John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the possible deployment of United States troops to Kosovo demands the Senate's full attention and debate. I applaud the House of Representatives for addressing this issue in a timely manner, even though I do not support the House resolution authorizing the deployment of United States troops to Kosovo. The pending deployment of United States troops to Kosovo is particularly ill-advised in light of the challenges and difficulties associated with our current mission in Bosnia. Now 2 years past the original deadline with no end in sight, the Bosnia operation has cost the United States over $8 billion in real dollars since 1992. Administration officials cannot identify an end-date for the Bosnia mission and have not been able to transfer the operation to our European allies. Progress in Bosnia has been painfully slow. In many ways the country remains just as divided as it was when the Dayton Accords were signed. Although Bosnia should be a poignant reminder of the limits of nation-building, the administration is considering another open-ended commitment of United States ground forces to the Balkans. The violence and instability that has plagued the Balkans troubles me as it does every other Member of this body. Every Member of the Senate would like to see an end to the violence in Kosovo and a sustainable peace in Bosnia. But in addressing these difficult issues, the President and the Congress owe it to the American people to define a consistent policy for when their sons and daughters will be placed in harm's way. We have to define the American interests important enough to justify risking American lives. Unfortunately, the President has not done so in this case. United States military deployments in the Balkans are not being driven by vital security interests, but humanitarian concerns that have not been defined clearly. As Henry Kissinger states, ``The proposed deployment in Kosovo does not deal with any threat to United States security as this concept has traditionally been conceived.'' U.S. humanitarian interests are important elements of America's foreign policy, but should not be considered alone as the basis for risking the lives of American soldiers. The violence in Kosovo is atrocious, but half a dozen other civil conflicts around the world offer more compelling humanitarian reasons for United States intervention. If United States troops are deployed to Kosovo where 2,000 people have died, why not to Sudan where a civil war has claimed 2 million casualties? Why not to Afghanistan or Rwanda or Angola where hundreds of thousands of people have died in civil wars that continue to this day? Such questions underscore the need for a consistent policy which links the deployment of American troops to the defense of vital national security interests. The United States can and should provide indispensable diplomatic leadership to help resolve foreign crises, but we have to recognize the purposes and limits of American military power. The blood and treasure of this country could be spent many times over in fruitless efforts to reconstruct shattered nation states. From Somalia to Haiti to Bosnia and now to Kosovo, I cannot discern a consistent policy for the deployment of United States troops. In a world full of civil war and humanitarian suffering, will American ground forces be deployed only to those conflicts that get the most media attention? The media cycle is no basis for a consistent foreign policy. The American people deserve better leadership from Washington for the prudent and effective use of U.S. military power. The administration has not provided that leadership. The U.S. Armed Forces have been deployed repeatedly to compensate for a lack of foresight and discipline in our foreign policy. United States policy in the Balkans, for example, has dealt with symptoms of instability rather than the root of the problem. The administration has deployed peacekeeping forces to suppress ethnic conflict inflamed by President Milosevic but has missed opportunities to undermine Milosevic himself. A lack of diligence and resolve also can be seen in United States policy toward Iraq. Saddam is stronger today than at the end of the gulf war because the administration has not seized opportunities to undermine his regime. The ill-defined deployment of United States troops to Kosovo only reinforces my concerns about the misuse of American military resources. We have been asking our military personnel to do more with less, and the strain is showing in troubling recruiting, retention, and readiness statistics. The dramatic increase in the pace of military activity has been accompanied--not with an increase in defense funding--but with a 27-percent cut in real terms since 1990. In this decade, operational missions increased 300 percent while the force structure for the Army and Air Force was reduced by 45 percent each, the Navy by approximately 40 percent, and the Marines by over 10 percent. Contingency operations during this administration have exacted a heavy cost (in real terms): $8.1 billion in Bosnia; $1.1 billion in Haiti; $6.1 billion in Iraq. The Kosovo agreement pursued by the administration is laying the groundwork for another open-ended United States military presence in the Balkans. The administration's strategy for resolving the conflict in Kosovo could very well lead to the worst-case scenario of a broader regional conflict now being used to justify United States intervention. The Kovoso Albanians see the proposed settlement as a 3-year waiting period leading to an eventual referendum for independence. The Serbians strongly oppose such a step. That will guarantee United States troops will be in Kosovo for at least 3 years and most likely much longer when the inevitable fighting resumes over the question of Kosovo's status. Mr. President, the credibility of the United States is on the line when we commit our military personnel overseas. When United States soldiers were killed in Somalia, the President could not justify the mission to the American people. The hasty U.S. withdrawal from that African nation cost America dearly in terms of international stature. As we consider a possible deployment to Kosovo, the lessons learned 6 years ago in Somalia should not be forgotten. The American people will not support a Kosovo deployment that costs American lives when America's vital security interests are not at stake. Yet American casualties are a very real prospect in Kosovo, as potentially both the Kosovo revels and Serbians will be firing on United States military personnel. Not only is United States credibility at risk in Kosovo, the credibility of the NATO Alliance is in jeopardy as well. NATOs success in the past has been based on the clearly defined mission of the NATO Treaty: collective defense of a carefully defined territory. Now, the administration is transforming the alliance into a downsized United Nations with a standing army for peacekeeping operations. NATO's membership has been expanded this year, but the real expansion has occurred in the alliance mission to include operations never envisioned in the NATO Treaty. Managing Europe's ethnic conflicts was not the reason NATO was established and not a basis on which it can remain a vital organization in the future. The American people have not understood our commitment to NATO--a military alliance for fighting wars--to be another arm of the United Nations for peacekeeping operations. Ill-defined missions for NATO will lead to more misguided U.S. military deployments, the erosion of U.S. support for NATO, and the speedy demise of the alliance itself. The U.S. Armed Forces should be deployed only to defend the vital national security interests of the United States. The American people understand that we live in a dangerous world where U.S. interests must be defended. But they also have a strong aversion to fruitless nation- building exercises to resolve the world's ancient hatreds, and rightly so. Our country has learned through painful sacrifice the high cost of nation-building. In spite of the difficulties surrounding the Bosnia mission, however, we are on the verge of taking on our second nation- building exercise in a region of the world that has been wracked by war for centuries. In the post-cold-war world, there will be no lack of civil war and ethnic conflict with serious humanitarian implications. The United States should continue to work to alleviate suffering and facilitate peace in other countries, but deploying American forces to quell centuries-old ethnic conflicts is often the least effective and most unsustainable way to address these problems. I am opposed to the deployment of United States forces to Kosovo and urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the Lott second-degree amendment prohibiting the use of funds for a Kosovo operation unless previously authorized by Congress.