John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to yield such time to the Senator from Idaho as he might consume.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. The Ashcroft amendment is a very simple amendment. It recognizes that in addition to handguns, which require some special responsibility and, therefore, are prohibited for sale to minors, and are even prohibited in private sales to minors, and for them to be in the possession of a minor requiring the permission of parents, that the same kind of rules ought to apply to semiautomatic assault rifles as apply to handguns as it relates to minors. Right now, where handgun sales to minors are prohibited, semiautomatic assault rifle sales to minors are permitted. Where a minor, in order to have a handgun, has to have parental permission, a minor can own an assault rifle, a semiautomatic assault rifle without parental permission. The Ashcroft amendment simply wants to remove this disparity, because it expresses a belief that a semiautomatic assault rifle, assault weapon, ought to have the same level of responsibility attendant to it as a handgun. The Ashcroft amendment would prohibit private sales of semiautomatic assault rifles to minors, and it would require that they have parental permission in order for one even to be in the possession of a minor. This really makes the rules about handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons identical for all basic intents and purposes. There are some exceptions in the law for purposes of the possession of handguns that relate to employment. There are some minors, for instance, who are required in their employment to be involved with a handgun. Those exceptions would be the same basically as well. The thrust of this amendment is to say that this situation where semiautomatic assault weapons were not required to have the level of responsibility that we had assigned to handguns for juveniles, that should be changed so that assault rifles and the semiautomatic assault weapons have the same kind of responsibility requirements that had previously been applied to handguns resulting in the requirement that there be parental permission before there can even be possession, and that there would not be a potential for purchase in private sales. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this reasonable and simple change in the law.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his work, coming to Missouri to participate in the hearing. It became clear to us that adults using children to commit crimes-- hoping the children would be excused because of their youth and they would all escape penalty--brings children into a criminal environment. It starts them down a path of crime. That is very dangerous, and this proposal which we are considering today obviously would elevate the penalties for that about threefold. I am delighted. Again, let me refer to this amendment that really harmonizes the law so the same kinds of prohibitions apply to semiautomatic assault weapons as apply to handguns. There are a few clarifying changes in the existing law. It makes it clear that parental permission allows possession, either with parental supervision or with prior written permission of a parent. Even with this parental permission, juveniles can only possess these weapons for three narrow purposes: For target shooting; for gun safety courses; or if required for their employment in ranching, farming, or lawful hunting. Such a firearm being transported by a juvenile must be unloaded and in a locked case, under this amendment. So for a juvenile, even if he was transporting for one of these lawful purposes--that also relates to handguns, I might add-- the law requires the weapon be unloaded and in a locked case. Likewise, this amendment allows prior written permission to be retained by a parent instead of carried by the juvenile in the case of juvenile possession incident to employment, ranching, or farming activities. In other words, if on a ranch a youngster is carrying a pistol, obviously the written permission can exist in the ranch house while the youngster is doing chores or away from the house with the pistol. Finally, the amendment clarifies the self-defense provision of the law by permitting possession in lawful defense of self or others in a residence against any threat to the life of the individuals there. I think it is only reasonable to conclude it should not be illegal for a young person to pick up a handgun to defend himself and his family in the event he is in his home and is the victim of a threat to his own life. If parents want to teach children to use firearms responsibly, the law should not stand in the way. This law encourages parents to play an active role in the lives of their children and respects the judgment of parents. It does not suggest we in Washington know best and are better equipped than parents to make decisions. But it does say, as it relates to semiautomatic assault rifles and weapons, the provisions that relate to handguns ought to be the provisions that relate to semiautomatic rifles. That means this amendment would prohibit the private sale of a semiautomatic assault rifle to a juvenile and the possession of any assault rifle or similar weapon by a juvenile, absent the specific permission of a parent. With that in mind, I think we take another step forward. We do not cure all the problems attendant to our society related to law-abiding responsibilities of young people. But we do take a step forward to bring the law to a place of rationality and to prohibit possession of semiautomatic assault rifles where pistols or handguns would be prohibited, and to prohibit such possession without the permission of a parent in a similar way to the way in which it has been prohibited for handguns. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman.

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is my understanding that I am eligible to spend the 2\1/2\ minutes in favor of the Ashcroft amendment at this time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the advent of the television began the extraordinary advance in video technology. Families came together to witness such great programs as: The Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. The television revolutionized technology and media, and replaced the radio as the main source of family entertainment. The television is an instrumental part of American society, it provides us with news, education, and entertainment and will likely continue to do so. In recent years, however, the entertainment industry has promoted programming unfit for the children of the next generation. No longer can families come together to watch television without having to see material unfit for their children. In the wake of recent events, it has become clear that exposure to violent programming does in fact play an influential role in children's behavior. It is regrettable that it has come to the point where it may be necessary for Congress to take action in the oversight of television programming. The Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act creates a ``safe harbor'' and eliminates the broadcast of violent programming aired during hours when children are likely to be a substantial portion of the viewing audience. While I have reservations with this amendment, I am willing to stand in support of it. Admittedly, this amendment gives the Federal Communications Commission additional power to regulate television programming--even when two-thirds of American households have no children under the age of 18. Clearly this amendment will restrict the programming available to viewers of all ages. I also have reservations since the TV rating system, already in place, will provide parents with specific information about the content of a television program. V-chips will be incorporated into all new television sets by January 1, 2000. In addition, I am concerned that by passing this legislation, we will be giving the Federal Communications Commission additional authority to define violent programming far beyond that which is necessary. The fact of the matter is that to date the entertainment industry has not yet taken responsibility for themselves. Television programs of an adult nature are undermining and contradicting the virtues parents are trying to teach. Likewise, research from more than ten thousand medical, pediatric, psychological, and sociological studies show that television violence increases violent and aggressive behavior in society. Astonishingly, the murder rate in the United States doubled within 15 years after television was introduced into American homes. It pains me to stand before you today and say that the federal government may need to regulate yet another industry. What we need is smaller, smarter government. Without the cooperation of television networks, however, Congress has no choice but to give the FCC the authority to impose itself upon the entertainment industry. Each of us, Congress, television networks, and parents need to come together for the sake of our children. Our children are the future of this country, and if we as a nation are going to live together in peace, each of us must take the responsibility to teach our children the difference between right and wrong.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize today the 8th annual Missouri Children's Mental Health Week, which was celebrated May 2-8. This year's theme is ``In a child's life, everyone is accountable.'' The Missouri Department of Mental Health and MO-SPAN, the Missouri Statewide Parent Advisory Network, teamed up to co-sponsor the week. Some estimates indicate that 12 percent of all children and youth in the United States have an emotional, behavioral or mental disorder. While many of these children and their families need services ranging from therapeutic to educational and social services, only about one- third of these children and youth receive assistance. Recognizing Children's Mental Health Week is one way to bring attention to the seriousness of mental health disorders in our children and spread the message of support for them. The week's events were begun with MO-SPAN's Second Annual Clayton Huey Memorial Benefit Walk- A-Thon and a kickoff event at the Missouri Capitol and continued throughout the week. It is a privilege for me to be able to recognize the diligent work of families with children who have emotional, behavioral and mental disorders. Likewise, it is also important to celebrate the workers, volunteers, and organizations--like MO-SPAN--who provide vital support, services, information, and advocacy for these families.