Charles Robb

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will just take one minute to thank my friends and colleagues for their eloquent and very greatly appreciated words. I have never been very good at showing emotion. I am not very good at saying thank you. But I want you to know that your words, your friendship, your leadership and your example have always been appreciated well beyond my ability to express it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thought I would take this opportunity for just a very few minutes to say thank you. I will be leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress. I had assumed, as many of our colleagues had, that this would be the last day of the session. That assumption is very much in question at this point. I just left a conference with members of my caucus, and there are clearly some deeply held convictions and passions that are still unresolved. It may be that we will be here for hours or days. I hope that is not the case, but there frequently are at this particular time in the session those who hold convictions and beliefs so deeply that they do not believe under any circumstance they should leave any stone unturned or any avenue unexplored to advance those convictions and beliefs. While some of those issue are being resolved, I want to take a minute to say thank you, first of all, to the people of Virginia who were kind enough to honor me with 12 years of their representation in the Senate of the United States. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have given to me and my wife Lynda and members of our family an experience we will treasure for the rest of our lives. The personal interaction with colleagues has been a part of the Senate experience that I will always enjoy, remember, and revere. I express to colleagues again on both sides of the aisle how much I appreciate the many considerations they have shown me. I understand my senior colleague from Virginia took the floor while we were in the caucus. I did not hear his words, but I appreciate his cooperation on many issues, and I appreciate his friendship. We have had some differences; certainly, we have had some political differences; but the degree of cooperation between our offices has always been good and strong when it came to working on behalf of our Commonwealth. The Senate is, for many of us, like a family. That sentiment has been expressed before. It is an extended family, and I say to all of those members of that extended family a very sincere thank you. I thank the floor staff and the officers of the Senate for the cooperation that has been extended to me over the past 12 years. I thank the Cloakroom staff from both sides, particularly my own Cloakroom, who work so closely with us on a regular basis to make sure the institution functions, and that we are here when necessary in order to conduct the nation's business. I express my appreciation to all of those who make this institution work. Some of them are visible, such as our friends of the Capitol Police who are here around the clock in a position, as we learned to our regret and sorrow, to put their lives on the line to provide safety and security. There are many other officers of the Senate and employees of the Senate who are not as visible to the public, but are just as crucial to the operation of the Senate. The employees who work for the Architect of the Capitol who take care of many of the duties that are required to make the institution run. We see and work with them on a daily basis. Many of them have extended courtesies and kindnesses to me over a long period of time that I will long remember. There are the many often unheralded folks who help with the phones, who operate the Capitol switchboard, who handle the maintenance, and who work in the food service we do not see but who make it possible for all of us to do our jobs as effectively as possible. These people keep the institution functioning, like the maintenance crews who make the repairs and changes that are frequently required and who always seem able to accommodate--all of their good will is very much appreciated. I thank the pages, too, who work and do all of the things they are required to do during the daytime and then get their studies done at night. We frequently see them working on their studies at the same time they are helping to make life a little easier for us. I also express my appreciation to the committee staffs, the professional staffs who work with each of the committees and help me and all of you on a regular basis. We develop personal friendships with many of these individuals whom we will long remember. Finally, I want to say a very personal thank you to the members of my own staff. I have been extraordinarily well served by some very able professionals who have served their Commonwealth and their country in ways that I will always appreciate and for which they can always be very proud. There have been many, and I am not going to attempt to list them all. It occurred to me that maybe, because I have been so fortunate and so well served, I should mention the names only of those who have been with me continuously helping and assisting me my entire term in the Senate, serving with me over the last 12 years. Two of those professionals actually have been with me through my gubernatorial service: Pat Mayer and Susan Albert, now Susan Albert Carr as of last weekend, have been with me for the full 12 years and then some. Matt McGowan, Jim Connell, JoAnn Pulliam, Anne Geyer, Debbie Lawson-Goins, and Jim O'Quinn have all been kind enough to provide for me the kind of professional staff assistance that has made my job easier. We will remain friends. The members of my staff have helped make this an experience I will cherish. I have undoubtedly left out a number of individuals whom I want to thank and I have tried to thank. I also thank the people who have made this a very good experience for my wife Lynda, particularly the prayer groups. She has been associated with several of those. I understand she gets to continue her membership in the prayer groups and the spouses group, even though I will become a former Member and will leave these premises. Mr. President, I say to all of my colleagues that they are a group of principled, compassionate, caring men and women, many of them friends. We may have disagreements. Some of those are principled disagreements. In fact, I just attended what may be the last Democratic conference called by our leader. I say once again, I heard members express in passionate terms their commitment to doing what they believe is in the best interest of their State and the Nation, and I think that is something that may not always be apparent. Again, that occurs on both sides of the aisle. I am particularly grateful to many who have demonstrated the courage to stand up and be counted when it was not always politically popular. Finally, I want to make a brief comment about the leadership. I thank the majority leader for the courtesies he and the members of his staff have extended to me. I conclude with a special note of thanks to someone I consider an extraordinary leader, who is kind enough to be here for these couple of minutes, Tom Daschle, the current Democratic and minority leader who will become on January 3 through January 20 the majority leader. As a point of personal privilege, I look forward to that time. He and the team that he has put together have been exceptional leaders. I see the distinguished whip Harry Reid on the floor, as well. They have led by example. They have led by inclusion. And they have led by listening. They have been friends. They have been effective. They have been leaders in the truest sense in that they have caused us to want to work with them to make the institution run and to get the job done. So, Mr. President, to you, as a personal friend, and as a representative of our colleagues, and to all of our friends who have been kind to me and have supported some of the things I have done over the years, may I express my profound thanks. I take leave of the Senate proud to have had the opportunity to serve in this great institution. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBB. I do not believe I will exceed 5 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as I may use, consistent with the order for morning business.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first I inquire, is there any limitation on the length of time to speak?