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I am pleased to offer my enthusiastic congratulations to the Boonville, Missouri Lions Club which celebrates its 60th anniversary on April 17, 1999. Long before President Bush spoke of a ``thousand points of light,'' the Lions sparkled in Boonville. Over the years they have been recognized for their tireless work to aid both research and victims of sight and hearing impairments, diabetes, and other maladies. Always a strong force in local charities, they truly embody their moto: ``We Serve.'' The Lions Club of Boonville has enjoyed sixty years of achievement through good deeds and good fellowships. I salute them.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, congratulations to Lieutenant Colonel Allen Estes, P.E., for being selected as one of ten finalists for the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Federal Engineer of the Year Award. This is an intense engineering competition of highly trained and dedicated federal employees, both military and civilian. The candidates are accomplished in their education, service, and leadership to accomplish their agencies' missions. They have performed above and beyond their job descriptions and represent the best and the brightest among those who work for all the citizens of the United States. Lieutenant Colonel Estes commands the 169th Engineer Battalion at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where he oversees the training, discipline, and management of over 2,000 new soldiers a year in nine different military engineering occupational specialities. He contributes immeasurably to his community by teaching night courses to soldiers and donating that salary to charities and battalion activities. Lieutenant Colonel Estes is a pioneer in the application of system reliability and optimization techniques for engineering structures. His leadership, accomplishments, community service, and participation in professional organizations make him ideally suited for the Federal Engineer of the Year Award. Other finalists for this award who deserve recognition are Gregory M. Cunningham, Gary M. Erickson, James D. Wood, George L. Sills, Georgine K. Glatz, Brent W. Mefford, Luis Javier Malvar, Lieutenant Kirsten Lea Nielsen, and Charles D. Wagner.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to join the senior senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in offering an amendment to help the plight of the hog farmers in the state of Missouri. Hog farmers in our home state, and across the nation, are experiencing a disaster outside of their control, much like a flood, drought, or disease. It was projected that 25 to 40 percent of Missouri's pork producers would lose their family farms if we do not take immediate and substantial action. That is why we have offered this amendment. The statistics are devastating. Since June 1998, pork farmers experienced a roughly 70 percent decline in pork prices, from $40 per hundredweight to $9 per hundredweight. The 1998 average price was an astounding 30 percent below the average price in 1932. In 1933, market hogs brought $3.53 a hundredweight, which is $47.29 in today's dollars. There was a $2.6 billion equity meltdown on hog farms across America, and Economist Glen Grimes, at the University of Missouri, projects that hog farmers will suffer another one billion loss in 1999. Some hog farmers have told me that they would have been better off financially if their hogs had simply been destroyed by a natural disaster. At one point, the feed the hogs were eating was worth more than the hogs themselves. And not long ago, consumers were paying more for a canned ham than the 260-pound hog it came from. To address this disaster on hog farms across America, the Administration committed $50 million to their plight. While this amount sends a message of support to hog farmers, it is inadequate in light of the severity of the crisis to our family farms. The Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers requested our assistance, and we have responded. Today, Senator Bond and I are offering this amendment, which makes $250 million available for farmers struggling to survive the severe drop in pork prices. Under the amendment, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be provided with $150 million new funds and would be given the authority to use another $100 million, that the USDA already has, to help hog farmers. The amendment sends a clear and resounding message of support to Missouri's hog farmers. In my recent trips to Missouri, I met with numerous hog farmers and was alarmed to hear them say that many of them would have to sell the family farm if we do not act expediently. This situation demands action, and I have taken immediate action at the request of Missouri's family farmers. It is the understanding of those of us that have offered this amendment today that the majority of the funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture will be used on behalf of our nation's pork farmers. Last year, all of the major commodity groups received disaster assistance, but the hog farmers received nothing. In current law (Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935) the Department of Agriculture has broad authority to re-establish farmers' purchasing power by making payments, to encourage domestic consumption by diverting surpluses to low-income groups, and to encourage the export of farm products through producer payments or other means. However, the amount devoted to any one commodity shall not exceed 25 percent of the Section 32 funds. Most recently, the USDA recently used its Section 32 authority to make a $50 million direct cash payment to pork producers. Our amendment adds $150 million to the USDA Section 32 Fund, to be used for hog farmers, and it waives the 25 percent cap on the USDA Section 32 Fund for the remainder of fiscal year 1999. These funds would be made available to help the current emergency situation in the pork industry. In addition to today's amendment, I would also like to mention some of the initiatives that I have worked on with the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers in order to address the pork crisis: Initiated a request, with Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), to U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky successfully urging her to add European Union pork to the U.S. trade retaliation list against the EU's unfair trade practices. Requested that the U.S. Government buy excess hogs from farmers and ship U.S. pork as emergency assistance to Central America. Wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada urging him to resolve work stoppage in the Ontario pork packers plant so that Canada can slaughter its hogs instead of flooding our slaughter houses with Canadian hogs. Wrote to the President and the Secretary of Agriculture requesting that they use all their authority to ensure that no unfair competition or antitrust practices exist in domestic pork markets. It concerns me that farmer's prices for hogs at the farm gate have plummeted while prices at the cash register have not dropped equally for the consumer. Requested of the Administration an immediate moratorium on burdensome new federal regulations affecting hog producers, and wrote to the President to ease paperwork requirements placed on farmers and banks so that the money can quickly get to those who need it. Introduced a congressional resolution (S. Con. Res. 4) with Senator Max Baucus which demands that South Korea end its unfair trade practices and subsidies that hurt American pork