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Robert and Nellie Livingston, who on June 4th, 1999, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Many things have changed in the 50 years they have been married, but the values, principles, and commitment this marriage demonstrates are timeless. As Mr. and Mrs. Livingston celebrate their 50th year together with family and friends, it will be apparent that the lasting legacy of this marriage will be the time, energy, and resources invested in their children, friends, and community. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Livingstons' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserve to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in the past two weeks since the tragedy occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, we have all had time to reflect on a number of issues. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families, friends, and other loved ones affected by this incident. We have asked ourselves why this happened. How it happened. The Littleton tragedy requires reflection, thought and corrective action within our spheres of influence and responsibility. Children must learn respect and responsibility. Parents must be responsible for their children, including what they watch and what they do. Schools must have firm, fair and consistent discipline policies. Schools must be free to expel violence-prone students. State legislators must review state laws. Congress must review federal laws. As a member of the United States Senate, I have been prompted to stop and examine our current federal education laws involving school safety, and see if our policies are promoting and encouraging school safety--or are in some way hindering our teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, and school boards from maintaining a safe place for our children to learn and our teachers to teach. For much of the past year and before the Littleton tragedy, I traveled through Missouri talking to teachers, principals, school superintendents and school officials about the issue of school safety and school discipline. What I heard and learned was disturbing. After listening to school officials, I have concluded that there is, in fact, at least one federal law that actually jeopardizes our schools' efforts to provide a safe learning environment. Today I am introducing legislation, the School Safety Act, to amend this law and give schools the ability to remove from the classroom students who possess weapons or threaten to use weapons in the classroom, so that we can keep our children and teachers safe. Once enacted, this legislation will help foster a safer environment in schools. If this legislation had been enacted years ago, would it have prevented the Littleton tragedy? It would be wrong to claim for certain that it would. The truth of the Littleton tragedy is that those involved in the massacre violated at least 13 federal laws. The existence of those 13 laws did not stop the Littleton massacre. Still, we must examine our current federal education laws involving school safety and make necessary changes. Across America, parents, teachers, and communities have made it clear that we want our schools to offer our students a world-class education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. If children are to attain high levels of academic performance, our schools must be able to provide safe and secure learning environments free of undue disruption or violence. When we think of school safety, we obviously turn to one element that poses a threat to a secure environment: weapons in schools. Our general federal policy is commendable: to have zero tolerance for weapons at schools. The federal Gun-Free Schools Act requires states receiving federal education funds to have a law requiring a one year expulsion of a student who has a weapon at school. I know that my state of Missouri has such a law on the books. We would think that the Gun-Free Schools Act settles the issue of weapons in schools. But it doesn't. This law contains an exception for nearly one in seven students in my state, and one in eight nationally. This exception is for students covered by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Hidden among the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act is section (c), entitled ``Special Rule,'' which says: ``The provisions of this section shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.'' When you turn to the IDEA law, you see a complex and elaborate set of roadblocks and barriers that hamstring schools in applying discipline to any IDEA student for situations involving weapons possessions. When we talk about students who are subject to the IDEA law, we are not talking about any small number of children: In Missouri, over 129,000--or nearly 14% of our 893,000 students--are classified as ``disabled.'' That's one in seven students. Nationally, there are about 12-13% of all students who are under the IDEA law. We have to keep this in mind as we talk about this issue of school discipline and safety. We must also consider which individuals qualify as ``disabled'' under IDEA. We are not just talking about blindness, deafness, orthopedic impairments, or MS. The federal IDEA definition of disability also includes individuals with serious emotional disturbances or specific learning disabilities. Unlike the Gun-Free Schools Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not have a zero tolerance for students with weapons. In fact, the IDEA law makes it very difficult for schools to act effectively when a student subject to this law has a weapon at school. While the Gun-Free Schools Act would require that any other student be expelled for a year, the ``special rule'' for an IDEA student who brings a gun or knife to school provides that he could be back in the regular classroom within 45 days. Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not allowing school officials to keep those students who have possessed weapons in school out of the classroom. IDEA also hinders schools from taking effective action to protect their students and teachers from students who make threats to use weapons. School districts have developed policies to address student weapons threats. For example, a superintendent in my state told my office that under his school district's policy, he could suspend a student for up to 180 days for threatening to bring a weapon to school and shoot another student. However, if that superintendent is dealing with a student under IDEA, the law makes it very difficult for him to remove the student even if he considers the student a serious threat to the safety of others. In fact, the school may be unable to remove this child from the classroom if he has already been suspended for a certain number of days during the school year. Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not allowing school officials to act on early warning signs to remove potentially violent students from school. The costs involved with trying to keep a dangerous child out of the classroom are astronomical under IDEA. Schools have told me that the ``due process'' proceedings a parent can invoke in response to any disciplinary action taken toward a child is so expensive and time- consuming that schools do all they can to avoid these proceedings. The easiest, simplest due process hearing costs a school about $7500 in Missouri! Not only must schools pay their own legal fees for a due process hearing under IDEA, but they also face the prospect of being responsible for the parents' attorneys fees in some cases. Here is a federal law that discourages safe classrooms because schools cannot afford to take steps they deem essential to maintaining safety without risking serious financial jeopardy. The problems created by IDEA are not simply theoretical. Just three weeks ago--before the Littleton incident--I traveled around Missouri to talk to parents, teachers, principals, and administrators about ways to offer each child a world class education. Again and again, I was told that schools are handcuffed by federal law in dealing with violent and dangerous behavior--often connected with weapons. Let me give you a few examples: In one rural Missouri school, a 15-year-old IDEA student had been making numerous threats against both students and staff. He said such things as, ``I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to get a gun and blow you away.'' School officials were aware of the threats, but the federal law hindered them from taking steps they thought most appropriate to deal with the student. Unfortunately this student ended up shooting another student off school grounds. Fortunately, because he remained in the custody of law enforcement authorities, the student was not returned to the classroom. School officials in this district told me that had this student not been subject to the IDEA laws, they could have--and would have--removed him from the classroom when he made the threats of killing other students and personnel. In an eastern Missouri school district, an IDEA student who was under school suspension was asked to leave a Friday night school dance that he tried to attend in violation of school policy. The student tried continually to regain entry into the school and said to the principal, a teacher, and a parent who was helping supervise the dance: ``I'm going to go home, get