John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire about the state of business?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to congratulate Payne Stewart for his recent victory at this year's U.S. Open. Payne captured the championship with a dramatic 15-foot putt on the 72nd hole, the final hole of the tournament. Originally from Springfield, Missouri, Payne has continually brought an air of class and dignity to the game of golf that is a true inspiration to all Americans, myself included. In fact, his recent performance has inspired me to hit the greens again. For his triumph in the tournament, Stewart drew strength from the memory of his late father, William Stewart, a two-time Missouri State Amateur Champion. On June 20, the final day of the U.S. Open and also Father's Day, NBC ran a special on the relationship between Payne and William Stewart. Taking the time to watch the special, Payne was moved to tears. This time of reflection may have provided the inspiration needed to make the difference in the tournament. I, too, had a father who was a major influence on my life. I, too, find strength and guidance in the moments I take to remember. Payne Stewart is a credit to the game of golf and an example for all Missourians of what dedication and perseverance bring forth. With his second U.S. Open championship, he has shown the entire world that with enough determination and faith--coupled with a crucial putting tip from his wife--dreams really do come true. Again, I offer an enthusiastic congratulations.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. The defense of American citizens is the highest duty of our government. That duty is fulfilled not only by protecting Americans at home, but U.S. citizens when they are abroad. This nation is a city on a hill, and our stand against oppression often has made us a target for those dark forces of violence and tyranny in the world. Terrorism is and will continue to be a principal weapon of those who would seek to threaten the United States and all for which our country stands. The Middle East is the region of the world with the greatest amount of terrorist activity. Five of the seven state sponsors of terrorism are located in or border on the region the State Department defines as the Near East. Our close ally Israel is often the target of terrorist groups operating in the Middle East, and the deaths of Americans due to terrorist attacks in Israel has been of particular concern to me. My amendment to the State Department Authorization bill simply requires the State Department to compile a report on U.S. citizens who have been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel or in territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The report will include a list of terrorist attacks in which U.S. citizens were killed and information on the groups of individuals responsible for the attack. The whereabouts of suspects implicated in the attacks, whether each suspect has been incarcerated or incarcerated and released, the status of each case pending against each suspect, whether the State Department has offered any reward for these terrorist suspects, and an overview of U.S. efforts to investigate and apprehend these suspects are particular points of concern my amendment addresses. Since the signing of Oslo in 1993, at least 12 American citizens have been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel or territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority: Nachson Wachsman, Joan Davenny, Leah Stern, Yael Botwin, Yaron Unger, Sara Duker, Matthew Eisenfeld, Ira Weinstein, Alisa Flatow, David Boim, Daniel Frei, and Yitzchak Weinstock. Responsibility for almost all of these murders has been claimed by Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, two terrorist groups supported by Iran and Syria and dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Terrorism's toll on Israel has been high as well. Since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, Israel has lost more than 280 of its citizens to terrorist violence in over 1,000 terrorist attacks (a portion of the Israeli population comparable to 15,000 Americans). Jean-Claude Niddam of the Israeli Ministry of Justice testified before the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee on March 25, 1999, and gave an overview of the difficulties related to prosecuting suspects implicated in the murder of U.S. citizens. First, Mr. Niddam notes that terrorists suspected of killing Americans have found shelter in the Palestinian Authority. For the last 4 years, Israel has submitted almost 40 official requests to the Palestinian Authority to transfer suspects implicated in terrorism against Israelis and Americans, but has yet to receive a reply. Out of 38 requests to arrest and transfer terrorist suspects, only 12 suspects are currently under arrest and 7 are serving or served until recently in the Palestinian police force. Mr. Niddam's testimony focused on eight terrorist suspects involved in terrorist attacks against Americans. Three of these suspects have been detained by the Palestinian Authority. One of those imprisoned, Imjad Hinawi, confessed in a Palestinian court to the murder of David Boim. The confession was witnessed by a U.S. embassy official present at the trial. If there is a good reason why the Administration has not indicted Mr. Hinawi, it is the time for a clear explanation. Another suspect, Ibrahim Ghanimat, linked to the shooting deaths of Yaron Unger and his wife Efrat, spends his nights in prison but is free to come and go during the day. Adnan al-Ghul, Yusuf Samiri, and Mohammad Dief, three other suspects involved in the killings of Americans, are all at large. Nafez Sabi'h was implicated in a bombing that killed three Americans, but was believed to be serving in the Palestinian police force until several months ago. In recent years, other suspects implicated in the murder of American citizens have served in the Palestinian police force. In July 1998, the Israeli Government released a report stating that four terrorist suspects involved in the February 1996 Jerusalem bus bombing, in which three American citizens were killed, were serving in Palestinian security forces. A climate conducive to terrorism is the most serious threat to a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. When Abul Abbas, the hijacker of the Achille Lauro, lives freely in Gaza and is a close associate of Yasser Arafat; when the Palestinian Authority's official media arm, the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, airs programming which teaches Palestinian children to hate Israelis; when terrorist suspects are given positions in the Palestinian security forces-- genuine peace is undermined and U.S. interests endangered in the Middle East. It is time for the United States to get serious about defending its own. President Clinton promised that no quarter would be given to terrorists who killed 12 Americans in the Africa embassy bombings in August 1998. But I fear this administration has not been pursuing aggressively terrorist suspects implicated in the murder of a similar number of Americans in Israel. Recent testimony by top administration officials does not indicate that our resolve to prosecute these cases is strengthening. Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, was called to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee last March on terrorism against U.S. citizens, but his written testimony did not even discuss these cases or what the State Department is doing to resolve them. George Washington once said that if we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. A credible defense deters aggression and war, and a similar principle is at work in meeting the threat of terrorism today. If terrorists know they will suffer for attacking Americans, they will be less likely to engage in such violence. President Reagan's response to Libyan terrorism quieted that government for over a decade. While we cannot prevent violence against every American abroad, we can ensure that terrorists who attack U.S. citizens are pursued relentlessly. I call on the administration to wage a more aggressive campaign against terrorists who have killed Americans, and this report will give Congress the ability to review the administration's efforts more effectively. I thank Senator Helms and Senator Biden for their assistance with this amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and myself, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I also am pleased to include a list of 34 colleagues as original cosponsors. It is an opportunity to address a very important need for American families--spending more time together. Over the past four years, we have been talking about the difficulty that parents have balancing work and family obligations. I do not think there are two values that are more highly or intensely admired in America than these. The first one is the value we place on our families. We understand that more than anything else the family is an institution where important things are learned, not just knowledge imparted but wisdom is obtained and understood in a family which teaches us not just how to do something but teaches us how to live. The second value which is a strong value in America and reflects our heritage is the value of work. Americans admire and respect work. We are a culture that says if you work well, you should