producers. The resolution also urges the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate action against such harmful Korean subsidies. amendment no. 117 (Purpose: To provide funding for rural water infrastructure) On page 37, line 9 strike ``$313,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$343,000,000''. On page 5, after line 20 insert the following: rural community advancement program For an additional amount for the costs of direct loans and grants of the rural utilities programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009f), as provided in 7 U.S.C. 1926(a) and 7 U.S.C. 1926C for distribution through the national reserve, $30,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be for grants under such program: Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent an official budget request for $30,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act. amendment no. 118 At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, monies available under section 763 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 shall be provided by the Secretary of Agriculture directly to any state determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to have been materially affected by the commercial fishery failure or failures declared by the Secretary of Commerce in September, 1998 under section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Such state shall disburse the funds to individuals with family incomes below the federal poverty level who have been adversely affected by the commercial fishery failure or failures. Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent an official budget request for such amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress. Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act. amendment no. 119 On page 2, line 11, strike $20,000,000 and insert $25,000,000. On page 2, line 13, strike $20,000,000 and insert $25,000,000. On page 37, line 9, increase the amount by $5,000,000.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent desecration of our great national symbol. I want to thank Chairman Hatch for his continuing dedication to this issue, and I want to applaud him for reintroducing the flag amendment today. I believe that our nation's symbol is a unique and important part of our heritage and culture, and worthy of respect and protection. In 1995, I was an original co-sponsor of an amendment to the Constitution designed to protect the symbol of our nation and its ideals. When that resolution was defeated narrowly, we vowed that this issue would not go away and it has not. I stand here, again, today to declare the necessity of protecting the Flag of the United States of America and what it represents. Throughout our history, the Flag has held a special place in the hearts and minds of Americans. As the appearance of the Flag has changed with the addition of stars as the nation has grown, its core meaning to the American people has remained constant. It symbolizes an ideal, not just for Americans, but for all those who honor the great American experiment. It represents a shared ideal of freedom, sacrifice, morality, history, unity, patriotism, loved ones lost, the American way of life and even America itself. The Flag stands in this chamber and in our court rooms; it is draped over our honored dead; it flies at half-mast to mourn those we wish to respect; and it is the subject of our National Anthem, our National March and our Pledge of Allegiance. America's inability to demand a modicum of respect for the flag leads not only to the desecration of our nation's symbol, but of the important values upon which this nation was founded. As the Chief Justice noted in his dissent in Texas versus Johnson (1989), ``[t]he American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation. . . . Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have.'' There can be little doubt that the people of this country fully support preserving and protecting the American Flag. During a recent hearing that I chaired on ``The Tradition and Importance of Protecting the United States Flag'' held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, the witnesses noted that an unprecedented 80% of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. The people's elected representatives reflected that vast public support by enacting Flag protection statues at both the State and Federal levels. In fact, 49 State Legislatures have passed resolutions asking Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. Regrettably, the Supreme Court thwarted the people's will--and discarded the judgment of state legislatures and the Congress that protecting the Flag is fully consistent with our Constitution--by holding that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, the American Flag is just another piece of cloth for which no minimum of respect may be demanded. As a consequence, that which represents the struggles of those who came before us, our current ideals, and our hopes for years to come, cannot be recognized for what it truly is--a national treasure in need of protection. Further, the question must be asked, what is the legacy we are leaving our children? At a time when our nation's virtues are too rarely extolled by our national leaders, and national pride is dismissed by many as arrogance, America needs, more than ever, something to celebrate. At a time when our political leaders labor under the taint of scandal, we need a national symbol that is beyond reproach. America needs its Flag unblemished, representing more than any person or any partisan interest, but this extraordinary nation. The Flag, and the freedom for which it stands, has a unique ability to unite us as Americans. Whatever our disagreements, we are united in our respect for the Flag. We are in need of healing. We should not allow the healing and unifying power of the Flag to become a source of divisiveness. The protection that the people seek for the Flag does not threaten the sacred rights afforded by the First Amendment. I sincerely doubt that the Framers intended the First Amendment of the Constitution to prevent state legislatures and Congress from protecting the Flag of the nation for which they shed their blood. At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, the tradition of protecting the Flag was too firmly established to suggest that such laws are inconsistent with our constitutional traditions. Many of the state laws were based on the Uniform Flag Act of 1917. No one at that time, or for 70 years afterwards, felt that these laws ran afoul of the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself upheld a Nebraska statute preventing commercial use of the Flag in 1907 in Halter versus Nebraska. As the Chief Justice stated in his dissent, ``I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which make criminal the public burning of the flag.'' Nor do I accept the notion that amending the Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court's decisions in the specific context of desecration of the Flag will somehow undermine the First Amendment as it is applied in other contexts. This amendment does not create a slippery slope which will lead to the erosion of Americans' right to free speech. The Flag is wholly unique. It has not rightful counterpart. An amendment protecting the Flag from desecration will provide no aid or comfort in any future campaigns to restrict speech. Moreover, an amendment banning the desecration of the Flag does not limit the content of any true speech. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Johnson versus Texas, ``[t]he concept of `desecration' does not turn on the substance of the message the actor intends to convey, but rather on whether those who view the act will take serious offense.'' Likewise, the act of desecrating the Flag does not have any content in and of itself. The act takes meaning and expresses conduct only in the context of the true speech which accompanies the act. And that speech remains unregulated. As the Chief Justice noted, ``flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others.'' In sum, there is no principal or fear that should stand as an obstacle to our protection of the Flag. Unfortunately, at no other time in history has our country so needed such a symbol of sacrifice, honor, unity and freedom. It is my earnest hope that by amending the Constitution to prohibit its desecration, this body will protect the heritage, sacrifice, ideals, freedom and honor that the Flag uniquely represents.