my shotgun, come back, and blow your [expletives deleted] heads off.'' The superintendent says that the federal IDEA law constrained him to return this potentially dangerous student to the classroom early the next week. If the student had not had been under IDEA, the superintendent could have imposed a far longer suspension for threatening school personnel. I learned of a Missouri grade schooler, subject to IDEA law, who announced at school, ``I'm going to bring a knife and cut the bus driver's throat.'' Was this an idle threat? This child had transferred from another school where he had been found with a knife and was suspended for 10 days. The federal IDEA law prevents this new school from imposing any more suspensions upon this child for the rest of the school year unless he actually shows up with a weapon again! Let me emphasize that the vast majority of disabled students under the IDEA law--just like the vast majority of nondisabled students--are good kids who don't pose discipline problems in school. However, when it comes to something as serious as a student bringing a weapon to school or threatening to kill or harm someone with a weapon, school officials must have the ability to respond in the way they believe most appropriate to maintain a safe and stable school for all children. When I hear these incidents from Missouri schools, I cannot help but think that there is something drastically wrong with our federal education laws. We have a mass tragedy waiting to happen if federal law keeps teachers from getting teenagers with weapons out of schools. We cannot afford to keep laws on the books that preclude schools from dealing with early warning signs of danger and handcuff them from taking swift action to prevent violence. We must give schools the power to keep our children safe by allowing them to remove all students who have weapons or threaten to use them. Schools all over my state have told me that they need the authority to discipline all students in a fair and consistent manner--for the safety of their schools and for the benefit of disabled children. Here are some examples of what schools have told me: Maynard Wallace, Superintendent of the Ava R-I School District, has written: ``The discipline code must be the same for all if public education is to survive.'' He says that treating children with handicaps differently than other children in the area of discipline ``not only undermines the entire discipline of the school but is a definite disservice to the handicapped child as well.'' Betty Chong, Assistant Superintendent for Special Services in the Cape Girardeau school district, writes: ``The educators are themselves advocates for children with disabilities. . . . Special educators directors and many principals were first teachers who were dedicated (and still are) to the education of students with disabilities.'' She goes on to say: ``Students with disabilities are held to the same standards as students without disabilities when they are adults. When do they learn how to be law abiding citizens?'' Lyle Laughman, the superintendent of the Lincoln County R-IV school district has written: ``It is in the total best interest of the child and society for that [discipline] determination to be made on the local, individual case level rather than the Federal law which greatly restricts what a school can do in an individual set of circumstances.'' Dale Walkup, Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School District gave me a copy of a letter he sent to President Clinton which says, ``The reauthorization of IDEA has not supported impartial and appropriate consequences for those students who choose drugs and are violent or dangerous to others. We hope the IDEA regulations become more reasonable, appropriate, and considerate of the needs of our total student population.'' In response to both the incidents and recommendations that I have heard from schools, I am introducing the School Safety Act, which will allow schools to remove from the classroom any student who has a weapon or threatens to use a weapon at school. This legislation, which has been endorsed by the Missouri School Boards Association, will repeal the federal law that handcuffs schools from taking measures they believe appropriate to maintain a safe and secure learning environment for students and teachers. A safe and secure setting is vital to success in the classroom. Any student who has a weapon at school, or who threatens to kill or harm someone with a weapon, should be removed from the classroom immediately. Whether a student is ``disabled'' under federal law should not prevent school administrators from dealing appropriately with weapons in school. We can no longer afford to keep a federal law that threatens the safety of the classroom. We can no longer afford to tolerate federal policy that invites a mass tragedy. Under the School Safety Act, schools will be empowered with the flexibility and authority they need to remove any dangerous and violent student from the classroom when weapons are involved. This is not the first time I have introduced school safety legislation since I have been in the Senate. I have already worked to make improvements in the federal law to create a safer learning environment for students and teachers. I began working on this issue in 1995, after a young woman was found dead in the restroom of a North St. Louis County high school. The male special education student convicted of murdering the woman had a history of dangerous behavior, but his discipline record hadn't been disclosed to his new school. In response to this situation, I sought for ways to give schools the crucial information they need to maintain a secure school environment. I authored legislation signed into law in June 1997 providing for the transfer of discipline records when students with dangerous behavior change schools. In the recent ``ed-flex'' bill signed into law on April 29, 1999, I secured a provision that closes a loophole in federal law concerning weapons possession in school. Missouri school board officials had alerted me to a federal provision that allows a school to discipline a student only for carrying a weapon onto school grounds, but not for possessing a weapon at school. In response to this concern, I had the law amended to ensure that school officials can remove a student from the classroom whether he possesses--or carries--a weapon at school. The legislation I am offering today builds upon this previous safe schools legislation by giving schools authority to remove any student from the classroom if he or she brings a weapon to school or threatens to kill or harm someone with a weapon. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, read from an editorial in the Seattle Post Intelligencer that recounted the story of a disabled student who attacked other students with a knife on a school bus. The editorial pointed out the disparities caused by the federal IDEA laws. It said: ``If the school district really is required by law to allow students back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have demonstrated intent to harm others, that law is in error and must be changed.'' I could not agree more with this editorial. It is time to change this erroneous law, which jeopardizes students and teachers by forcing school officials to ignore early warning signs of disaster. Maintaining a safe learning environment requires that local school officials have the authority and flexibility to discipline all students in an equitable and effective manner, especially when it comes to weapons. Let's unshackle our teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards from a law that prevents them from keeping our children safe and secure. Let's give them the power to stop a tragedy before it happens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in the past two weeks since the tragedy occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, we have all had time to reflect on a number of issues. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families, friends, and other loved ones affected by this incident. We have asked ourselves why this happened. How it happened. The Littleton tragedy requires reflection, thought and corrective action within our spheres of influence and responsibility. Children must learn respect and responsibility. Parents must be responsible for their children, including what they watch and what they do. Schools must have firm, fair and consistent discipline policies. Schools must be free to expel violence-prone students. State legislators must review state laws. Congress must review federal laws. As a member of the United States Senate, I have been prompted to stop and examine our current federal education laws involving school safety, and see if our policies are promoting and encouraging school safety--or are in some way hindering our teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, and school boards from maintaining a safe place for our children to learn and our teachers to teach. For much of the past year and before the Littleton tragedy, I traveled through Missouri talking to teachers, principals, school superintendents and school officials about the issue of school safety and school discipline. What I heard and learned was disturbing. After listening to school officials, I have concluded that there is, in fact, at least one federal law that actually jeopardizes our schools' efforts to provide a safe learning environment. Today I am introducing legislation, the School Safety Act, to amend this law and give schools the ability to remove from the classroom students who possess weapons or threaten to use weapons in the classroom, so that we can keep our children and teachers safe. Once enacted, this legislation will help foster a safer environment in schools. If this legislation had been enacted years ago, would it have prevented the Littleton tragedy? It would be wrong to claim for certain that it would. The truth of the Littleton tragedy is that those involved in