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, throughout my career I have been a staunch advocate for fiscal responsibility, believing that as a government we should make every effort to pay our own way and not leave our debts to our children. That same principle of fiscal responsibility compelled me to be an early cosponsor of the bankruptcy reform bill. I believe that, whenever possible, individuals should take personal responsibility for debts that they incur and pay what they owe. Under our current bankruptcy system, debtors can be absolved of their debts even when they may have the ability to pay. I support bankruptcy reform because I believe that if an individual has the ability to repay their debts, they should have an obligation to do so. The conference report we're considering today adheres to that basic principle. While I have supported bankruptcy reform throughout this Congress, however, I'm extremely disappointed with how we got to this point in the process. There has been a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship recently, but there is little evidence of bipartisanship in the process used to develop this conference report. In fact, that process represents the exact opposite of bipartisanship. The minority was locked out of the deliberations completely. In addition, I'm concerned that important provisions that I supported and which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate were dropped in conference, specifically the amendment involving violence against abortion clinics and the amendment involving the homestead exemption. I continue to support those provisions, but they were not in the bill I originally cosponsored. And while I had hoped that those provisions would be included in the final package, the absence of those provisions doesn't diminish the basic proposition contained in the underlying bill which caused me to lend my support to the measure in the first place. Let me conclude by acknowledging the help and friendship of many of those who have called me or my office over the last few days urging me to change my position on this legislation. Many of the groups and individuals who oppose this bill are among those with whom I most often find common cause and have supported me strongly over the years. It is particularly painful for me not to be able to oblige them in this instance. But I made a decision in May of last year to cosponsor this legislation, and there have been no major substantive changes between then and now that would compel me to change my position. So while I regret having to say ``no'' to so many of my friends, I cannot in good conscience turn my back on a principle which is so fundamental to me-- the principle of personal responsibility. As a result, I will maintain the position I have held since this bill was introduced and will vote for final passage.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, one of the many items that the Senate failed to address during this Congress is legislation that would allow the states to protect themselves from unwanted out-of-state garbage. Three separate bills were offered in the Senate on this issue and each had merit, at least as a point of departure. In fact two of the bills incorporated elements that easily passed the Senate a few years ago. The Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on these bills but failed to move any of the bills forward. This is more than disappointing. For a state like Virginia that is now importing over 7 million tons of municipal solid waste each year, with no way to limit the growth of this unwanted import, it is important that the committee and the full Senate act on legislation. Seven million tons of imported solid waste represents 280,000 truck loads of waste moving into the Commonwealth of Virginia each year. The traffic this generates is reason alone to authorize additional state controls. But there are other reasons. Cheap landfill disposal due to an over abundance of capacity, has made us less vigilant about recycling. And although new federal landfill standards protect our environment better than the old standards, today's landfills are much larger than yesterdays, and we are not yet certain that all the engineering improvements we have made are enough. We may not know if these new landfills leak for a few more years. Transporting waste hundreds of miles for disposal is also a senseless use of diesel fuel, and when we are already facing a shortage we should seek to conserve our fuel resources. We are misallocating fuel that could be used to heat homes this winter and using it to hall trash up and down the east coast. I understand from the Federal Highway Administration that the large trucks used to transport waste get about 6.1 miles per gallon. An out of state delivery of trash to Virginia landfills can amount to 680 miles round trip and 68 gallons of gas. If only half the trips to Virginia are that long, over 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel will be used to ship waste several hundred miles. This is a waste. During this Congress, I introduced one interstate waste bill and co- sponsored two others, and if members of the Senate propose other ways to deal with this problem, I am more than willing to work with them to develop something that is workable for all parties. But at this time unless a state chooses, as some have, to simply stop siting land disposal capacity, they lose all control in terms of how long that capacity will last and what kind of traffic it will receive. When we come back next year I will try again to move legislation. I will meet with the exporting States and I will continue to work toward a goal of wiser use of our resources, and that includes recycling, minimizing waste in the first place and certainly finding a way to dispose of it without moving half way across the country.