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there is no more worthy government obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social Security is our most important social program, a contract between the government and its citizens. Americans, including one million Missourians, depend on this commitment. Unfortunately, as you know, the Social Security system is facing some long-term difficulties. While the Trust Funds are currently building up healthy surpluses--$127 billion in FY 99--by 2013 these surpluses will disappear, and by 2032 the system is facing bankruptcy. With this impeding crisis in mind, I have embarked on a serious examination of the Social Security system. I have spent many hours in the last few months, analyzing the history and workings of this important program, in order to figure out how we can make this program work better. The result of this effort has been a package of important reforms designed to protect Social Security. This package is designed to protect Social Security but, more importantly, it is designed to protect the American people--from debt, from risky, unwise investments, from policies that unfairly deny Social Security to some seniors who choose to work after retirement, and from attempts to use our retirement dollars on spending purposes other than Social Security. The Social Security system has some imperfections that now make our long- term situation worse than it should be, and my package is designed to improve the system in the near term, so that we can begin the important work of reforming Social Security for the long term. One of the points I have already introduced. Last week, I introduced the Protect Social Security Benefits Act. This legislation will prevent surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds from financing deficits in the rest of the federal budget. Social Security should not finance irresponsible spending or tax cuts that are not otherwise paid for. No rules now stop deficit budgets from being considered. That must end. In addition to the problem of the misdirection of Social Security's surpluses, I also want to improve the way the funds are handled. There is no getting around the fact that a key to the long-term solvency of Social Security is how the current mushrooming Social Security Trust Funds Management Act, which focuses on how the current Social Security surplus is invested and managed. The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury, the Managing Trustee of Social Security, to consult with the Social Security Commissioner before decisions are made about investing the Social Security trust funds. This additional step will preserve the independence of Social Security and make sure investment decisions are based on the best interest of paying current and future benefits. Currently, the Secretary of the Treasury, who is by law the Managing Trustee, has the sole authority to invest Social Security surpluses, although the law limits that authority to two types of government debt. Nowhere in current law is the Managing Trustee or the Board of Trustees or the Social Security Commissioner directed to make investment decisions on the basis of protecting current and future benefits. Making sure that we can pay benefits now and in the future should be the highest priority. My bill adds this important change to the law. The Social Security Trust Funds Management Act explicitly forbids Social Security Trust Funds from being invested in the stock market. Chairman Alan Greenspan says that investing Social Security funds in the market is bad for Social Security and bad for our economy. When Alan Greenspan talks, Congress ought to listen. The federal government should not own corporate stocks and bonds. The government must not have undue influence over the market. In addition, having the government put Social Security taxes in the stock market adds risk to retirement, and that is a gamble I am unwilling to make for the one million Missourians who now rely on Social Security. The Social Security Trust Funds Management Act legislates that government will not gamble with Social Security in the stock market. In addition, the bill requires Social Security to provide upon request--and, as soon as secure enough to ensure confidentiality, over the Internet--more detailed information about individuals' contribution levels and rates of return. Let me explain the reasons for these three provisions. In order to understand the investment of the Social Security Trust Funds, we must first answer the question, Where is the Social Security surplus? This question helps us understand what the Social Security surplus is, and is not. In truth, the Trust Funds have no money, only interest-bearing notes. It would be foolish to have money in the trust fund that earned no interest or had no return. In return for the Social Security notes, Social Security taxes are sent to the U.S. Treasury and mingled with other government revenues, where the entire pool of cash pays the government's day-to-day expenses. While the Trust Funds records now show a total of $857 billion in the fund, these assets exist only in the form of government securities, or debt. According to the Washington Post, ``The entire Social Security Trust Fund, all [$857] billion or so of it, fits readily in four ordinary brown, accordion-style folders that one can easily hold in both hands. The 174 certificates reside in a plain combination-lock filing cabinet on the third floor of the bureau's office building.'' The placement of all of these funds into nonmarketable government securities raises some questions about the law that governs the management of Social Security money. Under current law, Social Security is now an independent agency. Its Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of Social Security. This Board is composed of six members: The Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Social Security and two members of the public nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This Board reports annually to Congress on the financial status of the Trust Funds. The Secretary of Treasury is the Managing Trustee. The Managing Trustee has sole authority to invest the surplus trust funds not needed to pay current benefits. As for the investment of the fund, while the Managing Trustee is responsible for the investment, his investment options are limited by law to two types of Federal Government debt securities. The law directs the Managing Trustee to invest the surplus in ``special issue non-marketable'' federal debt obligations, except where he determines that the purchase of ``marketable securities is ``in the public interest,'' not Social Security's interest. Sadly, it is all too easy to think of times when an administration strapped for funds might use this power to act in the public interest, and not in the interest of Social Security. It`s even happened recently. In 1995, the Clinton Administration used Federal employee pension funds to prevent the government from breaching the debt limit during the two week Government shutdown. Right now, about 99% of the securities in the trust funds are special issue non-marketable securities, and about 1% are marketable securities. These two types of bonds are similar in that they both represent government debt. They differ in that non-marketable securities are available only to the trust funds and not to the public and they pay a rate of interest that is calculated and set in law. Marketable securities, in contrast, are sold to the public at auction and pay the prevailing yield as determined by the marketplace. This review of current law highlights three important points. First, nowhere in current law is the Managing Trustee or the Board of Trustees or the Social Security Commissioner directed to make investment decisions on the basis of how to best protect payment of current and future benefits, taking risk into account. This is unacceptable. The Social Security Trust Funds Management Act changes