the massacre violated at least 13 federal laws. The existence of those 13 laws did not stop the Littleton massacre. Still, we must examine our current federal education laws involving school safety and make necessary changes. Across America, parents, teachers, and communities have made it clear that we want our schools to offer our students a world-class education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. If children are to attain high levels of academic performance, our schools must be able to provide safe and secure learning environments free of undue disruption or violence. When we think of school safety, we obviously turn to one element that poses a threat to a secure environment: weapons in schools. Our general federal policy is commendable: to have zero tolerance for weapons at schools. The federal Gun-Free Schools Act requires states receiving federal education funds to have a law requiring a one year expulsion of a student who has a weapon at school. I know that my state of Missouri has such a law on the books. We would think that the Gun-Free Schools Act settles the issue of weapons in schools. But it doesn't. This law contains an exception for nearly one in seven students in my state, and one in eight nationally. This exception is for students covered by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Hidden among the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act is section (c), entitled ``Special Rule,'' which says: ``The provisions of this section shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.'' When you turn to the IDEA law, you see a complex and elaborate set of roadblocks and barriers that hamstring schools in applying discipline to any IDEA student for situations involving weapons possessions. When we talk about students who are subject to the IDEA law, we are not talking about any small number of children: In Missouri, over 129,000--or nearly 14% of our 893,000 students--are classified as ``disabled.'' That's one in seven students. Nationally, there are about 12-13% of all students who are under the IDEA law. We have to keep this in mind as we talk about this issue of school discipline and safety. We must also consider which individuals qualify as ``disabled'' under IDEA. We are not just talking about blindness, deafness, orthopedic impairments, or MS. The federal IDEA definition of disability also includes individuals with serious emotional disturbances or specific learning disabilities. Unlike the Gun-Free Schools Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not have a zero tolerance for students with weapons. In fact, the IDEA law makes it very difficult for schools to act effectively when a student subject to this law has a weapon at school. While the Gun-Free Schools Act would require that any other student be expelled for a year, the ``special rule'' for an IDEA student who brings a gun or knife to school provides that he could be back in the regular classroom within 45 days. Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not allowing school officials to keep those students who have possessed weapons in school out of the classroom. IDEA also hinders schools from taking effective action to protect their students and teachers from students who make threats to use weapons. School districts have developed policies to address student weapons threats. For example, a superintendent in my state told my office that under his school district's policy, he could suspend a student for up to 180 days for threatening to bring a weapon to school and shoot another student. However, if that superintendent is dealing with a student under IDEA, the law makes it very difficult for him to remove the student even if he considers the student a serious threat to the safety of others. In fact, the school may be unable to remove this child from the classroom if he has already been suspended for a certain number of days during the school year. Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not allowing school officials to act on early warning signs to remove potentially violent students from school. The costs involved with trying to keep a dangerous child out of the classroom are astronomical under IDEA. Schools have told me that the ``due process'' proceedings a parent can invoke in response to any disciplinary action taken toward a child is so expensive and time- consuming that schools do all they can to avoid these proceedings. The easiest, simplest due process hearing costs a school about $7500 in Missouri! Not only must schools pay their own legal fees for a due process hearing under IDEA, but they also face the prospect of being responsible for the parents' attorneys fees in some cases. Here is a federal law that discourages safe classrooms because schools cannot afford to take steps they deem essential to maintaining safety without risking serious financial jeopardy. The problems created by IDEA are not simply theoretical. Just three weeks ago--before the Littleton incident--I traveled around Missouri to talk to parents, teachers, principals, and administrators about ways to offer each child a world class education. Again and again, I was told that schools are handcuffed by federal law in dealing with violent and dangerous behavior--often connected with weapons. Let me give you a few examples: In one rural Missouri school, a 15-year-old IDEA student had been making numerous threats against both students and staff. He said such things as, ``I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to get a gun and blow you away.'' School officials were aware of the threats, but the federal law hindered them from taking steps they thought most appropriate to deal with the student. Unfortunately this student ended up shooting another student off school grounds. Fortunately, because he remained in the custody of law enforcement authorities, the student was not returned to the classroom. School officials in this district told me that had this student not been subject to the IDEA laws, they could have--and would have--removed him from the classroom when he made the threats of killing other students and personnel. In an eastern Missouri school district, an IDEA student who was under school suspension was asked to leave a Friday night school dance that he tried to attend in violation of school policy. The student tried continually to regain entry into the school and said to the principal, a teacher, and a parent who was helping supervise the dance: ``I'm going to go home, get my shotgun, come back, and blow your [expletives deleted] heads off.'' The superintendent says that the federal IDEA law constrained him to return this potentially dangerous student to the classroom early the next week. If the student had not had been under IDEA, the superintendent could have imposed a far longer suspension for threatening school personnel. I learned of a Missouri grade schooler, subject to IDEA law, who announced at school, ``I'm going to bring a knife and cut the bus driver's throat.'' Was this an idle threat? This child had transferred from another school where he had been found with a knife and was suspended for 10 days. The federal IDEA law prevents this new school from imposing any more suspensions upon this child for the rest of the school year unless he actually shows up with a weapon again! Let me emphasize that the vast majority of disabled students under the IDEA law--just like the vast majority of nondisabled students--are good kids who don't pose discipline problems in school. However, when it comes to something as serious as a student bringing a weapon to school or threatening to kill or harm someone with a weapon, school officials must have the ability to respond in the way they believe most appropriate to maintain a safe and stable school for all children. When I hear these incidents from Missouri schools, I cannot help but think that there is something drastically wrong with our federal education laws. We have a mass tragedy waiting to happen if federal law keeps teachers from getting teenagers with weapons out of schools. We cannot afford to keep laws on the books that preclude schools from dealing with early warning signs of danger and handcuff them from taking swift action to prevent violence. We must give schools the power to keep our children safe by allowing them to remove all students who have weapons or threaten to use them. Schools all over my state have told me that they need the authority to discipline all students in a fair and consistent manner--for the safety of their schools and for the benefit of disabled children. Here are some examples of what schools have told me: Maynard Wallace, Superintendent of the Ava R-I School District, has written: ``The discipline code must be the same for all if public education is to survive.'' He says that treating children with handicaps differently than other children in the area of discipline ``not only undermines the entire discipline of the school but is a definite disservice to the handicapped child as well.'' Betty Chong, Assistant Superintendent for Special Services in the Cape Girardeau school district, writes: ``The educators are themselves advocates for children with disabilities. . . . Special educators directors and many principals were first teachers who were dedicated (and still are) to the education of students with disabilities.'' She goes on to say: ``Students with disabilities are held to the same standards as students without disabilities when they are adults. When do they learn how to be law abiding citizens?'' Lyle Laughman, the superintendent of the Lincoln County R-IV school district has written: ``It is in the total best interest of the child and society for that [discipline] determination to be made on the local, individual case level rather than the Federal law which greatly restricts what a school can do in an individual set of circumstances.'' Dale Walkup, Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School District gave me a copy of a letter he sent to President Clinton