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the defense authorization bill before us today has historic qualities. It represents another year of real growth in our commitment to national defense and the readiness of the men and women who serve this Nation in uniform. It represents our reinvigorated and growing national consensus on the importance of American military power, and our military's continuing relevance to world peace, stability, and prosperity. Friends and allies around the world will see in this bill America's commitment to leadership and our willingness to keep our military the most powerful ever and equal to the challenge. This bill continues to chip away at the quality of life issues that make service in today's military a greater sacrifice than it needs to be. This bill raises pay, improves housing, authorizes additional bonuses to improve retention, and improves medical care for servicemembers and their families. I am particularly proud that this bill at last acknowledges the promise of lifetime health care made to America's thousands of military retirees and their families. The program put in place by this bill sets the conditions for keeping our promise, but we should have no illusion that this fulfills our debt. The devil, as usual, is in the details and there is much work ahead ensuring that the system we create is up to the requirements of this benefit and accomplishes its purpose. In a respect our real work lies before us, now that we are over the political and budgetary hurdles of keeping the promise. This bill, thankfully but modestly, also increases our procurement, readiness, and research and development accounts. Anyone reading this bill will see our clear intent to deal with our daunting maintenance challenges. Anyone reading this bill will see our clear intent to modernize our tactical aircraft. Anyone reading this bill will see our clear intent to increase shipbuilding rates necessary to sustain a globally capable 300-ship Navy. Anyone reading this bill will see our clear intent to accelerate research and development to bring forward the next generation of aircraft--manned and unmanned, ships, and combat vehicles necessary to our future readiness and security. Unfortunately, the rush, early this year, to massive tax cuts and political fears over new spending worked against us in making the kinds of real and significant increases necessary to address the challenges to our readiness today and tomorrow. There is no doubt that significant increases in the defense top line are ahead. But regrettably, we have missed an opportunity to apply additional resources this year to some of our more chronic military requirements such as aviation spare parts and ship depot maintenance. Equally regrettable, we fail again, in my judgement, to take on the issue of excess infrastructure. One of the best ways we can help pay for current readiness is through reducing the DOD's large ``tail'' of infrastructure and support, which is taking away critical funding for the teeth-- our warfighting troops and equipment that will fight the next year. And the best place to reduce tail is to cut more bases. I am encouraged by the Armed Services Committee chairman's commitment to making additional BRAC legislation his first priority for our next session. It is time to get over the history of this issue and get on with supporting defense establishment requirements. Mr. President, there are very exciting days ahead for America's Armed Forces. The benefits of a strong national economy with projected budget surpluses provide a historic opportunity across the range of national priorities--from paying off our national debt to tax relief. But we also enjoy a historic opportunity to address today's military challenges and reach deeply into the future assuring our continued peace and prosperity. At the same time, we must be careful and have the courage to make tough choices where necessary ensuring that we get the most for our defense dollars. We must not become embroiled in an arms race with ourselves. We are the best already, we need only stay ahead of our greatest threats. Mr. President, for the last couple years one of our greatest readiness challenges has been recruiting and retention. I believe a young American today should see not only a tremendous opportunity to join the best military in the world, but an opportunity to join a military that will get the resources it needs to stay trained and ready. And, more importantly, a military that will get even better. In addition, Mr. President, I rise to talk about events earlier today. The explosion and loss of life this morning aboard the U.S.S. Cole is deeply disturbing and has affected all of us. The U.S.S. Cole, her crew, and their families are homeported in Norfolk, VA, and are proud members of Virginia's Navy family. Our prayers go out to those sailors killed and injured or missing. Our prayers go out to the courageous crew members right now dealing with the aftermath of this attack, and our prayers go out to the families of the U.S.S. Cole who live, as Navy families always have, with quiet courage, with this kind of danger, and in the face of this kind of tragedy. I can confidently report that the extended Navy family in Virginia and around the country is coming together in this tragic moment to support and comfort the families of the U.S.S. Cole. The resources of this Nation will be there for them in this time of great sorrow and need. The U.S. Navy sails into harm's way every day around the world protecting America and her interests. Today's attack is a painful reminder that the world is still a dangerous and uncertain place. America's young men and women in uniform are truly on freedom's frontier. As the CNO reminded us this afternoon, the U.S.S. Cole is one of 101 warships that are currently deployed. We stand ready to provide the Navy whatever support is necessary at this painful time. We are doing everything we can to ensure the rapid evacuation of our casualties, to ensure the security of the crew and ship, to determine who is responsible for this attack, and to take appropriate action in response. Even in the best of conditions, service in the U.S. Navy, afloat or ashore, is inherently dangerous, difficult work. Ships and aircraft at sea in all types of weather, during the day and during the night, are, over the long haul, as hazardous as any conditions we ever ask Americans to serve under. We owe these men and women and their families the best possible leadership, a reasonable quality of life, modern ships, aircraft and equipment, and realistic training. We owe them a fighting chance to serve in harm's way and to come home safe and proud. The Navy is appropriately treating this as a suspected terrorist attack and has responded with antiterror-capable Marine security forces, in addition to the medical support flowing to the aid of the ship and her crew. If we determine that this was a terrorist attack, we should respond in a manner that guarantees that anyone or any state that might use terror against our military or civilians understands that they will pay a heavy price for misjudging either our capability or our will. The U.S. Navy provides an indispensable contribution to world peace and stability. This incident cannot deter us from our commitment to defend our interests wherever they are, anyplace in the world. America will never retreat from our responsibilities, and we will take steps to bring to justice those responsible for this tragic loss of American life. In this time of shock and sorrow, American resolve is called upon once again. We will meet this challenge. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I add my voice to that of my senior colleague in thanking our colleague from Oklahoma for the way he has worked on this particular problem. For a number of months, this seemed to be one of those intractable problems that was probably not going to be resolved. I know the very strong feelings the Senator from Oklahoma has and brought to bear on this question in particular. We may disagree on other matters, but on this question in particular, he struck just the right balance, represented the long-term interests of the United States in a way that allowed us to come to closure on an issue that might not have closed at all and certainly would have created all kinds of difficulty for the United States in our long-term relations in the hemisphere with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and others. I add my voice to others in thanking the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for his very important and tireless work on this issue.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a very brief comment?

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I say to the senior Senator, I am and I have already availed myself of other briefings today.

Mr. ROBB. I thank my senior colleague from Virginia. We will be doing everything we can to respond to this tragedy.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President. I would like to say a few words about the Interior Appropriations bill and CARA. The Interior Appropriation is a good bill. CARA is a great bill. CARA brought together a variety of supporters from all parts of the country to develop a program that would provide for wildlife protection, urban parks, green space, coastal impact protection and would guarantee funding for the development of recreation areas for years to come. Elements of CARA have been included in the Interior bill, although the funding for these provisions is paltry by comparison to the House and Senate CARA bills. Other provisions may find a home in other appropriations packages, but one of the most important elements may be orphaned in the end. That is the provision for wildlife and habitat protection. Just as we are cheering our success in securing a place for wildlife, as we celebrate a growing population of eagles on the Potomac River, we are failing to fund the programs that make this possible. State wildlife agencies have clearly demonstrated their ability to bring back populations of threatened and endangered species, such as the pronghorn and the bald eagle. But they lack the resources to repeat the success on thousands of other species. The purpose of CARA was to provide the ounce of prevention that keeps species from becoming threatened. CARA was to protect both game and nongame populations. By providing dependable state based funding we could ensure on-the-ground protection of wildlife, and continued maintenance of habitat for all wild species. It is important to note that there is an educational component in Title III of CARA. We are increasingly becoming an urban nation, and it is important to provide an introduction to wild places and wild things to our children. This introduction will help them become the next generation of good land stewards. Virginians have come out for CARA. Rarely have I heard from so many different groups who support a piece of legislation. I would like to submit for the Record a list of the Virginia groups who support this legislation and to thank all of the groups for the remarkable job they have done in promoting CARA and the principles of outdoor recreation and education. I am highlighting Title III in my remarks simply because it is being ignored in the Interior Appropriations bill. But each and every title in CARA was thoughtfully deliberated and negotiated. Rarely have I seen such care taken in developing a bill, and even though efforts to allay the concerns of some western Senators were not successful, they were genuine, and I hope useful for future discussions. The Interior bill does provide substantial funding for the Lands Legacy program, and this is important. The bill also provides a good deal of funding for Virginia projects that are particularly worthy. But we could have done better, we could have done more. And I regret that the Senate has not yet risen to the occasion, that we did not complete this important work. Senator Landrieu, like the gracious lady that she is, has not asked CARA sponsors and supporters to withhold our support for the Interior Appropriation, and for the sake of the Virginia projects in the bill I will vote for the Appropriation. But, I will pledge to keep working for the passage of CARA in the final days of the session. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the Record.