be paid well. If you have merit, you should be rewarded. If you take risks and succeed-- you represent the engine that drives America forward. The difficult issue that faces us as a nation, is how are we going to resolve these tensions? I think that is one of the jobs, that we have to try and make sure we build a framework where people can resolve those tensions and where Government somehow does not have rules or interference that keeps people from resolving those tensions. For example, there are a lot of times when an individual would say on Friday afternoon to his boss or her boss, ``My daughter is getting an award at the high school assembly today. Can I have an extended lunch hour, maybe just 1 hour so that I can see my daughter get the award? I would like to reinforce, I would like to give her an `atta girl,' I would like to hug her and say, `You did a great job, this is the way you ought to work and conduct yourself, it is going to mean a lot to yourself and our family and our country if you keep it up.' '' Right now, it is illegal for the boss to say, ``I will let you take an hour on Friday and you can make it up on Monday,'' because it is in a different 40-hour week. You cannot trade 1 hour for 1 hour from one week to the next. That will make one week a 41-hour week and will go into overtime calculation. Since most bosses do not want to be involved in overtime, it just does not happen. This tension between the workplace and the home place, juxtaposed or set in a framework of laws created in the 1930's that does not allow us flexibility, is a problem. For example, you might be asked to do overtime over and over and over again, and you do overtime, and then you are paid time and a half for your overtime. But at some point, you would rather have the time than the money. If the employer agreed to it voluntarily--both parties--we ought to let that happen. It is against the law. Some employers even want to go so far as to help their families by saying instead of doing 1 week for 40 hours, we would be willing, if you wanted to and on a voluntary basis, let the worker average 40 hours over a 2-week period regularly, so you would only work 9 days in the 2 weeks, but you would work 45 hours the first week and 35 hours the second week and have every other Friday off so you could take the kids to the dentist or drop by the department of motor vehicles and get the car licensed or visit the governmental offices that are not open on Saturday. It is against the law to do that now. What I have described are two ways to tackle these time problems. First, is the option--when you work overtime, to get in time rather than money--if that is what you want to do. Second, you could schedule a work schedule to fill your needs by spreading 80 hours over two weeks to better accommodate your needs and the needs of your families. Both of these things are available in the Federal Government and for governmental entities. Since 1978, the Federal Government has said it is OK to swap comp time off instead of overtime pay. The Federal Government also said if you want to have some flexible scheduling so that every other Friday or every other Monday is off, that is something we can work with you on. It is totally voluntary--voluntary for the worker, it is voluntary for the Federal Government employer or administrator. Neither can force the other because we do not want to force people to work overtime or take comp time, but we want to allow Americans to make choices which will help them resolve the tensions between the home place and the workplace, these two values that are in competition. These potentials, which exist for Federal workers, it occurs to me, ought to be able to be available to workers in the private sector as well, were we not to be locked into the hard and fast rules of the 1930's. That was a time when Henry Ford said, ``You can have your Ford any color you want so long as it is black.'' Things were not quite as flexible then as they are now, and families did not need the flexibility then as they do now. With 70 to 80 percent of all mothers of school-age children now working and two parents working in all those settings, and the tension between work and home, I think we ought to have more flexibility at the option of both the employer and the worker, only when it is agreed to. That is really the subject of the Family Friendly Workplace Act which we reintroduce today. It is a way of saying we need to allow families to work out the conflict that exists between these important values that are crucial and so fundamental to the success of this culture in the next century, not just fundamental to the success of our culture, but fundamental to the success of our own families.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and myself, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I also am pleased to include a list of 34 colleagues as original cosponsors. It is an opportunity to address a very important need for American families--spending more time together. Over the past four years, we have been talking about the difficulty that parents have balancing work and family obligations. I do not think there are two values that are more highly or intensely admired in America than these. The first one is the value we place on our families. We understand that more than anything else the family is an institution where important things are learned, not just knowledge imparted but wisdom is obtained and understood in a family which teaches us not just how to do something but teaches us how to live. The second value which is a strong value in America and reflects our heritage is the value of work. Americans admire and respect work. We are a culture that says if you work well, you should be paid well. If you have merit, you should be rewarded. If you take risks and succeed-- you represent the engine that drives America forward. The difficult issue that faces us as a nation, is how are we going to resolve these tensions? I think that is one of the jobs, that we have to try and make sure we build a framework where people can resolve those tensions and where Government somehow does not have rules or interference that keeps people from resolving those tensions. For example, there are a lot of times when an individual would say on Friday afternoon to his boss or her boss, ``My daughter is getting an award at the high school assembly today. Can I have an extended lunch hour, maybe just 1 hour so that I can see my daughter get the award? I would like to reinforce, I would like to give her an `atta girl,' I would like to hug her and say, `You did a great job, this is the way you ought to work and conduct yourself, it is going to mean a lot to yourself and our family and our country if you keep it up.' '' Right now, it is illegal for the boss to say, ``I will let you take an hour on Friday and you can make it up on Monday,'' because it is in a different 40-hour week. You cannot trade 1 hour for 1 hour from one week to the next. That will make one week a 41-hour week and will go into overtime calculation. Since most bosses do not want to be involved in overtime, it just does not happen. This tension between the workplace and the home place, juxtaposed or set in a framework of laws created in the 1930's that does not allow us flexibility, is a problem. For example, you might be asked to do overtime over and over and over again, and you do overtime, and then you are paid time and a half for your overtime. But at some point, you would rather have the time than the money. If the employer agreed to it voluntarily--both parties--we ought to let that happen. It is against the law. Some employers even want to go so far as to help their families by saying instead of doing 1 week for 40 hours, we would be willing, if you wanted to and on a voluntary basis, let the worker average 40 hours over a 2-week period regularly, so you would only work 9 days in the 2 weeks, but you would work 45 hours the first week and 35 hours the second week and have every other Friday off so you could take the kids to the dentist or drop by the department of motor vehicles and get the car licensed or visit the governmental offices that are not open on Saturday. It is against the law to do that now. What I have described are two ways to tackle these time problems. First, is the option--when you work overtime, to get in time rather than money--if that is what you want to do. Second, you could schedule a work schedule to fill your needs by spreading 80 hours over two weeks to better accommodate your needs and the needs of your families. Both of these things are available in the Federal Government and for governmental entities. Since 1978, the Federal Government has said it is OK to swap comp time off instead of overtime pay. The Federal Government also said if you want to have some flexible scheduling so that every other Friday or every other Monday is off, that is something we can work with you on. It is totally voluntary--voluntary for the worker, it is voluntary for the Federal Government employer or administrator. Neither can force the other because we do not want to force people to work overtime or take comp time, but we want to allow Americans to make choices which will help them resolve the tensions between the home place and the workplace, these two values that are in competition. These potentials, which exist for Federal workers, it occurs to me, ought to be able to be available to workers in the private sector as well, were we not to be locked into the hard and fast rules of the 1930's. That was a time when Henry Ford said, ``You can have your Ford any color you want so long as it is black.'' Things were not quite as flexible then as they are now, and families did not need the flexibility then as they do now. With 70 to 80 percent of all mothers of school-age children now working and two parents working in all those settings, and the tension between work and home, I think we ought to have more flexibility at the option of both the employer and the worker, only when it is agreed to. That is really the subject of the Family Friendly Workplace Act which we reintroduce today. It is a way of saying we need to allow families to work out the conflict that exists between these important values that are crucial and so fundamental to the success of this culture in the next century, not just fundamental to the success of our culture, but fundamental to the success of our own families.