which says, ``The reauthorization of IDEA has not supported impartial and appropriate consequences for those students who choose drugs and are violent or dangerous to others. We hope the IDEA regulations become more reasonable, appropriate, and considerate of the needs of our total student population.'' In response to both the incidents and recommendations that I have heard from schools, I am introducing the School Safety Act, which will allow schools to remove from the classroom any student who has a weapon or threatens to use a weapon at school. This legislation, which has been endorsed by the Missouri School Boards Association, will repeal the federal law that handcuffs schools from taking measures they believe appropriate to maintain a safe and secure learning environment for students and teachers. A safe and secure setting is vital to success in the classroom. Any student who has a weapon at school, or who threatens to kill or harm someone with a weapon, should be removed from the classroom immediately. Whether a student is ``disabled'' under federal law should not prevent school administrators from dealing appropriately with weapons in school. We can no longer afford to keep a federal law that threatens the safety of the classroom. We can no longer afford to tolerate federal policy that invites a mass tragedy. Under the School Safety Act, schools will be empowered with the flexibility and authority they need to remove any dangerous and violent student from the classroom when weapons are involved. This is not the first time I have introduced school safety legislation since I have been in the Senate. I have already worked to make improvements in the federal law to create a safer learning environment for students and teachers. I began working on this issue in 1995, after a young woman was found dead in the restroom of a North St. Louis County high school. The male special education student convicted of murdering the woman had a history of dangerous behavior, but his discipline record hadn't been disclosed to his new school. In response to this situation, I sought for ways to give schools the crucial information they need to maintain a secure school environment. I authored legislation signed into law in June 1997 providing for the transfer of discipline records when students with dangerous behavior change schools. In the recent ``ed-flex'' bill signed into law on April 29, 1999, I secured a provision that closes a loophole in federal law concerning weapons possession in school. Missouri school board officials had alerted me to a federal provision that allows a school to discipline a student only for carrying a weapon onto school grounds, but not for possessing a weapon at school. In response to this concern, I had the law amended to ensure that school officials can remove a student from the classroom whether he possesses--or carries--a weapon at school. The legislation I am offering today builds upon this previous safe schools legislation by giving schools authority to remove any student from the classroom if he or she brings a weapon to school or threatens to kill or harm someone with a weapon. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, read from an editorial in the Seattle Post Intelligencer that recounted the story of a disabled student who attacked other students with a knife on a school bus. The editorial pointed out the disparities caused by the federal IDEA laws. It said: ``If the school district really is required by law to allow students back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have demonstrated intent to harm others, that law is in error and must be changed.'' I could not agree more with this editorial. It is time to change this erroneous law, which jeopardizes students and teachers by forcing school officials to ignore early warning signs of disaster. Maintaining a safe learning environment requires that local school officials have the authority and flexibility to discipline all students in an equitable and effective manner, especially when it comes to weapons. Let's unshackle our teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards from a law that prevents them from keeping our children safe and secure. Let's give them the power to stop a tragedy before it happens. 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 in opposition to S.J. Res. 20 to authorize the use of all necessary force in the NATO operation against Yugoslavia. Taking such a step at this time is imprudent, particularly in light of the poor management of the ongoing air campaign against President Milosevic. Nothing in the operation to date indicates we have defined strategic goals in Kosovo or summoned the political will to achieve those goals. Clearly, this is not the time to authorize the Administration to escalate a strategically flawed and poorly managed campaign in the Balkans. A lack of foresight and planning has defined both the air war and the refugee relief effort, allowing Milosevic to seize and keep the initiative. The air war has been waged in a classic Vietnam-style fashion of escalation. Two principle elements of war, surprise and overwhelming force, have been sacrificed to the political whims of our European allies. The first three weeks of bombing in Allied Force were comparable to one day of bombing in the Gulf War. NATO has waited a full month before targeting Yugoslavia's electrical and television networks. In the Gulf War, such assets were destroyed in the first two days of the conflict. Even as the President sends additional planes and personnel to enhance NATO's firepower, a lack of leadership continues to undermine our efforts to punish Milosevic. According to statements by NATO Military Committee Chairman, General Klaus Naumann, Apache helicopters will not be sent into Kosovo, but fire into the province from Albania. NATO Commander General Wesley Clark is requesting additional planes, but NATO is running out of basing areas in the Balkans. A lack of preparatory work to have these facilities ready has delayed 400 planes being deployed to the region. NATO has an oil embargo on Yugoslavia but will not use force to stop shipments into the country. The refugee crisis has been compounded by poor planning for the relief effort. Before the air campaign began on March 24, the Administration had enough food in the region to feed 500,000 people for five months. Almost two-thirds of that amount was stationed in Yugoslavia, however. For relief supplies such as tents and blankets, Belgrade was the only staging area for the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. Clearly, the Administration's record to date on Kosovo is not a basis upon which to authorize the use of ``all necessary force.'' The Administration misjudged the enemy and started this war with inadequate means. Now that we are engaged, we need to deploy overwhelming air power to accomplish our objectives. I want to see an aggressive air campaign waged before we take the next step of deploying thousands of ground troops to the Balkans. We should be patient and allow an aggressive air campaign to take its toll, but the air war must be combined with better political leadership if our objectives are to be achieved. An inability to explain why the United States is engaged in Kosovo has plagued this operation from the beginning. Until the Administration has demonstrated the political leadership to define and achieve clear objectives in Kosovo, authorizing the use of ground forces is ill-advised.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the provision to protect Social Security, to, in effect, put it in a lockbox to make sure it is not dissipated or misallocated or used to cover deficits in other parts of Government. The votes we are about to cast are important votes. They relate to the future of Social Security, the integrity of Social Security, the strength of America and its ability to meet its obligations when individuals call upon Social Security to do what Congress has said Social Security would be able to do. This vote is about making sure the Social Security surpluses are not used to pay for new budget deficit spending in other parts of Government. Congress is committed to stopping the raid on Social Security. This Congress has passed a budget without using Social Security trust funds. This is historic and it is novel. We have not been passing budgets like this. We have not done it before. It is important; we have passed a budget that says we are not going to raid the Social Security trust fund. In contrast, over the next 5 years, President Clinton's budget would have taken $158 billion from the Social Security trust fund to pay for non-Social Security programs. I think Congress is on the right track. Should we have a $158 billion raid or no raid at all? I think Congress has it right: Don't have any raid at all on Social Security. Frankly, this vote should be bipartisan and unanimous. Last month, the Senate voted 99 to nothing in support of legislation to protect Social Security. We are calling on every Senator to vote with us to pass the legislation that implements the unanimous resolution passed by the Senate 99 to nothing earlier this month. The Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox will make sure that Social Security funds do not go for anything other than Social Security. The bill will achieve these three important results: No. 1, the President will no longer be able to propose budgets that use Social Security funds to balance the budget. Write into the law the President is not to send us proposals for spending which include a backdoor raid on Social Security. It really establishes a priority. It says Social Security is more important than these other new programs or ideas for spending. No. 2, Congress will no longer routinely pass budgets that use Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. A congressional budget that uses Social Security funds to balance the budget will be subject to what is called a point of order. All of us have been involved at one point