by the President in 1993 and the insistence last Congress, by the new congressional majority, that we set 2002 as a ``date certain'' to actually reach balance. And I think its fair to add that I doubt this agreement would have been possible without the bipartisan groundwork laid by the Centrist Coalition, a group of 22 Senators evenly divided between both sides of the aisle. Our budget was the only balanced budget plan introduced last year which received bipartisan support. Since passing the administration's deficit reduction package in 1993, we have brought the deficit down from $290 billion to what most forecasters expect will be a $67 billion deficit this year. With the aid of lower deficits, low interest rates, and low inflation, the economy continues to expand, bringing unemployment down to 4.9 percent and filling the Federal Treasury with unexpected receipts. These fundamentals, which I believe were set in motion with the passage of the 1993 plan, have now put a balanced budget within our grasp, even if we're relying on some optimistic assumptions about revenues on future Congresses making tougher decisions than we are making in this budget, and on the Social Security surplus to reach that future balance. This is not an insignificant event. The last time the Federal Government submitted a balanced budget was in 1968--for fiscal year 1969--and the surplus that year was only $3.2 billion. As one who came to the Senate in January 1989 pledging to do all I could to eliminate persistent budget deficits, the prospect of actually reaching our goal, even 5 years down the road, is certainly a welcome milestone. As I have already noted, however, this agreement is not all I had hoped it would be. First, I'm very concerned about the assumptions which underlie the plan. Less than 3 weeks ago, negotiators were putting the finishing touches on this same basic budget outline, with a deficit of approximately $50 billion in 2002. It was only after the Congressional Budget Office revised its revenue forecasts that negotiations were able to claim a balanced budget. To fully understand the impact of the CBO revision, the deficit projections for the next 5 years are now a total of $250 billion less than what CBO projected in January. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will actually achieve balance, it seems to me that we would want to use the most conservative economic forecast that we have. If we err in our projections, I would rather err on the side of doing more deficit reduction than less than what is needed to do the job. But even if the more optimistic assumptions come true and we do balance the unified budget in 2002, this plan does little to address the long-term fiscal challenges we face, and in some ways may exacerbate them. While the budget calls for some modest steps to restrain the growth of entitlement spending, in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid, these modest steps do not prevent entitlement spending from taking a larger share of the budget. Mandatory spending in the form of entitlements and interest on the debt will consume over 70 percent of the budget by 2002. This represents a complete reversal from 30 years ago when 70 percent of the budget went for defense and other discretionary investments. And as mandatory spending takes up a greater share of the budget, that leaves less room for investments in human and physical capital that enhance future productivity and economic growth. Not only does this budget not call for significant entitlement reform, the inclusion of tax cuts with large out-year costs also exacerbates our long-term fiscal problems. As all of us know, we face a demographic wave, called the baby boom generation, that will double the number of people eligible for Social Security, and Medicare, between now and 2030. By not addressing the long-term costs of Medicare and Social Security, and by failing to adopt an accurate measure of cost-of-living changes, entitlements will continue to grow at an unsustainable pace. That is at the same time, the tax cuts in this budget plan will take away the revenue needed to finance these expenditures. The most likely result of this scenario is the continued cutbacks on defense and other discretionary priorities in the future or even larger budget deficits than what we have faced in the past. As a result, I view this budget as more of a missed opportunity to address our long-term fiscal challenges rather than the budget balancing achievement that many are celebrating. Notwithstanding my reservations about this agreement, however, and my disappointment in some of its elements, I applaud the President and the congressional leadership for their efforts to end the gridlock and reach a compromise that both sides could live with, even though the deal closers were more spending to satisfy Democrats and more tax cuts to satisfy Republicans--tax cuts I might add that are made with borrowed money. Less of each would have eased the debt burden we are passing on to future generations, and I will work with my colleagues to make it a more fiscally responsible plan along the way. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to file an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. ROBB. Yes, Mr. President, that is the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment from the Senator from Nebraska which expresses the Sense of the Senate that adjustments in Federal benefit programs should be considered by the Senate. I commend my colleague from Nebraska for his work on this important effort. Mr. President, this amendment recognizes the fact that we face an explosion in entitlement spending over the near horizon, not just because we promised too much to too many, but principally due to simple demographics. Our people are living longer and the great baby boomer generation is getting closer to retirement. In l940, the average woman in America who retired at age 65 received social security benefits for l3.4 years. By l995, women--and men--were living much longer. And the average woman retiring in l995 will receive l9.l years of Social Security--or nearly 6 more years of benefits-- because the retirement age still remains at 65. In l950, seven workers supported each social security beneficiary, Mr. President. By l990 there were just five workers per beneficiary. And by the year 2030, there will be fewer than three workers per beneficiary. We all know the statistics. By the year 20l2, if no changes are made, entitlements and interest on the debt will consume every single dollar the Federal Government takes in. This stifles our ability to invest in our Nation and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. And it doesn't have to be, Mr. President. Small steps today can save billions tomorrow. Billions of dollars of debt we will not leave to our children--the baby bust generation, as Pete Peterson calls those who will inherit our debt. Mr. President, this amendment proposes that we work to enact structural reforms which will successfully restrain the growth of mandatory expenditures. In my view, the Senate should consider such reforms as using the most accurate measure of cost-of-living available, extending the civil service retirement age for future Government workers, extending the military retirement age for future enlistees, gradually tracking Medicare eligibility with Social Security eligibility, and extending the retirement age for Social Security. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Otherwise, the day will surely come when we will have to explain to our children why, when we could have made a difference, we failed to enact entitlement reform. These kinds of choices are never easy politically--but they just get tougher as the problem becomes more acute. Now is the time to act if we are going to act responsibly. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will take a minute to commend my two colleagues from Nebraska for introducing this particular resolution today. I was pleased to join with them a few weeks ago over at the Vietnam Memorial. It was my privilege 15 years ago to participate in both the groundbreaking and the dedication. I have had many visits to that memorial since. I think it is very clear that it has served a purpose even beyond the expectations of those who created it and those who were initially involved in the dedication ceremonies. It has a healing effect for all of those who visit, regardless of what their personal feelings may have been about the conflict itself. They recognize that we come together to honor those warriors who gave the last full measure to their country, and the notes that are left behind are the kind of communication that I would defy anyone to read without feeling some of the emotion that is involved in it. I commend both Senator Hagel and Senator Kerrey for this particular resolution this morning, and I commend it to all of our colleagues as an appropriate remembrance of those friends and those who wore our uniform in terms of service to our country in the conflict in Vietnam. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Senators Cochran and Bumpers, chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senators Stevens and Byrd, chairman and ranking member of the full committee, for their help in making loans available to low-income farmers and averting a potential man-made disaster. This is planting season. Many farmers in the Commonwealth, and around the Nation, need to borrow funds to cover the costs of planting, which are repayed when crops are harvested. In the past, these funds have been made available by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its direct operating loan program. Unfortunately, this program is out of funds for the year, and the very livelihoods of many farmers, mostly on small farms, are threatened. Mr. President, when I was told of this situation by a number of farmers who came to my office 2 weeks ago, I contacted Agriculture Secretary Glickman and Senator Bumpers. It was clear to me that the crisis these farmers faced was as real as the floods faced by our fellow Americans in the upper Midwest. With their help, we were able to include in this bill an appropriation that will provide $100 million in direct operating loan funds to our Nation's low-income farmers. Getting this money out into the fields is an emergency. In passing this provision, we will be ``filling the sandbags'' that can protect our farmers from a disaster, this one of manmade origins. Let me just add that this provision is especially important to minority farmers, who have suffered in the past from well-documented discrimination within the Department of Agriculture. I know Secretary Glickman is committed to eradicating the discrimination, but I'm not sure he will be able to succeed on his own. These loans are crucial to these farmers. To quote a memo from the Department of Agriculture, ``many of the low-income farmers which we will not be able to provide operating loan [OL] funds to--if no further money were appropriated-- are minorities. Having adequate direct OL loan funds is critical for low-income minority farmers in their effort to become self-sustaining, successful, contributing members of rural communities.'' Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their help in this matter, and I urge my colleagues to move this legislation quickly, to alleviate both the pain of natural disasters past and the possiblity of this manmade disaster in the near future.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Children's Health Insurance Provides Security [CHIPS] Act because I support expanding access to health care for children who lack coverage today, and because I believe this bill is both flexible and targeted to children in families least likely to have employer- based coverage and least able to purchase health insurance on their own. It is my hope that States will find the enhanced Federal Medicaid match included in this bill to be a valuable tool to assist many vulnerable families, particularly families moving from welfare to work. Far too many welfare recipients will, at least initially, move from dependency into hourly jobs with little pay and few, if any, benefits. Children should not lose their health care because their parents work.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to note the passing of Edith Pratt ``Patty'' Masterson. She died Sunday, April 20, 1997, at the age of 75. Ms. Masterson was very active in Virginia politics, and her contributions to Virginia were noted in the Virginia Pilot newspaper in Norfolk. I ask that a February 16, 1997, article from the Virginia Pilot be included in the Record. As the article indicates, for the past 6 years Ms. Masterson was active in public life as the chief lobbyist for Virginians Against Handgun Violence. Her most prominent victory with that organization was the passage of the one gun per month law in Virginia in 1992. Gun violence is a scourge that threatens the lives of our young people, and simply for her efforts to end gun violence, Ms. Masterson deserved recognition and high praise. But Ms. Masterson's lengthy and remarkable public life, which began more than half a century ago, also deserves recognition. In the 1940's Ms. Masterson became the first woman to argue a case before the South Carolina Supreme Court, and she won her case. She also raised five children and later she went on to teach for 35 years. John Casteen, now the president of the University of Virginia, stated Ms. Masterson was the ``best teacher I've ever seen.'' Ms. Masterson's participation in a variety of civic and educational organizations continued during her last years, and in 1991 she was named Hampton Roads Pioneer Woman of the Year. Mr. President, I commend to this body and the American people the life and public service of Ms. Edith Pratt Masterson. The article follows: [From the Virginian-Pilot and the Ledger-Star, Feb. 16, 1997.] Patty Masterson: a Virginia-Made Activist (By Margaret Edds) The volume is thick as a phone book and appropriately covered in red. ``Only in Virginia--1996,'' the title reads, calling to mind the state's proud promotional slogan, ``Made in Virginia.'' But the handiwork recorded in this fresh-off-the-copying- machine document is no cause for civic pride. The 200-page compilation is of 1996 Virginia newspaper clippings that feature guns and bloodshed. The sampling of Virginia murders, woundings, accidents and suicides is representative but incomplete. Pages contain up to five clippings each, gathered by volunteers across the state. Virginians Against Handgun Violence oversaw the project. The League of Women Voters helped. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington contributed. It is a chilling work. ``When it was clear last year that we were going to have absolutely nothing (in terms of gun-control legislation), it occurred to me that if you could clip all the events involving bloodshed by firearms, not the burglaries or the robberies, it might make an impression,'' said Patty Masterson, a retired Norfolk Academy English teacher who conceived the volume and last week helped distribute it around Capitol Square. She was right. The page-after-page drumbeat of tragedy is first startling, then compelling, then exhausting. One of the women who provided clippings from the Richmond area recently quit. It was too disspiriting an exercise, she said. This is the sixth winter since Masterson, then newly retired from the classroom, adopted the cause of handgun control and moved from Virginia Beach to a Richmond hotel room for a two-month vigil. As a volunteer lobbyist for Virginians Against Handgun Violence, she has become a fixture in the legislative halls, brightening committee rooms with her white hair, knit sweaters and welcoming smile. In this role, Masterson has brought to bear all the skills that have sustained her through an adventurous 74 years-- creativity, passion, good sense. The combination helped make her one of the first female attorneys in South Carolina, a Navy wife and enthusiastic mother of five, a popular teacher for 35 years and the force behind a series of seminars on how children learn. But those characteristics have yet to penetrate the mass consciousness in the Virginia General Assembly. Masterson's most thrilling moments in Richmond were among her first. In the 1992 session, with then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder leading the charge, lawmakers limited over-the-counter handgun sales to one per person per month. ``We did nothing to