this. This change is consistent with the legal concept that a trustee owes a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of the intended beneficiary, and exercises a heightened standard of care in management decisions and actions. Second, although Social Security is an independent agency, the Secretary of Treasury retains sole authority to invest Social Security surpluses. There is a conflict of responsibilities held by the Secretary of Treasury in his dual capacity as Managing Trustee of Social Security. Presumably, the Trustee is to invest those funds as securely as possible, but also with the highest possible rate of return. The role of the Secretary of the Treasury is to manage the finances of the United States Government, minimizing, to the extent possible, the interest charges that the government has to pay in the long run. The problem is that the interest received by the trust fund is also interest that must be paid by the Treasury. If the Managing Trustee is maximizing Social Security's returns, he may not be minimizing the Treasury's interest obligations. And if he is minimizing the Treasury's interest obligations, he may not be maximizing the returns for the Social Security Trust Funds. The Social Security Trust Funds Management Act is designed to resolve this inherent conflict, and still be consistent with the principle that Social Security is distinct from the Federal Government generally. The Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to consult with the Social Security Commissioner before investment decisions are made. If the Social Security Commissioner disagrees with investment decisions made by the Secretary, he or she must notify the President and Congress immediately in writing. Some experts believe that in some years and in certain market conditions it is preferable for the Trust Funds to buy marketable securities rather than non-market securities. A leading Missouri investment firm, Edward Jones, says the following: Edward Jones believes that this idea has merit because it provides additional flexibility to the management of the federal debt. The use of marketable securities would not only increase liquidity, but also would make bond swaps possible (the exchange of one bond issue for another) which could better facilitate management of the debt. It also could reduce interest payments by targeting specific securities when market conditions dictate. Under the Social Security Trust Funds Management Act, the Commissioner of Social Security could so advise the Treasury Secretary. If the Treasury Secretary does not accept the recommendation of the Social Security Commissioner, the Commissioner has the duty to inform both the President and to Congress. These investment issues take on greater importance in the context of the President's proposal to allow, for the first time in the history of Social Security, as much as $700 billion in Social Security funds to be invested in the stock market by the Government. The legislation I am proposing reaffirms current law, making explicit what is now implicit that this kind of governmental meddling into private markets is forbidden. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says this idea is bad for Social Security and bad for our economy. As I said before, when Chairman Greenspan talks, Congress ought to listen. Chairman Greenspan has said this plan ``will create a lower rate of return for Social Security recipients,'' and he ``does not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from a governmental direction.'' The last thing this country needs is the Federal Government directing the investment of Social Security funds based on some trendy politically-driven notion of which industries or which countries are in political favor at the moment. The Government's putting Social Security taxes in the stock market adds risk to retirement and is a gamble I am unwilling to make for one million Missourians who get Social Security. This legislation puts Congress on record that Government will not gamble Social Security in the stock market. While I understand the impulse to harness the great potential of the stock market, significant government involvement in the stock market could tend toward economic nationalization, excess government involvement in private financial markets, and short-term, politically motivated investment decisions that could diminish Social Security's potential rate of return. This scheme is dangerous. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the government had $2.7 billion in the market on Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the stock market lost 22% of its value. The trust fund's owners--America's current and future retirees--would have lost a collective total of $633 billion. Imagine seniors who depend on Social Security watching TV news of the stock market collapse, wondering, even fearing, if their Social Security was in danger. While individuals properly manage their financial portfolios to control risk, the government has no business taking these gambles with the people's money. Even President Clinton has expressed skepticism with this idea. In Albuquerque last year, the President said the following: ``I think most people just think if there is going to be a risk taken, I'd rather take it than have the government take it for me.'' He was right then, and he is wrong now. While Americans should invest as much as they can afford in private equities to plan for their own retirements, the government should stay out of the stock market. I recently received a letter from Todd Lawrence of Greenwood, Missouri, who wrote: ``It has been suggested that the government would invest in the stock market with my Social Security money. No offense, but there is not much that the Government touches that works well. Why would making MY investment decisions for me be any different. Looking at it from a business perspective, would the owner of a corporation feel comfortable if the government were the primary shareholder?'' Todd Lawrence understands what President Clinton does not. No corporation would want the government as a shareholder, and no investor should want the government handling their investment. The last provision of my bill gives Americans more information about how much they can expect to receive from the Social Security system. While the Social Security Administration already provides helpful and comprehensive information about future benefits, it does not provide much information about its costs or its rate of return. While the Social Security's current practice of providing benefit information is useful, it is not enough. It is not fair to ask Americans to plan for retirement and not tell them the actual cost or the opportunity costs of those benefits. As the American people consider that further steps are necessary to reform Social Security, they are entitled to accurate information about how well their Social Security investments are doing. This legislation would address this problem by requiring the Social Security Administration, upon request, to provide individuals' own rate of return information, and to make such information available over the Internet as soon as it is sufficiently secure to ensure beneficiary confidentiality. Americans need to know the rate of return on Social Security. This information is vital for Americans in order for them to make the right decisions about their own financial futures, as well as the future of the Social Security program. The Social Security Trust Funds Management Act is designed to protect the Social Security Trust Funds. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American people--from conflicts of interest, from bad investments, from misinformation, and from attempts to place the Trust Funds in risky and inappropriate investments. While I value the Social Security system, I value the American people, people like Todd Lawrence and the four million other Missourians who either pay into the Social Security system or receive Social Security benefits, more. My primary responsibility is to them. My plan to protect the Social Security system will protect the American people first, and I will work to make sure that this package becomes law. 