or another in meetings where someone tries to bring something up and the chairman simply says with a thump of the gavel, ``That's out of order; we are not going to discuss it.'' That is how it should be when people propose, for example, raiding the Social Security trust fund for other Government programs. Mr. President, you, as the occupant of the Chair, should say, with a thump, ``That is out of order, that is off the table, we do not discuss those things, that is not part of what we do.'' A point of order then simply allows, provides for the Chair to say, ``That's out of order, that's not something we do, and if you want to do that, you have to change the way we do business around here, you have to change the rules or suspend them.'' I think that is a major step forward. As a final tool to make sure Social Security trust funds are not used to finance new deficits, this provision will reduce the amount of debt held by the public by the amount of the Social Security surplus, so that when the Social Security surplus is not spent on programs but is invested to pay down the national debt so that we are stronger when we need to pay for Social Security, this makes sure the money will not go into other programs. This will ensure that any and all Social Security surpluses will be directed toward reducing the debt, which means strengthening the capacity to pay Social Security when the time comes. Americans, including the 1 million Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, want Social Security protected, and they have a right to have it protected. They paid for it, they have earned it, and we should protect the integrity of the fund. This bill does what America wants and what every Senator has previously said they want to do as well in behalf of their constituents. It is time for the Senate to vote now to end the debate on this bill, to pass this bill, to do this month what we said last month we wanted to do when we passed the budget resolution; that is, to protect the Social Security trust fund, to reserve it for the benefit of the recipients of the fund, to strengthen and protect the integrity of the fund. I call upon other Members of the Senate to join in this noble cause to which they have already registered their serious commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to my spring 1999 class of interns: Lionel Thompson, Ryan Carney, Stephanie Harris, Kelly Owens, Daniel Lawson, Lacey Muhlfeld, Pete Johnson, Brian Kim, and J.Y. Brown. Each of these young people has served the people of Missouri diligently in my office. They have been invaluable members of my Operations Team over the past several months, and their efforts have not gone unnoticed. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made an oath of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty, and to work with energy and spirit. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. My spring interns have not only achieved this standard, but set a new standard on the tasks they were given. They exemplified a competitive level of work while maintaining a cooperative spirit. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Lionel, Ryan, Stephanie, Kelly, Daniel, Lacey, Pete, Brian, and J.Y. for their contribution to me and my staff in our effort to fulfill our office pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as a parent and former teacher, it is a privilege for me to be able to recognize Missouri home schoolers, who will observe Missouri Home Education Week during May 2-8, 1999. Home schooling has been legal in Missouri since the state's founding in 1821. Since that time, and especially in the last two decades, home schoolers have faced numerous challenges and successes. Fortunately, legislators are increasingly recognizant of the importance of local decision-making and parental involvement in our children's education. Home Education Week reminds us that parents are the first and best educators of their children. Study after study has shown that parental involvement is the most important factor in a child's academic achievement. It is, therefore, appropriate that we celebrate Home Education Week by acknowledging the hard work, dedication, and commitment to academic excellence of the more than 4,300 home school families in my home state. Recently, the Washington Post lauded the academic achievement of these families. The Post article describes a study of home-schooled children, stating that they ``score well above the national median on standardized tests [and] often study above their normal grade level.'' It was an honor for me to proclaim Missouri's first Home Education Week in 1989. Now, in 1999, I look forward to the continued success of Missouri home school families, and to working with them to promote the kind of freedom that encourages parents to take an active role in guiding the course of their children's education.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great honor and privilege that I congratulate Dr. Robert T. Fraley, a member of the Monsanto team of scientists, on receiving the National Medal of Technology Award for developing biotechnology that will help meet the global agricultural challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Dr. Robert T. Fraley is the co-President of the Agricultural Sector of Monsanto, and has worked extensively on the integration of Monsanto's chemical, biotech and seed businesses. He earned his Doctorate in microbiology and biochemistry in 1978, from the University of Illinois. Among his accomplishments, Dr. Fraley was a member of the science team that developed the world's first practical system to introduce foreign genes into crop plants. He continues to work on new improved methods in agriculture through his contributions in the development of insect and herbicide resistant plants. Agriculture is the foundation of many countries' economies, and consequently, the majority of the world's population makes its living in agriculture and food-based activities. Transforming these agricultural economies is important to achieving broad-based economic growth, not only in the United States, but worldwide. In this respect, investments in new agricultural technologies will increase farmer incomes, promote food security, advance other critical development initiatives, and contribute to environmental improvements. Agricultural biotechnology was first introduced to farms in 1995, and today in the United States, there are over 53 million acres of biotech crops. As global food demand continues to increase, there is an immediate need to develop new agriculture tools that are productive and sustainable. With the use of new agricultural biotechnologies, genetically enhanced seeds are already decreasing pest infestation, increasing crop yields, and reducing the need for pesticides. I believe that these new farming methods offer tremendous potential for farmers and consumers from an agronomic, economic, and environmental standpoint. As a result, our rural economies are strengthened, and our agricultural products are becoming more competitive in the global market. I rise today to acknowledge and commend Dr. Robert Fraley and the Monsanto team of researchers for their excellent work. They have played a critical role in the pioneering of gene transfer technology and plant regeneration which began more than 15 years ago. As a result of their relentless pursuit of a vision, their development of agricultural biotechnology, as a science and as an industry, will continue to keep the United States at the forefront of food production. Dr. Fraley and the Monsanto team of scientists are visionaries in their quest to improve the quality of life. Their perseverance, commitment, and dedication to science is an inspiration for others to reach their ``highest and best.'' I wish them continued success as they guide us on a revolutionary path into the Twenty-First Century.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great honor and privilege that I congratulate Dr. Ernest G. Jaworski, a member of the Monsanto team of scientists, on receiving the National Medal of Technology Award for developing biotechnology that will help meet the global agricultural challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Dr. Ernest G. Jaworski was the Director of Biological Sciences before retiring from Monsanto in 1993. Since then, he has served as Scientist In Residence at the St. Louis Science Center and Interim Director of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. He earned his Doctorate in biochemistry in 1952, from Oregon State University. Among his accomplishments, Dr. Jaworski assembled and led the team that developed the world's first practical system to introduce foreign genes into plants. Agriculture is the foundation of many countries' economies, and consequently, the majority of the world's population makes its living in agriculture and food-based activities. Transforming these agricultural economies is important to achieving broad-based economic growth, not only in the United States, but worldwide. In this respect, investments in new agricultural technologies will increase farmer incomes, promote food security, advance other critical development initiatives, and contribute to environmental improvements. Agricultural biotechnology was first introduced to farms in 1995, and today in the United States, there are over 53 million acres of biotech crops. As global food demand continues to increase, there is an immediate need to develop new agriculture tools that are productive and sustainable. With the use of new agricultural biotechnologies, genetically enhanced seeds are already decreasing pest infestation, increasing crop yields, and reducing the need for pesticides. I believe that these new farming methods offer tremendous potential for farmers and consumers from an agronomic, economic, and environmental standpoint. As a result, our rural economies are strengthened, and our agricultural products are becoming more competitive in the global market. I rise today to acknowledge and commend Dr. Ernest Jaworski and the Monsanto team of researchers for their excellent work. They have played a critical role in the pioneering of gene transfer technology and plant regeneration which began more than 15 years ago. As a result of their relentless pursuit of a vision, their development of agricultural biotechnology, as a science and as an industry, will continue to keep the United States at the forefront of food production. Dr. Jaworski and the Monsanto team of scientists are visionaries in their quest to improve the quality of life. Their perseverance, commitment, and dedication to science is an inspiration for others to reach their ``highest and best.'' I wish them continued success as they guide us on a revolutionary path into the Twenty-First Century.