create it,'' Masterson said recently of the law, ``but we had the fun of surfing in with it.'' Since then, Masterson and her gun-control colleagues have learned both the importance of having a governor in your corner and the frustration of going up against a lobby as entrenched as the National Rifle Association. Last year, all of the major legislation they supported died. This year, two of the three bills Masterson cared most about were not even heard in committee. Her response, like a schoolmarm with a class of sluggards, has been to search for new ways to make lawmakers sit up and take notice. ``Only in Virginia'' is one result. Masterson believes anyone who takes time to peruse its headlines-- ``Father Shot on Way Home,'' ``Boy, 5, Shoots Mother With Father's Rifle,'' ```My Only Son,' Mother says after Slaying,''--must be moved to act. Her commitment does not blind her to the limitations of gun control. ``Even if the sale of handguns to civilians were stopped here and now, we'd still have problems because of the millions of handguns out there,'' Masterson acknowledged. But she also recognizes the consequences of inaction. ``It can only get worse if we do nothing.'' Not surprisingly, the shootings that Masterson most deplores are those involving domestic violence and children who accidentially set off guns. Such deaths or woundings ``seem so unnecessary,'' she said. ``To me, they are products of a proliferation of handguns.'' At a minimum, she believes, gun sales should be limited to storefront transactions or--with private sales--to law- enforcement offices; purchasers should be required to take gun-safety courses, and trigger-locks should be required on guns. As a student of human development, she also believes that society should do much more to guard against the eruption of violence. Gun-control advocates are ``dealing with the tippity, tippity, tip of the iceberg,'' she said. Those working with preschool education and domestic relationships are closer to the core of the problem. Legislative victories or no, what keeps her going is ``a passion for living, for learning, learning, learning,'' she said. It's an attitude that qualifies Masterson as a state treasure, Made In Virginia.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank my friend and colleague from Delaware. Mr. President, there's not much left to say about ratification of the CWC--even here in the Senate. We've had seventeen formal hearings on the topic over the last two years--both open and closed--and as a member of all three national security committees, I have participated in most of them. In addition, the salient features have been discussed in countless meetings and fora that have that have been widely reported in both print and broadcast media. Finally, for everyone involved, the moment of truth has arrived and we will cast what will certainly be one of the most important votes of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I have been committed to ratification for some time, but I know some of our colleagues have had reservations. There is no question that respected opponents of ratification have raised important and legitimate questions. But those questions have been thoroughly and painstakingly answered by the proponents, including and I believe that our failure to ratify this chemical weapons convention today would represent a serious setback for the United States and the entire international community and unquestionably would be viewed as a failure of leadership by the world's indispensable nation. I will not repeat all of the arguments that have been made. In his news conference earlier today the majority leader framed the essential question. And he repeated it here on the Senate floor earlier this afternoon. And I certainly commend him for the way he responded. He asked will we be better off with or without the treaty--for me that is not a close call. I believe we will be much better off, by any measure I can think of, if we ratify the convention. I hope that the 28 conditions that we agreed to yesterday, and the additional reassurances provided by the President today, will insure that at least two-thirds of our colleagues reach the same conclusion. The United States is getting out of the chemical weapons business with or without an international agreement--and because over 70 other nations have already ratified the convention, it goes into effect on April 29th, regardless of what we do. The only matter we'll decide tonight is whether we'll be able to participate and shape banning the use, development, production, and stockpiling of chemical agents, or be cast with the pariah states that will face increasing difficulty due to permanent trade restrictions on non-CWC members. If we want to play a leading role in at least reducing the likelihood that poison gas will be used against us or the rest of the international community, we have no choice but to ratify this convention. Of course, there are no absolutes when it comes to arms control verification, but through the most far-reaching, extensive, and intrusive inspection procedures ever agreed to, the CWC represents a clear step in the right direction. I do not question the patriotism of any of our colleagues who oppose ratification, but I belive we owe a special debt of gratitude to those statesmen who might find some partisan or ideological advantage in opposing ratification, but who put our country's interest first in supporting it. In that regard, I'd like to single out our former colleague and Majority Leader, Bob Dole, who now joins the Presidents of both parties who negotiated, signed, and submitted the convention for ratification, as well as a distinguished galaxy of present and past top-level national security leaders. And, I would like to conclude by commending Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lugar, a longstanding expert in the area of arms control, for their leadership and tenacity these last few weeks. Due to their tireless efforts, I hope we will have the votes to ratify the CWC and signal to the world our continuing leadership, by example, to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction from the face of the earth. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 51 (Purpose: To strike condition no. 32, relating to stemming the proliferation of chemical weapons)