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to invoke cloture on the Herger Social Security safe deposit box. This legislation will create a much-needed mechanism to protect Social Security surpluses from being spent on non-Social Security items. We need this legislation because, despite his promises to save Social Security and to protect Social Security, the President keeps forwarding budgets which would take a massive bite out of Social Security. We need this legislation. For example, under President Clinton's proposed budget, $158 billion from the fiscal year 2000 to 2004 budget will be diverted from debt reduction--which is getting the obligations of the country down so we can honor the responsibilities we have to Social Security--it will be diverted by the President, $158 billion, toward more spending. According to the Senate Budget Committee, that would represent 21 percent of the Social Security surplus over that period. In fiscal year 2000 itself, that represents $40 billion, or 30 percent of the surplus. While President Clinton has been proposing that we spend the Social Security surplus, this Congress has been working to protect Social Security. In March, I introduced S. 502, the Protect Social Security Benefits Act. This legislation, which the Herger legislation before us follows-- very similar--called for the establishment of a point of order that would prevent the House and Senate from passing or even debating bills that would spend money from the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security benefits or reducing our debt so that we have a better capacity to pay for Social Security. In April, we passed a budget resolution that does not spend a dime out of the Social Security surplus. In addition to protecting the Social Security surplus, the budget resolution sticks to the spending caps from the 1997 balanced budget agreement. It cuts taxes and it increases spending on education and defense within those limits. That is the way we ought to operate in terms of protecting Social Security and setting priorities. Folks may not understand the entirety of what it means to have a point of order. It simply means when a person proposes spending that would require us to invade the surplus of Social Security in order to cover the spending, a point of order can be raised and that proposal will be ruled out of order. In other words, when someone proposes invading Social Security, the Chair can say that is out of order, and we cannot debate it, let alone discuss it. We cannot vote on it unless we change the rules of the engagement, unless we set aside the rules. I do not think Members of this body are going to say we want something so bad that we are going to invade the retirement of Americans in order to get it. Not only is the point of order established, but it is a 60-vote point of order, meaning you have to have an overwhelming majority of the Congress in order to make sure that is done. I believe this is the kind of durable, workable protection for the Social Security surplus that will make sure we do not continue what we have done for the last 20 years; and that is, to pretend that that money is available for spending on social programs, the normal operation of Government. We, as a result of that, boosted Government spending monumentally by acting as if the Social Security surplus was merely available for ordinary spending. It should not be. It should be protected. The Social Security surplus, therefore, should be the subject of the point of order called for in this measure upon which we will vote shortly. This vote is all about protecting Social Security surpluses. It is a vote about making sure that the surpluses are not used to pay for new budget deficits or operations in the rest of Government. The vote supporting the Herger plan should be bipartisan and unanimous. Think about what the vote was in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, this vote was 416 to 12--416 to 12. That is an overwhelming endorsement. During the debate on the budget resolution, the Senate voted 99 to 0 in support of legislation to protect Social Security. We are calling on every Senator to vote with us to pass the legislation implementing this unanimous resolution. As I said, in addition, the House recently passed the Herger bill, 416-12. There is no reason that the Senators on the other side of the aisle should not join with us on this vote to protect Social Security. I want to commend Congressman Herger for his hard work in bringing the bill to the floor and obtaining such an overwhelming vote in favor of protecting Social Security. I hope that we can do the same on the Senate side and put this bill on the President's desk immediately. We need to pass this bill because we need to implement procedures to protect Social Security now. Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2034. Starting in 2014, Social Security will begin spending more than it collects in taxes. Despite this impending crisis, over the next 5 years, President Clinton's budget proposes spending $158 billion of the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security programs. We need to stop this kind of raid on Social Security. We need to protect Social Security now for the 1 million Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, for their children, and for their grandchildren. This provision will help do that, by making sure that Social Security funds do not go for anything other than Social Security. Under this provision, Congress will no longer routinely pass budgets that use Social Security funds to balance the budget. A congressional budget that uses Social Security funds to balance the budget will be subject to a point of order, and cannot be passed, or even considered, unless 60 Senators vote to override the point of order. One of the most important lessons a parent teaches a child is to be responsible--responsible for his or her conduct and responsible for his or her money. America needs to be responsible with the people's money. The Herger bill, like the original Ashcroft point of order, will show the American people that we are being responsible, by protecting the Social Security system from irresponsible Government spending. Americans, including the 1 million Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, want Social Security protected. This bill does what America wants, and what every Senator has said they want to do. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to commend the sesquicentennial celebration of the founding of McDonald County, Missouri. On March 3, 1849, the Missouri State Legislature established McDonald County, which was named in honor of a hero of the Revolutionary War, Alexander McDonald. McDonald County is rich in hospitality, heritage and history. During the Civil War, McDonald County was the scene of many battles, including battles at Pineville on November 19, 1862, and August 13, 1983. Through the hardships of the war, and through the challenges of peace, the good people of McDonald County stood fast for the values of faith, family, freedom, and hard work. Today, the county celebrates 150 years of history. An exciting time came in 1938, during the Great Depression, when Hollywood came to McDonald County to make the movie ``Jesse James,'' which starred Tyrone Powers, Henry Fonda, and Randolph Scott. Each Christmas, the city of Noel in McDonald County receives thousands of cards from all over the country, and affixes the ``Christmas City'' message on cards that wish the joy of the season to family and friends all over the U.S. In addition to agriculture and industry, McDonald County is a paradise for outdoor recreation. Its rugged hills and valleys, watered by springs, rivers, and streams, attract thousands of anglers, boaters, hikers, and others. It is an honor to join with the people of McDonald County in celebrating 150 years of history. Mr. President, I ask that members of the Senate join me in recognizing this historic milestone for McDonald County, Missouri.