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great honor and privilege that I congratulate Dr. Robert B. Horsch, a member of the Monsanto team of scientists, on receiving the National Medal of Technology Award for developing biotechnology that will help meet the global agricultural challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Dr. Robert Horsch is the co-President of Monsanto's Sustainable Development Sector and general manager of Monsanto's Agracetus Campus. He earned his Doctorate in genetics in 1979, from the University of California. Among his accomplishments, Dr. Horsch was a member of the team that developed the world's first practical system to introduce improved genes into crop plants. Thereafter, he expanded Monsanto's gene transfer capability to most important crops such as soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, canola, tomatoes, and potatoes. Agriculture is the foundation of many countries' economies, and consequently, the majority of the world's population makes its living in agriculture and food-based activities. Transforming these agricultural economies is important to achieving broad-based economic growth, not only in the United States, but worldwide. In this respect, investments in new agricultural technologies will increase farmer incomes, promote food security, advance other critical development initiatives, and contribute to environmental improvements. Agricultural biotechnology was first introduced to farms in 1995, and today in the United States, there are over 53 million acres of biotech crops. As global food demand continues to increase, there is an immediate need to develop new agriculture tools that are productive and sustainable. With the use of new agricultural biotechnologies, genetically enhanced seeds are already decreasing pest infestation, increasing crop yields, and reducing the need for pesticides. I believe that these new farming methods offer tremendous potential for farmers and consumers from an agronomic, economic, and environmental standpoint. As a result, our rural economies are strengthened, and our agricultural products are becoming more competitive in the global market. I rise today to acknowledge and commend Dr. Robert Horsch and the Monsanto team of researchers for their excellent work. They have played a critical role in the pioneering of gene transfer technology and plant regeneration which began more than 15 years ago. As a result of their relentless pursuit of a vision, their development of agricultural biotechnology, as a science and as an industry, will continue to keep the United States at the forefront of food production. Dr. Horsch and the Monsanto team of scientists are visionaries in their quest to improve the quality of life. Their perseverance, commitment, and dedication to science is an inspiration for others to reach their ``highest and best.'' I wish them continued success as they guide us on a revolutionary path into the Twenty-First Century.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a great honor and privilege to congratulate Dr. Stephen G. Rogers, a member of the Monsanto team of scientists, on receiving the National Medal of Technology Award for developing biotechnology that will help meet the global agricultural challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Dr. Stephen G. Rogers is the director of biotechnology projects for Europe located at Monsanto's Cereals Technology Center in Cambridge, England, where he is presently working on the integration of modern crop breeding with improved crop methods. He earned his Doctorate in biology in 1976, from the Johns Hopkins University. Among his accomplishments, Dr. Rogers is a member of the team that developed the first method for producing new proteins in plants, leading to the discovery of virus resistance and insect protection traits for crops--a development that is revolutionizing modern farming. Agriculture is the foundation of many countries' economies, and consequently, the majority of the world's population makes its living in agriculture and food-based activities. Transforming these agricultural economies is important to achieving broad-based economic growth, not only in the United States, but worldwide. In this respect, investments in new agricultural technologies will increase farmer incomes, promote food security, advance other critical development initiatives, and contribute to environmental improvements. Agricultural biotechnology was first introduced to farms in 1995, and today in the United States, there are over 53 million acres of biotech crops. As global food demand continues to increase, there is an immediate need to develop new agriculture tools that are productive and sustainable. With the use of new agricultural biotechnologies, genetically enhanced seeds are already decreasing pest infestation, increasing crop yields, and reducing the need for pesticides. I believe that these new farming methods offer tremendous potential for farmers and consumers from an agronomic, economic, and environmental standpoint. As a result, our rural economies are strengthened, and our agricultural products are becoming more competitive in the global market. I rise today to acknowledge and commend Dr. Stephen Rogers and the Monsanto team of researchers for their excellent work. They have played a critical role in the pioneering of gene transfer technology and plant regeneration which began more than 15 years ago. As a result of their relentless pursuit of a vision, their development of agricultural biotechnology, as a science and as an industry, will continue to keep the United States at the forefront of food production. Dr. Rogers and the Monsanto team of scientists are visionaries in their quest to improve the quality of life. Their perseverance, commitment, and dedication to science is an inspiration for others to reach their ``highest and best.'' I wish them continued success as they guide us on a revolutionary path into the Twenty-First Century.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the outstanding service that Bethesda Ministry has provided to the Colorado Springs community as well as to missions work around the world. It is with great pleasure that I commend them for their 40 years of remarkable achievements. They are a great inspiration. As our Nation and the world look increasingly for moral guidance in a period of moral decay, Bethesda Ministry provides a path for others to follow. I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Bethesda Ministry for their commitment to God and to the redemptive mission of Christ. Best wishes for a joyous and memorable 40th Anniversary.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I look forward to the passage of the Ed-Flex Partnership Act, which I believe will liberate schools and teachers from the costly burden of Federal mandates and regulations. It is very important that we free our teachers to teach and that we free the resources of the educational system to meet the needs of students, rather than to satisfy directives of the bureaucracy. I believe this bill will give America's teachers more freedom to teach. It will release them from countless hours spent filling out forms from Washington, DC. The State of Missouri's 525 school districts will have more time to educate their children and a greater ability to decide how best to use the precious resource of taxpayer dollars, and how to use those to devote them to the best interests of students and student achievement, and not for a sort of edification of the bureaucracy in Washington. So I want to thank Senator Wyden, Senator Frist, and Senator Jeffords: Senator Jeffords as chairman of the relevant committee, and Senators Frist and Wyden, who are the lead cosponsors of this important legislation. They have done wonderful work here. This is work designed to find its way all the way to the student in the school system. So much of what is done in the name of education never finds its way to the student. So often it edifies the bureaucracy, or builds it, or strengthens it. So often it applies to some hierarchical part of the State educational system. But Ed-Flex is designed to carry the benefit all the way to the student. There is one thing that we care about more than anything else, and that is the student in the school system. Sometimes we lose sight of that. I commend Senators Frist, Wyden, and Jeffords for their having kept the student in focus in this particular measure. I am also pleased to support this conference report because it contains an amendment that I proposed, which makes an important change to a discipline provision within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Now, this provision, which the Senate approved by a vote of 78-21, gives school authorities the opportunity and the right to discipline any student who possesses a weapon on school premises. This provision allows a school to place a student--even a student with a disability--in an interim alternative educational setting if the student carries or possesses a gun on school premises. This action closes a loophole in the IDEA law that only permitted a school to take disciplinary action if the child carried the weapon to school, but not if he or she possessed