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the professional dedication, vision and public service of Dr. Anita K. Jones who is completing her appointment, after 4 years, as the Director of Defense Research and Engineering [DDR&E]. A native of Texas, and longtime Virginia resident, Dr. Jones is one of this country's preeminent information technology experts and a pioneer for women in science and engineering career fields everywhere. Prior to coming to the Department of Defense, she was the chair of the department of computer science at the University of Virginia. As DDR&E, she serves in one of the Nation's top technical positions and oversees the largest defense research and development organization in the world. Her strong support for, and oversight of, the multibillion-dollar Defense Science and Technology [S&T] Program dramatically improved the warfighting capabilities and readiness of our Nation's military forces both today and well into the future. Dr. Jones spearheaded the implementation of a new structured planning process which aligns technology research and development more directly with critical warfighting and national security priorities. Through strong leadership, she brought the technology and operational military communities together to design detailed plans to sustain U.S. dominance on the battlefield into the next century. In addition, Dr. Jones focused the Department of Defense S&T Program to ensure military and national preeminence in several strategic technologies with both military and commercial application such as information technology, high-performance computing, advanced electronics, materials and modeling and simulation. Her active outreach within the Department of Defense expanded greatly the scope of the Defense S&T Program and the speed and ease at which technology is developed and transitioned into our warfighting arsenal and support infrastructure. Furthermore, her direct support of pervasive technologies such as high end computing and semiconductors resulted in breakthroughs across a wide spectrum of applications, both military and civilian, such as modeling of geophysical phenomenon, aerodynamics and process flow, which contributed directly to our Nation's ability to execute a record number of peacekeeping and military operations without the loss of a single life due to combat. Dr. Jones' awards include the Department of Defense Award for Distinguished Public Service and the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. She has served on several Government advisory boards and scientific review panels such as the Defense Science Board, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the National Research Council, and the National Science Foundation. She is a member of the National Academy of Engineers and is a fellow of the Association of Computing Machinery and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. I know that Dr. Jones' husband, William A. Wulf, and her daughters, Karin and Ellen, are proud of her many accomplishments, and so is the Nation. Her distinguished service will be genuinely missed in the Department of Defense, and all of us who know her wish her every success as she returns to the University of Virginia.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as we debate our tax system and the management of the Internal Revenue Service, I believe we should take time out to recognize a largely unappreciated group of public servants. If there is anyone dreading tax day more than the taxpayer in general, it is the front line IRS employee who is right now trying to handle all of those last minute phone calls and process the bulk of returns that are just now starting to flood in. These people are not the problem, they are the ones who make the system as it exists work in the best way possible. The revenues they collect pay for our national parks, our highways, and our national defense. While we can debate the system at length, I believe we should take a moment today of all days to recognize the hard work done by those front line men and women at the IRS to make our government run.