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few moments about the F-15 Eagle, the finest fighter plane in the world. The F-15 arguably has been the most successful fighter in the history of U.S. aviation warfare. Unfortunately, the United States is in danger of losing this aircraft. The Administration is well aware of the performance record of the F-15, but in not taking the steps necessary to save the line. The Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I had a debate this morning on congressional oversight of the Department of Defense. I agreed with the Senator from Wisconsin that Congress has oversight responsibilities for the Pentagon, but disagreed with abdicating that responsibility to GAO. In the case of the F/A-18E/F, Congress has exercised its oversight responsibilities. Three of the four oversight committees already have approved the multiyear contract for the E/F, and the House appropriators are expected to next month. But Congress does have a responsibility to address deficiencies in judgment within the Defense Department when it sees them. The loss of the F-15 is just such a case. General Richard Hawley, Commander of the Air Force's Combat Command, stated just this month that ``. . . the F- 15 is the most stressed fighter in Air Combat Command's inventory right now in terms of its use in engagements and the operational tempo of the aircrews.'' Given the nature of the threats we face today, which require the strike, range, and versatility of the F-15, it is easy to see why this fighter is the most tasked plane in the Air Force. The loss of the F-15 will harm national security and harm my home state of Missouri. Seven thousand highly skilled aerospace workers will lose their jobs if the F-15 line closes. Those workers and their knowledge is a national security asset that must not be lost. On almost every front, the arguments are compelling for maintaining this national security asset. There is plenty of work for the F-15 to do. Purchasing more planes provides a critical fighter to the Air Force. Purchasing more planes would preserve the production capability of this critical national security asset. Finally, Congress wants to encourage budgetary discipline in other tactical fighter programs. Purchasing more F-15s would encourage budgetary discipline in the F-22 program. I and many of the members from the Missouri and Illinois delegations have written to the President requesting a meeting regarding the F-15. We have not received a reply. We have asked the President that he take the steps necessary to keep the F-15 line open. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has blocked efforts to do so. The F-15 program was initiated with a Request for Proposal in December 1968. The first model, the F-15A, entered operational service in 1976. The F-15A was a single mission, air superiority fighter with a maximum gross weight of 56,000 pounds. The F-15 entered the world stage as the dominant air superiority fighter in 1976, and the evolution of the program demonstrates just how much this great fighter improved over the years. After twelve years and subsequent models of the F-15 were developed, the latest model, the F- 15E, was delivered to the Air Force in 1988. The F-15E's gross weight was 45 percent greater than the A model. Engineers increased fuel capacity over 50 percent to 34,000 pounds, giving the aircraft record range. Payload was enhanced and the dominant air-to-air platform was given critical air-to-ground capabilities. Avionics, engine, and weapons technology were also upgraded. The F-15 is arguably the most versatile and effective fighter in the history of the U.S. Air Force. The F-15 has never lost in air-to-air combat. It has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any fighter in the history of U.S. aviation warfare: 96.5 to 0. That was certainly the case in Desert Storm, where F-15s destroyed 33 of the 35 fixed-wing aircraft Iraq lost in air combat. The F-15E maintained a 95.5 percent average mission capable rate, the highest of any fighter in the war. The F-15's stellar performance also has been on display in Kosovo. General Johnny Jumper, Commander of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has lauded the performance of the F-15 as the workhorse of the operation. In addition, the F-15 has the best safety record of any Air Force fighter: 2.42 losses per 100,000 flying hours. With a record like that--the best safety record, the most successful air-to-air combat record, the most versatile aircraft in the Air Force inventory--it is not difficult to see why the plane is in such demand. One of the major concerns about the F-15 is the cost of the airplane. When you compare a $50 million F-15 to an F-22 that costs over $100 million, the F-15 doesn't look so bad. But even against the cheaper F- 16, the cost differential is not as great as it appears. The greater capabilities of the F-15 over the F-16 negate much of the cost differential. RAND completed a study for the Air Force entitled ``Measuring Effects of Payload and Radius Differences of Fighter Aircraft.'' Let me mention several of the major conclusions of the report which were made in light of the nature of future conflicts. First, increasing the use of inertially/GPS-aided weapons could exploit the inherent payload carriage advantage of the F-15E. Second, most regional conflict scenarios involve long distances from bases to targets, favoring aircraft having greater combat radius. Third, as the fighter force structure contracts, higher quality systems can help maintain force capability. Each of those conclusions point to the desirability of the F-15. A major conclusion of the report was that ``Over a wide spectrum of cases, our analysis suggests that an equal cost but smaller force of F- 15s is a more cost effective carrier of weapons to the target area than an alternative larger force of F-15Cs. Looking to the future, the employment characteristics of future precision weapons, the size of many potential regional conflict theaters, and the reality of expected force structure contractions seem consistent with the capabilities offered by large payload, long radius vehicles such as the F-15E.'' Another reason to maintain the production capability of the F-15 is uncertainty over the future of the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter. These fighter programs may have additional developmental difficulties. The F- 22 is not expected to be in operational service until 2005. The Joint Strike Fighter will not be in service until 2010 or later. Remember, these are the best case scenarios. Since its inception, the F-22 program has been restructured three times, with a 50 percent reduction in the number of planes to be procured. The F-22 is up against a budget cap and has run out of political capital in Congress. Additional, significant increases in cost could jeopardize the program, which still has five years to go to Initial Operational Capability. Because the Air Force has had to reduce the number of F-22s it will buy, it will need to rely more on the F-15. Colonel Frederick Richardson, chief of F-22 requirements at Air Combat Command, states ``From a pure numbers standpoint, we're clearly not going to be able to replace the F-15 with F-22s on a one-to-one basis, which means we'll have to assume some more risks and probably keep the F-15 around for longer than 23 planned.'' But if the F-15 line is shut down, there won't be the production capabilities to fill the gap. To conclude, Mr. President, the F-15 is the best fighter in the world. Its unique capabilities have made it the most heavily tasked aircraft in the force today, according to General Hawley, Commander of the Air Force's Combat Command. The RAND study concludes that the F-15E is the kind of airplane we need to meet the security threats of the future. The Air Force is not infallible. The RAND study itself encourages the Air Force to pursue a better mix of fighter aircraft, stating that ``To maintain force capability as its force structure contracts, the Air Force may need to strive for a higher quality mix of forces. The Air Force should be alert to opportunities for maintaining and in some cases enhancing overall force effectiveness despite cuts in force structure'' (From the report ``Measuring Effects of Payload and Radius Differences of Fighter Aircraft). By purchasing additional F-15Es, not only are we taking appropriate steps to meet our current force needs, we are preserving a critical national security asset for an uncertain future. I reiterate my call on the President to take the necessary steps to keep the F-15 line open.