the weapon at school. My intent in offering this provision over a month ago was to empower schools to maintain a safe and secure learning environment for students, teachers, and for other school personnel. America is saddened today, and we all grieve at yesterday's tragic situation in the Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. That situation underscores the need for us to continue to find ways to help teachers, parents, and school officials maintain safer schools. We need to be creating a learning environment that is free of undue disruption or violence. We should give local school officials the authority to enforce zero tolerance of weapons brought to school. That is a step in which this bill goes when it includes the ability to discipline students who bring guns to school or possess guns at school. I know all of us here offer our condolences, heartfelt sympathies, to all of the families, the loved ones, the teachers, and to the communities that surround or are involved in the tragedy in Colorado. We don't know all the facts of this incident. We don't know the complete background on the students who are allegedly involved in this situation. But this incident should prompt in us a desire to examine our current Federal laws and to make whatever necessary changes there are, if there can be changes made to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. Since I became a Member of the Senate in 1995, I have had concerns about school safety. I have already worked to make improvements in Federal law to create a safer learning environment for students and teachers. My involvement on this issue began with the 1995 killing of the 15-year-old in St. Louis named Christine Smetzer. She was killed in the restroom of a high school in St. Louis County. Now, the male special education student convicted of murdering Christine had a juvenile record and had been caught in women's restrooms at a previous school. However, the teachers and the administrators at McCluer High School where he was transferred say they were not informed of the student's record when he transferred to their school. So here you have a student who should have been identified, could have been identified as a student who had a special potential for the kind of violence and danger that transpired. The student was transferred, but the information that would have alerted school officials to make the school a safer environment, to help that student avoid the commission of the crime, and certainly to prevent the kind of tragic outcome, the killing of another student, our Federal laws were part of the problem that kept that from happening. So in response to that, I secured a provision in the law requiring that student disciplinary records transfer to a new school when the student transfers to a new school. That was just a small step taken in response to that 1995 problem with student discipline requirements that the Federal Government imposes. Now, the discipline provision in the bill that we are discussing here today was something that I, frankly, came to understand as a result of discussing concerns with Missouri schools. A suburban Missouri school district told me it found a disabled student to be in possession of a weapon at school, but the school could not be sure that the student had actually carried the weapon to the school premises. This school told me it needed this loophole closed to ensure that it could act swiftly and with confidence to an obviously dangerous situation. You can imagine the inability to discipline somebody because they said, ``I didn't carry the gun on to the premises, I just got it after I was here,'' or ``I found it in my locker or on the floor,'' or ``You can't prove that I brought it into the school. Therefore, you can't discipline me for having a gun at school.'' What a terrible situation that is. So when I sought to offer this amendment--which was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and remains in the conference committee report--it was in response to this need to make sure that the Federal Government doesn't have rules that make it impossible for local schools to be able to maintain a secure and safe school environment. Interestingly enough, 2 weeks ago, I was traveling in the State of Missouri, talking with teachers and parents and principals and administrators to get their input about education. Time after time, they talked to me about safety and about discipline. Very often, they even mentioned weapons at school. They mentioned that the Federal law was handcuffing their ability to take appropriate steps to keep their schools safe. In a specific school--I was told by the administrator of that school, this is not a hypothetical, but I choose not to name the school because the school would prefer not to be identified--I was told of a situation in a rural Missouri school where a disabled student had made numerous threats against both students and staff, had threatened on at least seven occasions to kill other students or staff. The school was aware of the threats, but was hindered by the Federal law from taking steps that they thought were most appropriate to deal with the student. Later, this high school student finally shot another student. The shooting happened off school grounds and the school was able to remove the student from the classroom once the shooting had taken place. But I wonder if we might think carefully as to whether or not the Federal requirements which tie the hands of State officials and school officials regarding school discipline, whether those Federal knots, Federal handcuffs--ought to be taken off our school principals, our teachers, our administrators, our school boards so that they have the ability at an early time when there is an early warning to take steps to avoid the tragedy that can otherwise exist. In this situation they weren't able to actually get done what they needed to do until another student had been shot. I don't believe that resulted in a fatality. But the difference between someone wounded and someone killed is frequently not something we can take a great deal of consolation in because that bullet could have been deadly. Another school superintendent reported to me that Federal law required him to return a disabled student to the classroom after the student threatened to shoot school employees. We have seen the tragic gruesome events in States close to Missouri, in schools in Jonesboro, AR, in Paducah, KY, and now in Littleton, CO. I don't want to see this happen in my home State of Missouri. I don't want to see these kinds of things happen anywhere. Again, I emphasize: We do not--I repeat ``do not''--know all of the facts of the Littleton incident. We do not know if they were special education students subject to the Federal IDEA laws or not. But we do know that this situation should prompt us to examine all of our Federal laws involving school safety. We have a massive tragedy waiting to happen if we have Federal rules and regulations which keep our school officials across America from being able to control schools, control students, and discipline students appropriately. We have a massive tragedy waiting to happen if we don't allow teachers and administrators to keep students who have guns from coming onto the campus and being on the campus. The provision that is in this measure, which I have had the privilege of sponsoring, ends one of these laws and helps protect our kids from gun violence in schools. The tragic events at schools across the nation in the last year or so say something very, very troubling about our culture. In Springfield, MO, which is my hometown--I grew up there, went through school grades 1 through 12 in Springfield--just hours after the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, the school board voted to approve arming its school district security guards with weapons. I am saddened that the board had to take this action. But it reflects the harsh reality of our culture today. I think all of us wonder why these incidents of violence happen. Children against children--what does it say about our culture? Have we developed a culture of violence which degrades the value of life? We wonder about the movies, movies and video games and music, the so- called gangster rap--I am not even sure how to label it--which talk about this kind of killing and suicide, and the disrespect for fellow students and fellow human beings. I think we need in our society to reexamine what our culture is teaching our children. What are we saying? What are we promoting with the death, with the violence, with the glorification of drugs in so much of the literature, and as a matter of fact, in much of the music? Parents need to be concerned. These aren't all things that government can have much to do about, but I think our parents need to be concerned about the level of exposure that our children have to things which degrade the appreciation for life and desensitize our feelings toward death. The joystick on a video game may punch out an opponent on the screen, and one might be able to kill, kill, kill, kill just by punching the button on the computer. I think we have to be careful that we don't create in ourselves the mentality of disrespect of what ought to be an appreciation for life, and desensitize our feelings. Obviously, Congress can't solve all the problems.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that I have another 60 seconds.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we can act to ensure that our legislative policies empower parents, teachers, principals and administrators with the ability to ensure that our children have a safe learning environment. I believe that is something we owe America. Current Federal education laws preclude schools from dealing with early warning signs of danger. It is time for us to end that. I am pleased that we have done it to a small degree in the Ed-Flex measure. I am grateful for the sponsors of this measure and for the excellent work they have done for America and education.