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 today in strong support of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. I commend the two principal sponsors of the bill, Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye, for their commitment to this legislation and for their dedication to the national security of our country. The fact that we are having a debate on this bill at all, in the sense of trying to overcome opposition to this legislation, is somewhat troubling to me. The foreign missile threat has come to our very door in the last 6 years, and yet the administration and many of my Democratic colleagues continue to oppose this legislation, which simply says we will defend the American people as soon as we can. A recent poll shows that more than 85 percent of Americans favor the deployment of a missile defense system and that three out of every four Americans were surprised to learn that the United States cannot destroy an incoming ballistic missile. The American people would be even more surprised to learn that they remain defenseless today, not so much due to the cost or technological hurdles of missile defense as to a lack of political leadership here in Washington. The administration's record on missile defense has been plagued with the same inconsistency and lack of foresight that is characteristic of our more general foreign policy over the last 6 years. In each of the critical areas that we are facing today in deploying a missile defense system--modifications of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, program management and budgeting, and the assessment of the missile threat--the administration is having to reverse astoundingly shortsighted policies adopted only a few years ago. Secretary Albright has encountered firm resistance from Russia in modifying the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but Russia eagerly discussed possible modifications to the treaty in the Ross-Mamedov talks in 1992. To Russia's great surprise, one of the first things President Clinton did after coming to office was suspend this dialogue on modifying the ABM Treaty. Now, 6 years later, with a greatly altered diplomatic landscape, the window of opportunity for active Russian cooperation on modifying the treaty may be permanently closed. Regardless of one's views on the ABM Treaty, squandering opportunities such as the Ross-Mamedov dialogue is serious negligence. The lack of foresight in program management and budgeting for missile defense also has undermined the development and deployment of an effective system. When President Clinton entered office in 1993, promising missile defense initiatives fostered under the Bush administration were limited or curtailed. Ambassador Hank Cooper, President Bush's Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, had a procurement program in place in 1992 for the first site of a ground-based missile defense system which potentially could have been deployed by the year 2000. This effort was suspended, and the budget for the national missile defense system was slashed by an astounding 71 percent in the first year of the Clinton administration. Here is a chart which shows our commitment to missile defense. During the Reagan and Bush years, we saw a consistent and strong commitment to missile defense. In the years when the budgeting was under the control of this administration, we saw an astounding drop, a 71-percent drop in the funding to develop a national missile defense system. Now, after 4 years of undermining the National Missile Defense Program, the administration is rushing to increase the funding levels because the threat can no longer be ignored or denied. The administration has used faulty intelligence estimates of the foreign missile threat to justify a missile defense policy of delay and obfuscation. Based in part on a National Intelligence Estimate in 1995 that said the Continental United States would not face a new ballistic missile threat until 2010, the President vetoed the FY 1996 defense authorization bill because of language which called for the deployment of a missile defense system by the year 2003. Now, 3 years after the President's veto, with North Korea and Iran developing ballistic missiles to strike the United States, with China modernizing its nuclear weapons, possibly with U.S. technology, and with the threat of accidental missile launch from Russia rising, 2003 is, if anything, too late to deploy a national missile defense system. The administration has relied on faulty intelligence to our collective peril. North Korea's test of the Taepo Dong 1 in August of 1998 was the last nail in the coffin of the National Intelligence Estimate and a strong indictment of the administration's complacency in preparing for an imminent foreign missile threat. But the Taepo Dong test was a result of proliferation trends that have been detectable and discernible for over a decade. We could see the threat coming as proliferation accelerated in the 1980s. We saw the threat arrive when the largest single loss of life of U.S. soldiers in the Gulf War occurred when an Iraqi ballistic missile killed 28 of our soldiers and wounded 89 more on February 25, 1991. The threat was apparent by 1991, at the latest, and that is why the Senate passed the National Missile Defense Act that year as part of the Defense Authorization bill. The National Missile Defense Act was a strong piece of legislation calling for modifications to the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and calling for deployment of an effective missile defense system by a date certain, that date to be 1996. Yet now, 8 years after passage of the National Missile Defense Act, 8 years in which two terrorist governments, Iran and North Korea, have come to the threshold of acquiring ICBM capability, this administration and many of my Democratic colleagues continue to oppose legislation which simply states that it is United States policy to defend the American people as soon as we can. Winston Churchill once said, ``Occasionally you must take the enemy into consideration.'' This administration would be well advised to heed Mr. Churchill's words and to grasp the seriousness of the multiple missile threats posed to the United States. At least 25 countries have or are pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs that could threaten not only their neighbors but the stability of this globe, and nearly all of those countries also have ballistic missiles of one kind or another. The technology is out there and is being proliferated at an alarming rate. In spite of these rising missile threats to the United States, the administration continues to speak of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability. Although the legal status of the treaty is in doubt after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the accord continues to guide administration policies that have undermined the entire missile defense effort. As William Graham, former science adviser to President Reagan, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Not only has the ABM Treaty prohibited the deployment of national missile defenses, it has led to the prohibition of funding for the research and development on systems which might, if deployed, conflict with the ABM Treaty. Moreover, it has made Defense Department program managers unwilling even to propose missile defense systems and programs that might. . .be viewed as conflicting with the largely ambiguous details of the ABM Treaty. . . . Mr. Graham's point is simply this: that the ABM Treaty has kept people in the administration from even exploring alternatives that might well defend the people of this country. This administration's commitment to the ABM Treaty has precluded our best space-based options for national missile defense and limited the more advanced capabilities of our theater missile defense programs. A host of critical missile defense initiatives under the Bush administration were derailed or downsized in 1993. Brilliant Eyes, now known as SBIRS Low, a satellite program to provide essential tracking capabilities for national missile defense, has seen its deployment delayed by as much as a decade. Brilliant Pebbles, a system of hit-to-kill vehicles in low Earth orbit and still potentially the best national missile