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in response to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin. The senior Senator from Missouri has stated eloquently the need to respond to the military demands of America in ways that the military believes are effective. We have in the E/F a program that is under budget, under cost. It is on schedule. It is certified ready for operational test and evaluation. Those who have had the ability and opportunity to fly it have certified to its character and its characteristics as those that are needed. Every aircraft that we have in our arsenal has some characteristics which preclude others. There are tradeoffs. So there will be those who attack this aircraft and say it doesn't do this as well as something else does, or it doesn't do that as well as another plane does. The fact of the matter is, a plane must do what it is designed to do. When it does what it is designed to do, it meets the needs of the defense of this United States of America. Aircraft fighters and attack aircraft are designed to do specific things. There is a need--and we have seen it; we are seeing it plainly in the arena of conflict today in the Balkans--for additional mission radius. There is a need for the ability to fly further. There is a need for increasing the payload. If you look at the strike-sortie to just general sortie ratio in the war in the Balkans, it is far different than it was in the war in Desert Storm. That is because we are basing our planes in a different place. This particular aircraft has a 37-percent increase in mission radius. That is important. It is a design feature. It is needed. It is something the Defense Department and those who fly these airplanes understand we have to have in order to defend our interests and to protect the most important resource we have in our defense operations, and that is the human resource of our pilots. There is a 60-percent increase in recovery payload. Depending on the mission, the E/F has two to five times the strike capability of the earlier model, two to five times the strike capability, being able to put destruction on a target. That is an important thing to understand. There is a 25-percent increase in frame size to accommodate 20 years of upgrades in cooling, power, and other internal systems. That is important. It may be said this aircraft is only marginally better. Well, the margin is what wins races. The winner in the 100 yard dash does it in 10.4 seconds. The loser does it in 10.5 seconds. It is only marginally better, but marginal superiority is what wins conflicts. It is what saves lives. It is what makes a difference. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Phil Coyle, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense, said it this way: The Department of Defense embarked upon the F/A-18E/F program primarily to increase the Navy's capability to attack ground targets at longer ranges. Does that sound familiar? That is where we are right now in the Balkans. We are having to fly lots of sorties, because we have to have lots of refueling and other things, because the current things that we have do not have the ability to attack and increase our ability to attack ground targets at longer ranges. In order to obtain this objective, the principal improved characteristics were increased range and payload; increased capability to bring back unused weapons to a carrier; improved survivability; and growth capacity to incorporate future advanced subsystems . . . . Three to five times the strike capability. We need to be able to add improved technology. It is my understanding the Senator from Wisconsin wants to flatten the plane out, simply to say it can be this plane and no further. If there is a generation of technology available to upgrade this, we need to be able to add the upgrades. I think we need to be in a position where we can do for those who fight for America and freedom that which will serve their best interests. The idea, somehow, that the GAO should make a determination about whether an airplane is ready--I served as an auditor. For 2 years I was the auditor for the State of Missouri. It is a great job. It is a wonderful responsibility. But those flying green eyeshades and walnut desks in Washington should not be compared to those who fly fighters to defend freedom. We shouldn't have the green eyeshade accountant flying a desk in Washington telling us whether or not the fighter is fit to fight. We need to rely on the responsible testimony and information provided to us by those whose job it is to defend America and whose lives depend on the fighter being fit to fight.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask for a point of clarification. Does that include the following two votes would be 10-minute votes?

Mr. ASHCROFT. In that event, I have no objection.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the F-18 is underbudget and early. The Department of Defense is making very, very careful evaluations, and will continue to do so. This contracting will not go forward without their professional critical evaluation that the plane succeeded. The Senator from Wisconsin says these two different planes in the F- 18 package, the single-seater and the two-seater, must meet the same flight characteristics. That does not make sense. When you put an extra seat in an airplane it changes the characteristics, but it also changes the fighting capacity of the airplane. You can do with two pilots--or one plus a person operating radar or other things in a hostile environment in terms of locating targets--what you can't do with one person both flying the airplane and doing that. The Senator from Wisconsin asks about oversight. Frankly, we have had substantial oversight here. We have had oversight in the Senate Armed Services Committee, oversight in the House Armed Services Committee, oversight in the Senate Appropriations Committee. There will be, again, evaluation in the House Appropriations Committee. This is a circumstance where, obviously, there has been substantial oversight. The members of the committee and committee chairman are saying we should approve this. I believe we should. For us to say the Department of Defense, the fighter-fliers, those whose lives depend on this airplane performing, are to have their judgment about the airplane set aside or deferred or delayed until accountants or auditors from the General Accounting Office make a decision on this plane is unwise. It is not only unwise, it has been clearly demonstrated, I think, in the arguments that it is unconstitutional as well. The F-18 is an outstanding aircraft with characteristics that will serve well--extended range, extended load-carrying capacity, and ability in the two-seat configuration to do things not available in the one-seat configuration. It is a well-made airplane that will serve our interests well by serving well those who fly them. It will serve us well by allowing those conflicts to be survivable. The margin of improvement provides the margin of difference that means we win instead of lose. It is time for us to move forward with this program; stop unnecessary attacks on it. This is an airplane that will serve us well.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in recent years the advent of the wireless phone began an extraordinary advance in the cellular telecommunications industry. As a result the cellular phone has become an accessory and a necessity in the modern technological world we currently live in. It has revolutionized communication, and has helped individuals to constantly stay connected. Today, there are over an estimated 200 million wireless phone users around the world. The wireless telephone gives individuals the powerful ability to communicate--almost anywhere, anytime. With the ability of having a cellular phone comes responsibility. As National Wireless Safety Week comes to a conclusion, we must recognize the dangers of having and using cellular telephones, especially when driving. We must also recognize the benefits of having these phones in situations where they are desperately needed. Today, there are over 98,000 emergency calls made daily by people using wireless phones-- saving lives, preventing crimes and assisting in emergency situations. Furthermore, according to a recent government study, decreasing notification time when accidents occurs saves lives--a wireless phone is a tool to reduce such a time. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) is the international organization of the wireless communications industry for wireless carriers and manufactures. It is also the coordinator of Wireless Safety Week, and promotes using phones to summon assistance in emergency situations to save lives. It also promotes the concept that when driving a car, safety is one's first priority. The CTIA has six simple rules to driving safely while using a wireless phone, including: Safe driving is one's first responsibility. Always buckle up; keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road. Make sure that one's phone is positioned where is easy to see and easy to reach. Be familiar with the operation of one's phone so that one is comfortable using it on the road. Use the speed dialing feature to program-in frequently called numbers. Then one is able to make a call by touching only one or two buttons. Most phones will store up to 99 numbers. When dialing manually without using the speed dialing feature first, dial only when stopped. If one cannot stop, or pull over, dial a few digits, then survey traffic before completing the call. Never take notes while driving. Pull off the road to a safe spot to jot something down. Be a wireless Samaritan. Dialing 9-1-1 is a free call for wireless subscribers, use it to report crimes in progress or other potentially life-threatening emergencies, accidents, or drunk driving. In a recent national poll, it was found that over 60 percent of wireless phone users have called for help in cases of car trouble, medical emergency, or to report a drunk driving crime. Close to 90 percent of wireless phone users polled said safety and security were the best reasons for owning a wireless phone. Mr. President. The bottom line is that individuals need to assume responsibility while behind the wheel of a car. No telephone call is important enough to risk the safety of the driver, passengers, and others on the road. Cellular phones can be a distraction while one is driving a car. I urge drivers to use common sense when driving, and ask that drivers continue to act as good Samaritans. I also want to recognize the efforts of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, and congratulate them for a successful Wireless Safety Week.