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues to express my outrage at the treatment of judicial nominees this year. I do so with the same preface as my distinguished friend from Illinois, in saying that I have a good working and personal relationship with the chairman of the committee, but the failure to confirm the nominees at this time is an outrage. I would like to focus my remarks on our efforts to fill one of the vacancies on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has fifteen seats. Five of those seats are currently vacant. We have one seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that has been vacant for a decade--longer than any other vacancy in the nation. Filling this vacancy has been deemed a ``judicial emergency'' by the U.S. Judicial Conference. On June 30, the President of the United States nominated Roger Gregory, a distinguished lawyer from Virginia, to fill this vacancy. Mr. Gregory graduated summa cum laude from Virginia State University and received his J.D. from the University of Michigan. He has an extensive federal practice, is an accomplished attorney, and was described by Commonwealth Magazine as one of Virginia's ``Top 25 Best and Brightest.'' And he has bipartisan support. Senators John Warner and Arlen Specter have also written to the Judiciary Committee to seek a hearing for Mr. Gregory. Despite the well-documented need for another judge on this court, and despite Mr. Gregory's stellar qualifications, the Judiciary Committee has stubbornly refused to even grant Mr. Gregory the courtesy of a hearing. In failing to provide Mr. Gregory with a hearing, the Judiciary Committee is abdicating its Constitutional responsibility and is effectively standing in the courthouse door to block this nomination. Article II of the United States Constitution makes clear that the President is to nominate and the Senate is to provide advice and consent on the nomination. It is difficult for the Senate to provide advice or give its consent if it won't even allow the nominee to be heard. Many excuses have been offered for why this nominee won't be granted a hearing. One convenient excuse is that this is a presidential election year. There is nothing in Article II of the United States Constitution, however, that suspends its provisions every four years. We have a constitutional obligation to render our advice and, if appropriate, grant our consent or, if not appropriate, decline to grant our consent. But we cannot just throw up our hands and declare that this provision of the Constitution is rendered meaningless during presidential election years. The supposed logic that underlies this excuse is that the nominee may not reflect the judicial philosophy of the next Administration. But how can we even question the nominee's judicial philosophy if we never hear from him. So even this excuse argues in favor of granting the nominee a hearing. The most recent excuse for failing to act on Mr. Gregory's nomination is that five years ago a gentleman from North Carolina was nominated for this seat, and so the argument goes this seat now ``belongs'' to North Carolina. But five years before that, when this seat and three others were created, a Virginian was arguably nominated to fill this seat--but the Senate only acted to fill the other three seats and this one has been vacant ever since. More importantly, however, seats on Courts of Appeal don't ``belong'' to any state. As I have already noted, there are only ten judges currently sitting in the Fourth Circuit. Four of these ten judges are filling seats that were previously filled by a candidate judge and then from another state. Finally, it's a little hard for the senior Senator from North Carolina to complain that the seat belongs to North Carolina when he is the one who has been blocking a North Carolinian from filling the seat. Rather than hide behind excuses, the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to seize the opportunity to right a historical wrong. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has the largest percentage of African- Americans in the nation. Yet, the Fourth Circuit has never been integrated. In fact, it is the only Circuit in the country that has never in history had minority representation. If we were to confirm Roger Gregory--who is African-American--we could knock down yet another barrier that has existed for far too long. In my view, courts should better reflect the people over whom they pass judgment. We still have time, if only we have the will to act. In 1992, when there was a Republican in the White House and the Democrats ran the Senate, we confirmed 6 Circuit Court judges later than July: 3 in August 2, in September 1, in October. In fact, its instructive to look at the one nominee who was confirmed in October of 1992. Timothy K. Lewis was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17. The Judiciary Committee gave him a hearing on September 24. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 7, and confirmed by the Senate on October 8. Roger Gregory is an outstanding nominee. Rather than standing in the courthouse door, we ought to throw the door open and desegregate the Fourth Circuit. We ought to end this judicial and moral emergency and we ought to do it now. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve any time remaining for those covered under the unanimous consent order.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize a memorial and gardens in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was a renowned abolitionist and civil rights leader. As a powerful orator, Douglass spoke out against slavery. As an advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, Douglass advocated for equal voting rights for African Americans. Frederick Douglass spent over 20 years living in the Anacostia region of Washington, D.C. and it is appropriate that we dedicate the National Memorial and Gardens to his memory in the community where he lived. As companion legislation gains momentum in the House, it is important that we pledge our support to this worthy endeavor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize a memorial and gardens in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was a renowned abolitionist and civil rights leader. As a powerful orator, Douglass spoke out against slavery. As an advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, Douglass advocated for equal voting rights for African Americans. Frederick Douglass spent over 20 years living in the Anacostia region of Washington, D.C. and it is appropriate that we dedicate the National Memorial and Gardens to his memory in the community where he lived. As companion legislation gains momentum in the House, it is important that we pledge our support to this worthy endeavor.