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in order to commend and acknowledge Ms. Joan K. Stevens, who is retiring from the White House Military Office after more than 25 years of dedicated service to her country. Ms. Stevens has loyally assisted six Presidents as a liaison to the military and has had the kind of impact on peoples' lives that demands respect and compels our sincerest appreciation. She has facilitated over 500,000 military inquiries from the public and it is because of individuals such as Ms. Stevens that a healthy communication endures between the Commander in Chief and our troops out in the field. Ms. Stevens first began working in the Special Counsel's Office of the White House in July of 1972 . She later spent time in the First Lady's Office in February of 1973. In November of 1974, however, Ms. Stevens found her calling and the WHMO, in turn, discovered an invaluable and faithful staffer. She has been there ever since, working diligently to perpetuate the idea that the men and women of our Armed Forces are indeed important and have a discernible voice in our government that must be heard. Also noteworthy is the fact that Ms. Stevens has, for more than two decades, been the single point of contact for the thousands of Presidential condolence letters to the next-of-kin of active duty personnel who have tragically died in military related accidents. Paying tribute to America's fallen warriors is an obligation that begins with the leadership of this country. It is hard to imagine the responsibility and burden Ms. Stevens' has ultimately shouldered on behalf of a grateful nation. In recognition of her efforts and devotion, Ms. Stevens was recently awarded the Secretary of Defense Public Service Medal. It is clear Ms. Joan Stevens will be missed dearly. Still, as a fellow Virginian, the State Ms. Stevens has called home for over 26 years, I am truly honored to have the opportunity today to congratulate her on a remarkable career and salute her commitment to the President, the Armed Forces of the United States, and most importantly, to the American people. Mr. President, I ask that you join me, our colleagues both here and in the White House, and the family and friends of Ms. Joan K. Stevens, in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to this exemplary public servant.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that responds to an urgent situation facing the Capital region--the crumbling Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague from the other side of the Potomac, Senator Mikulski. The bridge is already a major bottleneck for travelers on Interstate 95, and in 7 years the current bridge will probably need to be closed as unsafe for travel. It is with this knowledge that Congress created the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority in 1995 to hasten the selection, design, and replacement of the old bridge. The replacement bridge has now been selected, and construction will begin in late 1998 or 1999. Last Thursday, the Washington Post joined the chorus calling for action to fund the bridge, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Post editorial, ``Fixing a Dangerous Bridge,'' be included in the Record. The Post points out that the Clinton administration's $400 million funding proposal is wholly inadequate, that it wouldn't buy three lanes at yesteryear prices. I wholeheartedly agree. So today my distinguished colleague, Senator Mikulski and I are introducing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Full Funding Act to ensure the bridge is completed quickly and funded without tolls. Our legislation authorizes full Federal funding for building the new bridge. This proposal is forward-looking. Today, area roads are already terribly congested. Only Los Angeles has more traffic. And over the next few decades, traffic congestion is expected to increase by 70 percent. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is a bottleneck today because it is old and narrow. Ten years from now we'll still have a bottleneck if, because of inadequate Federal funding, we're forced to put toll booths on the bridge. We need full funding now to keep tomorrow's traffic moving. Full funding for the bridge is also important for the environment-- this metropolitan area has been classified by the EPA as a nonattainment area because of its poor air quality. Traffic congestion contributes significantly to this pollution. For that reason, I've supported mass transit initiatives like commuter rail service and the Metro system, higher fuel economy standards, alternative-fuel vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as telecommuting. These initiatives, while important, are only part of the solution. We also need to keep traffic moving to reduce the amount of time vehicles stand idling and adding to the smog problem in this region. Full funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement will not solve the congestion problems in northern Virginia, but it will help. Finally, my proposal is also reasonable. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is part of the interstate highway system. Comparable interstate projects, including the nearby Baltimore's Fort McHenry Tunnel have received 90 percent Federal funding, despite the fact the projects are owned by the individual States. The bridge, on the other hand, is wholly owned by the Federal Government. Moreover, as a recent opinion piece in Car & Travel put it, the bridge is ``a major gateway to our Nation's Capital.'' It's time for the Federal Government to pay its share. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that responds to an urgent situation facing the Capital region--the crumbling Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague from the other side of the Potomac, Senator Mikulski. The bridge is already a major bottleneck for travelers on Interstate 95, and in 7 years the current bridge will probably need to be closed as unsafe for travel. It is with this knowledge that Congress created the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority in 1995 to hasten the selection, design, and replacement of the old bridge. The replacement bridge has now been selected, and construction will begin in late 1998 or 1999. Last Thursday, the Washington Post joined the chorus calling for action to fund the bridge, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Post editorial, ``Fixing a Dangerous Bridge,'' be included in the Record. The Post points out that the Clinton administration's $400 million funding proposal is wholly inadequate, that it wouldn't buy three lanes at yesteryear prices. I wholeheartedly agree. So today my distinguished colleague, Senator Mikulski and I are introducing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Full Funding Act to ensure the bridge is completed quickly and funded without tolls. Our legislation authorizes full Federal funding for building the new bridge. This proposal is forward-looking. Today, area roads are already terribly congested. Only Los Angeles has more traffic. And over the next few decades, traffic congestion is expected to increase by 70 percent. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is a bottleneck today because it is old and narrow. Ten years from now we'll still have a bottleneck if, because of inadequate Federal funding, we're forced to put toll booths on the bridge. We need full funding now to keep tomorrow's traffic moving. Full funding for the bridge is also important for the environment-- this metropolitan area has been classified by the EPA as a nonattainment area because of its poor air quality. Traffic congestion contributes significantly to this pollution. For that reason, I've supported mass transit initiatives like commuter rail service and the Metro system, higher fuel economy standards, alternative-fuel vehicles, and transportation alternatives such as telecommuting. These initiatives, while important, are only part of the solution. We also need to keep traffic moving to reduce the amount of time vehicles stand idling and adding to the smog problem in this region. Full funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement will not solve the congestion problems in northern Virginia, but it will help. Finally, my proposal is also reasonable. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is part of the interstate highway system. Comparable interstate projects, including the nearby Baltimore's Fort McHenry Tunnel have received 90 percent Federal funding, despite the fact the projects are owned by the individual States. The bridge, on the other hand, is wholly owned by the Federal Government. Moreover, as a recent opinion piece in Car & Travel put it, the bridge is ``a major gateway to our Nation's Capital.'' It's time for the Federal Government to pay its share. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, leadership often involves seizing the moment. And right now the moment is a realbut rapidly fleeting chance to actually balance the Federal budget. For those of us who have long been dedicated to stopping the Federal Government from spending more than it takes in, the moment is now. While we're away from Washington during the recess, I hope that we will use this time to prepare ourselves for serious work on the budget when we return. We cannot let another opportunity to do what's right pass us by. I recognize the fear on both sides. The President is understandably reluctant to embrace a necessary change in the Consumer Price Index because of its effect, however minimal, on benefits for a large and vocal segment of the population. The Republican Party is reluctant to scale back its calls for a massive tax cut because of a similar effect on an equally vocal segment of their supporters. But simple math dictates that both must occur if we are truly interested in balancing the budget and keeping it in balance over the long term. And the reality is that entitlements have got to be curbed, and the resulting savings have got to go to reducing the deficit, not tax cuts. The Speaker of the House has taken a bold step by expressing a willingness to surrender tax cuts until the budget is balanced. I hope the President will meet this bold step by expressing his willingness to reconsider an adjustment in the CPI, or some other means to accomplish the same goal. As meetings take place over the course of the congressional recess, I would encourage both sides to use as a starting point the Centrist Coalition budget developed last year by a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself. The Centrist plan, known also as the Chafee-Breaux plan, was the only budget in the Senate last year that received bipartisan support. In fact, the Centrist plan received 46 votes. And to me, that seems like a logical place to start. Our plan used conservative economic assumptions, a rational reduction in the Consumer Price Index, and a modest tax cut. We did not have, within our coalition, universal agreement on all aspects of the plan. Personally, I have always wanted to postpone even modest tax cuts until we actually achieve balance. But, I believe it provides a reasonable roadmap now of how to get from here to a budget that balances. I hope that this plan will help guide congressional and White House negotiators during their upcoming budget talks. With that, Mr. President, I hope all of our colleagues come back fully reenvigorated and ready to start producing some results. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I submit a resolution to designate the week of May 4, 1997 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.