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I stand before this body to congratulate yet another truly remarkable Missourian, Mr. Thomas Michael Dunn--the Small Business Administration's Young Entrepreneur of the Year. Mr. Dunn, at the age of 26, is the second Missourian to win a national award from the Small Business Administration this year. This young man's story is impressive. Tom began his lawn care business while still attending St. Louis University High School, and continued to operate his business during the summers while pursuing a double major in marketing and management at Indiana University. In his junior year of college, Tom began his first venture, operating a party favor franchise. By his senior year, the business was transformed into a flourishing million dollar industry. Beginning in 1994, Dunn Lawn and Land employed only two staff members, and had only two lawn mowers. By 1998, Dunn Lawn and Land employed over 22 employees, eight trucks, over 12 lawn machines and $1.2 million in revenue. Today, Dunn Lawn and Land offers a variety of services including lawn mowing, landscape bed and plant maintenance, lawn renovation, leaf removal, fertilizer and weed control, irrigation services and complete landscape design and installation. In addition to his thriving lawn maintenance business, Tom remains an active community leader. He has created the Impact Group of Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, which provides funds for special projects at the hospital. Mr. Dunn was selected for this prestigious award because of his extraordinary success as a small business owner and demonstrated entrepreneurial potential for long-term economic growth. The Young Entrepreneur of the Year award is part of the SBA's National Small Business Week celebration. This annual event is held in recognition of the nation's small business community's contributions to the American economy and society. Winners are selected on their record of stability, growth in employment and sales, sound financial status, innovation, ability to respond to adversity, and community service. It honors me to stand before you today to congratulate Mr. Dunn as the Small Business Administration's Young Entrepreneur of the Year. I envy Mr. Dunn's initiative, and am proud to say he is a Missourian. He is a role model for the children of the next generation, and is living proof that with hard work and dedication any one individual can succeed no matter how old they are. Mr. Dunn's success exemplifies the ``American Dream,'' and what it means to be ``a man with a mission.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation being introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee--the senior Senator from Arizona. I strongly support the reforms to state vicarious liability laws contained in the ``Motor Vehicle Rental Fairness Act of 1999'' and urge my colleagues to support this important bill and move it swiftly towards enactment. I commend the chairman for taking the lead on this important legislation. His bill, of which I am proud to be an original co- sponsor, seeks to put a halt to an absurd aberration in our legal system. Under the vicarious liability laws of a very small number of states, companies that rent or lease motor vehicles are held strictly liable if their renters or lessees are negligent and cause an accident. The company does not have to be negligent in any way. The vehicle may operate perfectly and be maintained properly. These states simply hold the company liable because of their ownership of the vehicle. The only way for these companies to avoid this liability would be to stop renting or leasing these vehicles. This is not an acceptable resolution to this problem. The American justice system should be based on the general principle that a defendant should be held liable only for harm he or she could prevent--not merely because the defendant has a ``deep pocket.'' Vicarious liability laws undermine competition in these states and have driven smaller rental and leasing companies out of business. In fact, vicarious liability acts as a tax on all rental and leasing companies--and their customers--nationwide because these companies must try to recover their losses from vicarious claims through rental rates nationwide. It is time to put a stop to this legal disconnect. Hold these companies liable if they are negligent. Hold them liable if they fail to properly maintain one of the vehicles they rent or lease. But do not hold them liable simply for being in business--for fulfilling the needs of our traveling constituents. Mr. President, I look forward to hearings on the Senator from Arizona's legislation at the earliest possible date and hope to move this legislation through this body as quickly as possible.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation being introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee--the senior Senator from Arizona. I strongly support the reforms to state vicarious liability laws contained in the ``Motor Vehicle Rental Fairness Act of 1999'' and urge my colleagues to support this important bill and move it swiftly towards enactment. I commend the chairman for taking the lead on this important legislation. His bill, of which I am proud to be an original co- sponsor, seeks to put a halt to an absurd aberration in our legal system. Under the vicarious liability laws of a very small number of states, companies that rent or lease motor vehicles are held strictly liable if their renters or lessees are negligent and cause an accident. The company does not have to be negligent in any way. The vehicle may operate perfectly and be maintained properly. These states simply hold the company liable because of their ownership of the vehicle. The only way for these companies to avoid this liability would be to stop renting or leasing these vehicles. This is not an acceptable resolution to this problem. The American justice system should be based on the general principle that a defendant should be held liable only for harm he or she could prevent--not merely because the defendant has a ``deep pocket.'' Vicarious liability laws undermine competition in these states and have driven smaller rental and leasing companies out of business. In fact, vicarious liability acts as a tax on all rental and leasing companies--and their customers--nationwide because these companies must try to recover their losses from vicarious claims through rental rates nationwide. It is time to put a stop to this legal disconnect. Hold these companies liable if they are negligent. Hold them liable if they fail to properly maintain one of the vehicles they rent or lease. But do not hold them liable simply for being in business--for fulfilling the needs of our traveling constituents. Mr. President, I look forward to hearings on the Senator from Arizona's legislation at the earliest possible date and hope to move this legislation through this body as quickly as possible.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, America's best ideas for helping the poor have come from grassroots communities and private organizations of people who know and care about their neighbors. These groups see people and their life experiences, not theories or statistics. We have known for years that government solutions have failed miserably in moving people from dependency and despair to responsibility and independence. For years America's churches and charities have been leading the way in helping the poor achieve dignity and self-sufficiency. This is why I have been advocating that government should find ways to help these organizations unleash the cultural remedy our society so desperately needs. Therefore, it was with great interest that I heard about Vice President Gore's statements Monday in Atlanta expressing his support for Charitable Choice. The Vice President's interest in Charitable Choice is welcome news. Governor Bush is in the forefront of Charitable Choice solutions. Truly, where once there was contention and debate, there now is swelling bipartisan agreement on the promise of Charitable Choice. Congress has been in the forefront of encouraging the type of faith- based solutions that the Vice President was promoting yesterday in Atlanta. The 1996 welfare reform law contains the Charitable Choice provision I authored, which encourages states to partner with faith- based organizations to serve welfare recipients with federal dollars. Last fall, we expanded Charitable Choice to cover services provided under the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides funds to local agencies to alleviate poverty in their communities. And just last week, the Senate approved a juvenile justice bill containing Charitable Choice for services provided to at-risk juveniles, such as counseling for troubled youth. The Charitable Choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform law was one way to achieve the goal of inviting the greater participation of charitable and faith-based organizations in providing services to the poor. The provision allows charitable and faith-based organizations to compete for contracts and voucher programs on an equal basis with all other non-governmental providers when the state or local government chooses to use private sector providers for delivering welfare services to the poor under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In the past three