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I intend to vote against the energy and water appropriations conference report this afternoon. I support the vast majority of the bill, in fact, there are a number of projects I have worked for years to have included. But, once again, in addition to those projects, an anti-environmental rider was also attached to this legislation. The President has announced his intention to veto this bill because of that anti-environmental rider. So we will be back here in the next few days considering this legislation again. And I have been assured that when we take up this legislation again, our Virginia projects will be included, since they are not the subject of the dispute. I hope that in the intervening period, we can remove the rider which would prevent the Corps of Engineers from reviewing its procedures to protect the Missouri river and its environment.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Madam President, the suspense regarding this particular vote is long over, but the date on the effect and implications of PNTR in China is really just beginning. My rationale for supporting PNTR differs in some respects from my colleagues, who have mostly emphasized the positive impact on our economy and exports, and it relates to our ability to change the face of China--not just economically, but in terms of improving human rights, labor standards, and environmental protections, and in ensuring the rule of law. My genuine, and I think realistic, hope is that WTO accession becomes a means for improving the most repressive aspects of Chinese society, eventually permitting our two nations to embrace, in a sincere way, the same cause of global security and peace. It will take a concentrated effort by the next President, however, to institute a policy that uses WTO as a cudgel to aid those who have been repressed, incarcerated, and persecuted in China. I would submit that we need to keep the faith with those brave Chinese who have risked their lives in the name of freedom--at Tiananmen and elsewhere--as China adapts its economy to the rules required of every WTO member. Like the President, I believe the choice between economic rights and human rights, between economic security and national security, is a false choice. But I do not believe that the emphasis of American foreign policy should be on engaging and partnering with any Chinese leaders whose sole aim is to maintain and promote the power of a bankrupt Communist party. Looking back on the last 30 years, I think it would be fair to say that the current administration has dedicated an extraordinary amount of effort and attention toward building a lasting cooperative relationship with China. That is not inconsistent with the policies of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush, who appreciated the significance of integrating all aspects of Chinese society into the world community. In this regard I believe that achieving WTO accession is likely to be considered one of the President's single most important achievements during his time in office. The groundwork was laid during previous administrations, but this President demonstrated the instinct and diplomatic skill and judgment to close the deal. He understood the urgency and necessity of bringing the world's third largest economy into compliance with trading rules that nearly all other nations enforce and respect. It is a considerable achievement. The opportunity for foreign equity ownership in China will rise dramatically. Many states subsidies will end. China will have to meet international trade norms. If they break the rules, a WTO panel can intervene with punitive measures. Meanwhile, the United States is not required to change a single tariff, lower a particular subsidy, or alter any of our own invisible barriers to trade. This is a win-win prospect for American businesses. China's leader, Jiang Zemin, while visiting the U.N. a few days ago, had some interesting things to say about the future of his country, and it relates in part to WTO accession. His calculation, clearly, is that one party rule in China can thrive side by side with the economic freedom required by China's membership in the WTO. He believes the two are mutually exclusive. Madam President, that seems paradoxical to me. I don't believe it is tenable to argue that, over the long term, economic capitalism and political communism can coexist, let alone prosper, in the same sovereign country. And it is my fervent hope that in China the former weakens and dissolves the latter. WTO accession for China gets us started in that direction. The legendary Deng Xiao Ping was fond of saying that you should ``cross the river by feeling the stones.'' I think his successors approach WTO with some trepidation, not knowing exactly where those stones are. I would assert that we have a key role to play as WTO rules and regulations penetrate Chinese society, specifically in assisting and supporting and working with newly economically empowered Chinese businessmen, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ordinary citizens. With their profits and financial gain they will be in a position to create the right circumstances for political reform and change inside China. We have a responsibility to do our part in pressuring the regime from outside. Our actions and rhetoric matter on everything from human rights to Tibet to the rule of law. The consequences of failing to ratify PNTR have to be considered as well, and in this case that is why I pledged ahead of time to oppose any and all amendments, even though some clearly had merit. As a practical matter, at this late date in the 106th Congress if the Senate failed to pass a clean version of PNTR it would risk, at least procedurally, getting a measure passed into law by the end of the congressional session. Moreover, I have no doubt that China would misunderstand the reasons for our inability to pass PNTR, and that would, almost inevitably, ratchet up tensions between us even further, and it would create serious national security problems for us and our Asian allies at a minimum. In a larger sense, WTO is about changing the face of China. The economic change will come first, to be sure, but it will lead inexorably to changes in these other areas--and in my judgment, it will lead to positive changes, from our point of view, sooner than if we were to reject PNTR. And to re-emphasize the consequences of failure to ratify, it will also avoid the certain deterioration in our relationship with China that would take place if we rejected PNTR, which, again, would have serious and long lasting consequences in our national security relationships among all of the Pacific nations. It has been my position that we ought to seek to maintain and promote, on a