defense option, was canceled as a result of this administration's policies. A space-based national missile defense system could best defend the American people. So why isn't it being pursued? Even President Clinton's current Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, General Lester Lyles, stated before the Armed Services Committee last month: I think all of us recognize that the optimum way to do missile defense, particularly in a robust manner in the future, is from space. This is President Clinton's Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Space-based national missile defense systems have been shelved for one simple reason: this administration's commitment to the outdated and dangerous Antiballistic Missile Treaty. If the administration is so concerned about the cost of missile defense, why is it expending precious missile defense dollars on the least effective systems, rather than the most effective ones acknowledged by the administration's own Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization? If the administration is so concerned about deploying a technologically sound missile defense system, why is a ground-based system that has the highest technological challenges the administration's only near-term missile defense initiative? As Ambassador Cooper testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 1996, ground-based systems are the most expensive, least effective defense that will take the longest to build. The administration has cut the national missile defense budget and diverted those scarce funds into the least effective national missile defense programs. All of this, because the administration refuses to relinquish its tight grip on the ABM Treaty. Finally, the ABM Treaty is undermining the robustness of theater missile defense programs. For example, limiting the use of additional off-site radars for theater missile defense programs out of concerns for the ABM Treaty increases the cost of missile defense exponentially. Bill Graham, former science adviser to Presidents Reagan and Bush, states: . . .the area that a surface-based interceptor system can defend using only its. . .radar is one-tenth the area that the same interceptor can defend using space-based sensing. Therefore, to defend the same area without space-based sensing, 10 times as many missile/radar systems would have to be deployed at a cost that would be approximately 10 times as much. . .. So this persistent, dogged determination to honor an outdated treaty, the ABM Treaty, increases the cost of our theater missile defense systems ten-fold, just to cover the same territory. In almost every theater missile defense program we have, serious constraints have been imposed to try to limit the ICBM intercept capability of regional theater missile defense systems. Software and radar of the Navy Aegis cruisers have been constrained to limit their ability to track ballistic missiles. Software for THAAD has been constrained to limit its intercept capability. The ballistic missile intercept capability of the Patriot system was restrained until the urgency of the gulf war. Ambassador Cooper stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: . . .the 28 military personnel killed when an Iraqi Scud hit their barracks during the Gulf War might have been spared if Patriot had not been dumbed-down and delayed because of ABM Treaty concerns. It seems like the loss of life and the injury to dozens and dozens of others in that particular incident should have sounded a wakeup call sufficiently urgent to at least startle this administration into pursuing a course of action which would not be guided by an unwarranted commitment to the ABM Treaty. In spite of the restrictions the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty imposes on U.S. missile defense efforts, the administration continues to view the accord as the cornerstone of strategic stability and essential for future arms control efforts. Although the past 27 years have demonstrated that the treaty probably accelerated the arms race rather than curtailed it, this administration remains committed to the idea that reductions in nuclear weapons cannot occur unless the American people are completely vulnerable to missile attack. I want to say that again. This administration remains committed to the idea that reductions in nuclear weapons cannot occur unless the American people are completely vulnerable to missile attack. My view is that we deter aggression through strength, not through increasing our own vulnerability. To continue to risk American lives for thoroughly invalidated arms control policies is a serious abnegation of our duty to protect and defend the United States. Administration officials seem mortified by the prospect that Russia will reject the START II treaty if the United States builds an effective missile defense. The administration seems to have forgotten however that the size of Russia's nuclear stockpile will continue to decline with or without another arms control agreement. The size of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in freefall thanks in large part to one American President who returned America to the tried and true principle that strength deters aggression. Ronald Reagan knew that ``Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they mistrust each other.'' He confronted and deterred aggression, and although this administration would like the forget it, Ronald Reagan used ballistic missile defense to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union. This particular graph shows the level of nuclear warheads maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union, later Russia, over the last several decades. The ABM Treaty was negotiated in 1972, and shortly after the ABM Treaty came into force, we see the levels of Soviet nuclear warheads begin to increase dramatically. This graph illustrates that America's weaknesses under the ABM Treaty was one factor behind the Soviet arms buildup, while Reagan's resolve to confront Soviet aggression, in part through the Strategic Defense Initiative--hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Reagan used missile defense to deter Soviet aggression, and the dissolution of the Soviet empire led to the reductions in arms that always proved elusive to advocates of appeasement. Reagan's success in confronting and undermining Soviet tyranny was one of the greatest contributions to freedom in modern history. As part of that broader policy, Reagan's commitment to missile defense is at once a telling indictment on the failed policies of the more recent past and a shining example of the courage needed to chart a course for the revitalized defense of the American people. The legislation we are considering today simply says this: We will defend the American people against missile attack as soon as possible. How could there be opposition to this bill when every conflict we have fought in the past has proven that weakness and vulnerability invite aggression? We do not get a reduction in our vulnerability by remaining vulnerable. We get a reduction in our vulnerability by showing strength. How could there be opposition to this bill when missiles from North Korea and Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States? How can there be opposition to this bill when China points the majority of its nuclear weapons at the United States and has implicitly threatened Los Angeles if American forces defend Taiwan? Mr. President, the sad truth is that the United States is completely defenseless against a ballistic missile strike. George Washington once said, ``If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. . .'' Why are North Korea and Iran pursuing advanced missile technology at breakneck speed? These terrorist governments are seeking the tools of aggression because they know that we cannot repel their attacks. Our ambivalence and complacency in providing an effective missile defense for American citizens and for American interests is an unconscionable act of negligence. We should not shrink from or shirk the burden of eternal vigilance in the defense of freedom because the cost of missile defense is high or the technology is complicated or there will be difficulties to overcome in the development of a system. As Franklin Roosevelt said in September 1941, ``Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the first attack, or the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack. The time for active defense is now.'' Mr. President, those words ring as true today as they did before World War II and reflect the commitment of the American people to safeguard the blessings of liberty. The defeatist policies which would leave America vulnerable to nuclear, chemical or biological warheads have been followed for too long, to the great detriment of our country. We must return to the sound policies of an active defense system before a missile strike on U.S. soil eclipses the catastrophe of Pearl Harbor. We do not have another 6 years to waste, Mr. President. I applaud Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye for their leadership on ballistic missile defense and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephanie Sharp of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Majority Leader for this opportunity to give an explanation of the provision.