years, we have begun to hear about how Charitable Choice is opening doors for the government and communities of faith to work together to help our nation's poor and needy gain hope and self- sufficiency. For example, shortly after passage of the federal welfare law, Governor George Bush of Texas signed an executive order directing ``all pertinent executive branch agencies to take all necessary steps to implement the `charitable choice' provision of the federal welfare law.'' Cookman United Methodist Church, a 100 member parish in Philadelphia, received a state contract to run its ``Transitional Journey Ministry,'' which provides life and job skills to welfare mothers and places them into jobs with benefits. In less than a year, the church placed 22 welfare recipients into jobs. Payne Memorial Outreach Center, an affiliate of a Baltimore church, has helped over 450 welfare recipients find jobs under a state contract. In light of these success stories around the nation, more and more states and counties are beginning to see what a critical role the faith-based community can play in helping people move off of welfare. They are eager to put the Charitable Choice concept into action in their communities. We have always known that Charitable Choice is truly bipartisan in nature, and has the support of over 35 organizations that span a wide political and social spectrum. Members from both sides of the aisle here in the Senate have voted in support of this provision. And now, with the Vice President's support for Charitable Choice, I am reintroducing legislation that I introduced in the 105th Congress, the ``Charitable Choice Expansion Act,'' which would expand the Charitable Choice concept across all federally funded social service programs. The substance of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act is virtually identical to that of the original Charitable Choice provision of the welfare reform law. The only real difference between the two provisions is that the new bill covers many more federal programs than the original provision. While the original Charitable Choice provision applies mainly to the new welfare reform block grant program, the Charitable Choice Expansion Act applies to all federal government programs in which the government is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide federally funded services to beneficiaries. Some of the programs that would be covered under this legislation include housing, substance abuse prevention and treatment, seniors services, the Social Services Block Grant, abstinence education and child welfare services. With this recent expression of bipartisan support for Charitable Choice from the Vice President, now is the time for Congress to move quickly to pass the Charitable Choice Expansion Act, so that we can empower the organizations that are best equipped to instill hope and transform lives to expand their good work across the nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, America's best ideas for helping the poor have come from grassroots communities and private organizations of people who know and care about their neighbors. These groups see people and their life experiences, not theories or statistics. We have known for years that government solutions have failed miserably in moving people from dependency and despair to responsibility and independence. For years America's churches and charities have been leading the way in helping the poor achieve dignity and self-sufficiency. This is why I have been advocating that government should find ways to help these organizations unleash the cultural remedy our society so desperately needs. Therefore, it was with great interest that I heard about Vice President Gore's statements Monday in Atlanta expressing his support for Charitable Choice. The Vice President's interest in Charitable Choice is welcome news. Governor Bush is in the forefront of Charitable Choice solutions. Truly, where once there was contention and debate, there now is swelling bipartisan agreement on the promise of Charitable Choice. Congress has been in the forefront of encouraging the type of faith- based solutions that the Vice President was promoting yesterday in Atlanta. The 1996 welfare reform law contains the Charitable Choice provision I authored, which encourages states to partner with faith- based organizations to serve welfare recipients with federal dollars. Last fall, we expanded Charitable Choice to cover services provided under the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides funds to local agencies to alleviate poverty in their communities. And just last week, the Senate approved a juvenile justice bill containing Charitable Choice for services provided to at-risk juveniles, such as counseling for troubled youth. The Charitable Choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform law was one way to achieve the goal of inviting the greater participation of charitable and faith-based organizations in providing services to the poor. The provision allows charitable and faith-based organizations to compete for contracts and voucher programs on an equal basis with all other non-governmental providers when the state or local government chooses to use private sector providers for delivering welfare services to the poor under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In the past three years, we have begun to hear about how Charitable Choice is opening doors for the government and communities of faith to work together to help our nation's poor and needy gain hope and self- sufficiency. For example, shortly after passage of the federal welfare law, Governor George Bush of Texas signed an executive order directing ``all pertinent executive branch agencies to take all necessary steps to implement the `charitable choice' provision of the federal welfare law.'' Cookman United Methodist Church, a 100 member parish in Philadelphia, received a state contract to run its ``Transitional Journey Ministry,'' which provides life and job skills to welfare mothers and places them into jobs with benefits. In less than a year, the church placed 22 welfare recipients into jobs. Payne Memorial Outreach Center, an affiliate of a Baltimore church, has helped over 450 welfare recipients find jobs under a state contract. In light of these success stories around the nation, more and more states and counties are beginning to see what a critical role the faith-based community can play in helping people move off of welfare. They are eager to put the Charitable Choice concept into action in their communities. We have always known that Charitable Choice is truly bipartisan in nature, and has the support of over 35 organizations that span a wide political and social spectrum. Members from both sides of the aisle here in the Senate have voted in support of this provision. And now, with the Vice President's support for Charitable Choice, I am reintroducing legislation that I introduced in the 105th Congress, the ``Charitable Choice Expansion Act,'' which would expand the Charitable Choice concept across all federally funded social service programs. The substance of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act is virtually identical to that of the original Charitable Choice provision of the welfare reform law. The only real difference between the two provisions is that the new bill covers many more federal programs than the original provision. While the original Charitable Choice provision applies mainly to the new welfare reform block grant program, the Charitable Choice Expansion Act applies to all federal government programs in which the government is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide federally funded services to beneficiaries. Some of the programs that would be covered under this legislation include housing, substance abuse prevention and treatment, seniors services, the Social Services Block Grant, abstinence education and child welfare services. With this recent expression of bipartisan support for Charitable Choice from the Vice President, now is the time for Congress to move quickly to pass the Charitable Choice Expansion Act, so that we can empower the organizations that are best equipped to instill hope and transform lives to expand their good work across the nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I stand before this body today to congratulate a truly remarkable Missourian, Mr. Gregory Sullivan--the Small Business Administration's Person of the Year. Mr. Sullivan founded G.A. Sullivan in 1982 with just $300 in start-up capital. Today, it is one of the fastest growing technology companies in the nation. This custom software company has appeared on Inc. Magazine's 500 list of fastest growing companies for the past two years. G.A. Sullivan also is leader in the St. Louis community--ranking among the top seven fastest growing technology companies in St. Louis for the past three consecutive years. In reading Greg's story, I was intrigued by his biggest challenge. To me it shows the remarkable risks taken by America's entrepreneurs. Ten years after starting the company--after paying his dues programming computers and building the foundation of the business--he knew that there would be a huge growth in information technology industry. At that point, he had to decide on his business' future. In December 1992, he decided to go forward with an aggressive business expansion program. He engaged an