cooperative basis, our relations with China which represent a slight nuance of difference from administration policy designed to engage China strategically as a partner. We share common ground with Beijing on a broad range of subjects, and it makes absolute sense to work together to solve problems on the Korean Peninsula and the like. But that should not prevent us from recognizing that our values and principles are so starkly different. Implying somehow that we're partners, or wishing that it were so, does not speak truth to power. WTO represents an opportunity for the world community to join with a newly empowered economic class in China, and it ought to be treated as a means for strengthening their hand. The focal point for U.S. policymakers should be to promote, sustain, and enforce broad economic freedoms within China. Only then can we make a difference with our overall national security policies, not just through implementation of the WTO that will eventually lead to the political freedom and liberty that the Chinese people deserve. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBB

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

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 12, 1999: Arthur Adams, 41, Philadelphia, PA; Anita Arrington, 36, Charlotte, NC; Robert Bason, 21, Detroit, MI; Keith Brisco, 23, Chicago, IL; Shiesha Davis, 19, Detroit, MI; Clinton Dias, 24, Baltimore, MD; Steve Esparza, 15, San Antonio, TX; Friday D. Gardner, 21, Chicago, IL; Tony M. Gill, 28, Gary, IN; Elaine Howard, 47, Detroit, MI; Greta L. Johnson, 33, Memphis, TN; Rickey D. Johnson, 36, Memphis, TN; Willie Johnson, 20, Miami, FL; Roberto E. Moody, 30, Seattle, WA; Donald Morrison, 20, San Antonio, TX; Deric Parks, 23, Washington, DC; Harry R. Penninger, 69, Memphis, TN; Albert Perry, 31, Detroit, MI; Artemio Raygoza, 22, San Antonio, TX; Douglas M. Stanton, 33, Chicago, IL; Rodrick Swain, 24, Houston, TX; Ramon Vasquez-Ponti, 56, Miami, FL; Damon Williams, 21, Kansas City, MO; Derrion Wilson, 19, Memphis, TN; Margaret Wilson, 52, Dallas, TX; Dwayne Wright, 28, Detroit, MI; Unidentified Male, 18, Norfolk, VA. One of the gun violence victims I mentioned, 20-year-old Donald Morrison of San Antonio, was shot and killed one year ago today when an irritated driver followed Donald into a convenience store parking lot and shot him in the head. Another victim, 33-year-old Greta Johnson of Memphis, was shot and killed one year ago today by her husband before he turned the gun on himself. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Glaucoma Detection Act of 2000. I'm pleased to be joined in its introduction by my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Moynihan. Mr. President, the Medicare Glaucoma Detection Act follows suit in a series of preventive health proposals I've cosponsored to help Medicare beneficiaries take a more active role in their health care. Reforming Medicare by adding preventive benefits recognizes that it is much more cost effective to prevent illness than to treat it. Over the past several years, Congress has expanded Medicare's preventive benefits, adding screening and detection services like mammography, bone mass measurements and screening for prostate and colorectal cancer to help Medicare beneficiaries. It is now time to add another important prevention benefit to Medicare: screening for glaucoma. The Medicare Glaucoma Detection Act of 2000 will give seniors access to the best defense against glaucoma--complete eye examinations on a regular basis. Glaucoma is a significant cause of legal blindness in this country and is the single most common cause of irreversible blindness among African-Americans. In fact, the prevalence of glaucoma is an astounding four to six times higher in African-Americans that the rest of the population. Glaucoma is often called ``the silent thief of sight'' because the afflicted person has no warning sign, no hint that anything is wrong. Over the years, the increased buildup of pressure causes damage to the optic nerve in the back of the eyes. Because the disease does not show any symptoms until considerable damage has been done, coverage of regularly scheduled exams is a critical step in controlling the disease. If detected in the early stages, glaucoma can be effectively treated to prevent loss of vision. The bill I am introducing today will establish a Medicare glaucoma detection benefit that follows the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which recommend that individuals 60 years of age or older with a family history of glaucoma receive a glaucoma screening once every two years. Too many of America's seniors are in danger of losing their vision--an estimated 120,000 persons are legally blind due to glaucoma. This bill is the first step toward reversing that trend. Mr. President, it's important to note that blindness is not simply a medical problem--the costs of glaucoma are both the personal loss of sight and the economic costs to the individual and society associated with blindness. Annual costs to the government associated with blindness are estimated at more than four billion dollars. Moreover, eyesight is a gift that allows seniors to maintain their independence. By helping preserve the ability of seniors to cook, to shop, to drive, to care for themselves and to recognize family and friends, the Medicare Glaucoma Detection Act of 2000 will allow seniors to stay independent longer. We do not yet have a cure for glaucoma, but blindness from glaucoma can be prevented through early detection and treatment. I urge each of my colleagues to support this bill's passage.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment to pay special recognition to a good friend of mine and a distinguished former jurist, Robert R. Merhige, Jr. of Richmond, Virginia. Now in private practice after serving as a U.S. District Judge, Bob was recognized a few months ago in an article in The National Law Journal as the driving force behind the resolution of the Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust. The article details Judge Merhige's efforts to resolve over 400,000 claims, and it's clear that he accomplished this difficult task by working towards a fair result with skill and intellect. He kept his eye on the ball until the job was concluded. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. [From the National Law Journal, May 15, 2000] $3 Billion Later, Dalkon Trust Closes Shop: Mass Tort Clearinghouse Seen by Some as the Best-Run Outfit of Its Kind (By Alan Cooper) Richmond, VA.--The numbers are impressive, even by mass tort standards. More than 400,000 claims reviewed. Nearly $3 billion distributed. Administrative costs just 9%, including lawyer fees. Even more impressive, the job is done. The Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust closed on April 30 with a claim to being the best-managed mass tort plan so far. Retired U.S. District Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., now of counsel at Hunton & Williams, gets much of the credit for what many view as the success of the trust, as well as the blame for what others see as its shortcomings. The trust emerged from the 1985 bankruptcy petition of A.H. Robins Co., which sold 3.6 million intrauterine birth devices called the Dalkon Shield between 1971 and 1974. Robins took it off the market under government pressure. Robins and its products liability insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., were overwhelmed by allegations that women had suffered perforated uteruses and pelvic inflammatory disease that left them sterile. More than 326,000 women filed claims in response to a worldwide ad campaign. Judge Merhige's 1987 estimate that the liability wouldn't top $2.475 billion set off a bidding war, won by American Home Products Corp. It acquired Robins by providing about $2.3 billion for claimants, to be paid by the trust, and $700 million-plus in stock to Robins shareholders. Claimants' payments were based on amounts Robins paid to settle cases before the bankruptcy and based on their medical records. With interest, they totaled nearly $3 billion. Robert E. Manchester, of Burlington, Vt., who represented 3,500-plus claimants, said of Judge Merhige, ``He shaped the solution by tapping into people who were willing to be constructive.'' ``There was a significant number of people who felt they were treated badly by the process''--mostly atypical claimants --plaintiffs' lawyer Stephen W. Bricker, of Richmond said. James F. Szaller, of Cleveland's Brown & Szaller, said that Judge Merhige ``sometimes took unusual courses, but he did get it done. The result for the vast majority of people was good.''

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, Rabbi Israel Zoberman, the leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach and President of the Hampton Roads Board of Rabbis, recently offered some inspirational comments on the selection of our colleague, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, as the Democratic Nominee for Vice President of the United States. I ask that Rabbi Zoberman's comments be printed in the Record. [From the Virginian-Pilot, Aug. 28, 2000] Jewish Candidate for VP: Local Rabbi Sheds Tears of Joy (By Rabbi Israel Zoberman) The Jewish response to events tends to fluctuate from the extreme of elation, of mazal tov!, to the extreme of despair, of oy vey! It is no wonder since the Jewish condition poignantly reflects the tension between the two poles of the human experience; bringing about either a Messianic exaltation concerning sheer survival or a painful note acknowledging a harsh reality. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying in the past that when you give a Jew optimistic news he turns pessimistic. This exaggeration by the hitherto highest ranking Jewish American, a refugee from Nazi Germany, who lacks Senator Joseph Lieberman's proud religious attachment, is rooted in Jewish caution given the trying lessons of its historical experience. It was no surprise then that upon Senator Lieberman's nomination to the National Democratic ticket, there were those Jews who felt that the ever feared specter of anti-Semitism of pre-World War II days might rear its ugly head again. However, the hardcore anti- Semites on the very fringes of society, already assert that the Jews control the world. There were those whose first impulse was to give thanks for the ``miracle'' of finally removing a remaining barrier carrying much symbolism. Since American Jews have already made it in our great land, it serves as a significant reminder that not all doors have been fully open. For most Jews, it probably was a mixed response, weighing all possible consequences to the historic act. Who could remain neutral to Senator Lieberman's own genuine joy mingled with deep, though inclusive, religious expression, and his wife Hadassah's touching sharing of her family Holocaust background. I myself, son of survivors who spent his early childhood in a Displaced Persons Camp in Germany, was moved to tears witnessing a great American drama unfold, reaching a new high. Indeed we have reason to rejoice in America moving closer to fulfilling its promise to all its citizens with renewed hope now that the highest offices in the land will be available to qualified minority candidates of all groups. At this turning point, America has the curiosity and opportunity to learn more about the heritage of its fellow Jewish citizens, with its various spiritual movements, in the way that only this breakthrough event can provide. American Jews, at the same time, are poised to hopefully become more reassured about their own religious and ethnic affiliation in a country where their major challenge is not being rejected as Americans in this, our most hospitable home, but rather retaining their Jewish identity in face of unprecedented easy assimilation into the mainstream. The possible reinvigoration of the political process because of the presently injected excitement, in spite of yet to be proved American response and maturation over the religious factor, is certainly a worthy plus. What our nation urgently needs is less apathy and more involvement by all in an environment with diminished interest in politics and an embarrassing low voting record, which ultimately are the dangers facing our democracy. Civil disagreement, too, on important issues ought to replace the evident cultural war which threatens to tear apart the precious pluralistic fabric of the enviable American quilt--with church and State separation the golden thread keeping it together.

Mr. ROBB

Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended for not to exceed 10 minutes and that I be permitted to speak during that period.