advertising agency, developed a business plan, designed a logo, hired a marketing consultant to build a sales staff and started aggressively recruiting technical talent. Since that time, sales have grown over 1,400 percent and he now employs nearly 175 people--his clear vision paid off. While Greg's custom software development services company provides leading edge information technology in the business arena--he personally is a leader in the community. He was recently appointed Vice Chairman of Science and Technology for the St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association. I understand that he personally conducts workshops on resume writing skills, interviewing and networking to help students be competitive in the after-graduation job market. He also has established the G.A. Sullivan Scholarship fund. Mr. Sullivan is the 36th recipient of this annual entrepreneurial award. He was selected from a field of 53 state small business persons of the year winners representing the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. The national entrepreneur award is the highlight of the Small Business Administration's national Small Business Week celebration. Small Business Week honors contributions of the nation's small business owners who are the backbone of this great nation. The SBA selects winners on their record of stability, growth in employment and sales, sound financial status, innovation, and the company's response to adversity and community service. It honors me to stand before you today to congratulate Mr. Sullivan as the Small Business Administration's Person of the Year. Mr. Sullivan exemplifies the ``American Dream,'' and is living proof that with hard work and dedication any one individual can succeed.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the $15 billion supplemental appropriations conference report before us. The supplemental spends far more than is necessary to support our effort in Kosovo and, worse, will take vitally needed money out of the Social Security surplus, thereby raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Protecting the Social Security trust fund is one of my highest priorities. The Social Security system is expected to go into deficit in 2014 and we will need every dollar of that surplus today in order to be prepared for the tomorrows ahead of us. Until this point, the Senate has been headed in the right direction on Social Security. The Budget Resolution, which I strongly supported, called for reduced debt and taxes, increased funding for education and national defense, and maintaining the spending caps so necessary to control spending. Perhaps most importantly, the budget resolution built in on-budget surpluses from the year 2001 and beyond. This is significant because surpluses that are accumulating in the Social Security Trust Funds will no longer be used to finance on-budget operations of government. Social Security surpluses should not be used to finance deficits in the rest of government. The Budget Resolution stood in stark contrast to President Clinton's budget, which, over the next five years, proposed spending $158 billion of the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security programs. The Budget Resolution, in addition to preserving every penny of Social Security surpluses, also contained procedural hurdles blocking future budgets from spending Social Security surpluses. These procedures included a point of order against on-budget deficits and an amendment calling for reducing the debt ceiling by the amount of the Social Security surplus--the lockbox provision. The Senate voted in favor of both the point of order and the lockbox by unanimous votes during the budget resolution. In addition, the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox legislation, which is still pending in the Senate, would put these procedures into law, and ensure that Congress could not spend the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security purposes. Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations package before us would undo some of the good work that we have already done this session. By not offsetting $13 billion of the spending, the supplemental takes money from the Social Security surpluses, money that is necessary to protect the Social Security trust funds. Thus far, Congress has been committed to stopping the raid on Social Security. This Congress has passed a budget that is balanced without using Social Security funds. This conference report, however, not only spends Social Security funds, but also contains $1.2 billion in traditional pork spending. I refer to such spending as $45 million for Census funding, $3.76 million for the House page dormitory, and $1.8 million for the O'Neill House building. If this bill were just for Kosovo and true emergency spending, I would vote for it. If this bill were fully offset, I would vote for it. But this bill is neither all emergency nor all offset. This bill, like the $21 billion omnibus appropriation last fall, is an abrogation of our responsibility to protect the Social Security surplus. Mr. President, this is not the way that we should handle Congress' responsibility over the federal purse strings. If we face real emergencies, we should fund those emergencies. But funding those emergencies is not free. We need to pay for all spending, emergency or not. This is why I support Senator Enzi's attempt to make sure that this entire appropriation is offset. If we do not offset our spending, the money comes out of the Social Security surplus. There is no getting around this fact. We must pay for any new funding. If we do not pay for it, it comes out of the Social Security surplus. The Social Security program is too important to be raided. While I recognize the importance of emergency funding, particularly for Kosovo, I also recognize that spending needs to be paid for. Mr. President, this request is not unreasonable. All across this great land, when families face unexpected expenses, they must offset their spending by readjusting their priorities. No family in America would react to an unexpected crisis by going out and spending more money on other discretionary, non-budgeted items. All I am asking is that the Congress do the same. This supplemental spends too much money and offsets too little of it. If we are to keep our financial house in order, and to protect the Social Security trust funds, it is time that we in Congress started to change our behavior. If we are to maintain our Social Security obligations, we need to learn how to spend less money, and offset more. It is with regret that I feel obligated to oppose this conference report.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue. I began to be concerned about students carrying guns in and out of our schools quite some time ago. On the Ed-Flex bill, which passed this Senate just a couple months ago, I put an amendment to close another loophole which would allow students who possessed guns in school--not just carried guns to school--to be removed from the school environment. This responsibility for us to close these loopholes is a serious one. It is a responsibility that relates to school safety. That is what we are talking about here. School safety is a responsibility that we can work hard on, and I am glad Senator Frist of Tennessee and I have been able to join on this amendment. It should not have taken this long. This is a simple amendment. This amendment merely allows local schools to treat all children who bring guns to school in the same manner. It does not target children with disabilities--simply not so. It protects children with disabilities. This is not a matter of scapegoating. This does not say that any group of students is subject to more severe punishments than any other group of students. This is a bill that provides for equity, simply saying that principals and superintendents should have the power, without interference from the Federal Government, to remove students from school who come to school with a firearm, an explosive or a gun. I believe we need to make sure we close the loophole in the Federal law that made it very difficult to discipline certain students who came in that setting. There are those who say: Well, the law is this way and the law is that way. And they will argue about how the law is applied here in the Senate Chamber. We have a lot of experience from around the country about how the law is applied in the schools. The Senator from Tennessee has eloquently spoken to the fact that as applied in the schools, you frequently find that individuals who, if they were not the subject of an individualized education program, would be gone for a year because of a mandated expulsion, are back in the classroom within 45 days, in spite of the fact that they brought a gun or a bomb to school. It is simply our intention to let local school boards and school officials decide how they should be able to make the school a safe place and not to reinsert a student in the school environment who has threatened the safety and security of the school by bringing a bomb or a gun to school. We must have zero tolerance for guns in school. I think we must let school officials decide on discipline policies. We should not have taken this long on this amendment, but I am glad that we are at this point. After we vote on this amendment, there is a consent decree which is going to allow the Harkin amendment to be voted on.