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, that is correct. I am proposing this provision in response to specific concerns I have heard from Missourians. Mr. President, a message that I am hearing from parents and teachers and students is the issue of school discipline. For the past few months my staff and I have been looking into this issue to see if there are changes that can and should be made to the Individuals with Disabilities Act Reauthorization legislation, in order to give local schools the flexibility they need to apply disciplinary measures in a fair, uniform, and logical manner. I will have more to say on this issue when the Senate takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But one issue has come to my attention that I believe Congress should address right now, and it involves the issue of a school's ability to discipline IDEA students who carry or possess weapons to or at schools. Mr. President, I have proposed a provision within Amendment No. 68 which makes an important addition to a provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The revision I propose will ensure that the IDEA legislation accurately reflects the intent of Congress that schools should have the ability to place a child with a disability in an alternative setting for discipline situations involving weapons. Specifically, this provision revises the law to explicitly allow a school to place a child with a disability in an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 days if the child carries a weapon to or possesses a weapon at school, on school premises, or to or at a school function. Currently, the law says that a school could take such action only if the child carries a weapon to school or to a school function. The problem with the current statutory language is that it creates an unintended loophole which could prevent a school from placing a child in an alternative placement if the child at question is in possession of a weapon. Some school boards in my state have expressed concerns about the language in the IDEA reauthorization allowing a 45 day change in placement of a child who ``carries'' a weapon to school. Schools want to know whether that language means they can change the placement of a child whom they found to be in ``possession'' of a weapon, as well as a child found to be simply ``carrying'' the weapon to school. They are afraid that the language of the statute sets up a distinction that is going to create a big loophole which kids can jump through to avoid the 45 day change in placement. Right now, there is a situation in a school district in my state involving two students, both with individualized education programs (IEPs). I have been asked not to name the specific school district at issue because proceedings are still pending on this matter. But here are the facts: Student A carried a weapon into the school and gave it to Student B, who then put the weapon into his (Student B's) locker. The school knew that it could put Student A into an alternative placement, since Student A literally ``carried `` the weapon into school. But could the school also change Student B's placement, since technically he didn't ``carry'' the weapon into school, but instead was simply ``possessing'' it? The school went ahead and also placed Student B in an alternative placement as well. However, the school is now worried that at the pending proceeding, Student B will raise the issue of ``carrying'' as opposed to ``possessing'' the weapon. The school says that it doesn't know how it will be able to get around an argument from the child or his parent that the child did not literally carry the weapon to school. Surely Congress did not intend to set up such a situation in the 1997 IDEA reauthorization. Surely we intended that schools have the ability to place a child in an alternative setting for up to 45 days if the child possessed a weapon on school premises, as well as carried a weapon to the school. And this is why we should pass this amendment: to ensure that schools have the ability to take the appropriate measures against students when weapons are involved. I would like to point out that even the Department of Education has acknowledged that the current statutory language ``carries a weapon to school or to a school function'' is ambiguous, and that it was the clear intent of Congress to cover instances in which the child is found to be in possession of a weapon at school. Now this amendment, if passed, would not apply to the school district in Missouri that is facing this dilemma, since that is a pending case. But we would be addressing this problem for any future situations, providing the clarity that schools, parents, and children need. Mr. President, schools, teachers, principals, and administrators want and need to be able to treat all students on a uniform basis when weapons are involved. We need to be sure that our laws allow a school to remove any student from the regular classroom if that student is found with a weapon at school. We need to close up any loopholes in the law that would prevent a school from taking this immediate action to maintain a safe learning environment for our students. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join with me in making this vital addition to the IDEA law, so that schools will be able to exercise the authority we intended to give them to maintain a safe school environment for all our children.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this resolution, and I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity, over the last 30 years, to visit Israel on a number of occasions, and I have had a personal awareness of the difficult responsibilities that are involved in maintaining the security of one of our best friends in the international community. As the ranking majority member of the Subcommittee on Near East Affairs for the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a few comments that I would like to make in regard to this matter and in support of this resolution, of which, as I said, I am a cosponsor. Yasser Arafat and other senior Palestinian leaders have threatened repeatedly to declare a Palestinian state on May 4. That was the original deadline for the completion of the Oslo peace process. It is important to note that there are many commitments that have not been fulfilled by the Palestinian Authority, many deadlines that have not been met. Mr. Arafat s ultimate objective is the creation of a Palestinian state, but he seems to be overlooking a number of obligations in the peace process which have not been met by the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Arafat is essentially saying that regardless of the fact that prior commitments have not been honored, he will declare an independent state. Along with other difficult issues such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, and water rights, the issue of a Palestinian state should be determined in the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. And that was clearly called for, I believe, in the Oslo agreement. Recognizing the security threat posed to Israel from a self-contained Palestinian entity, President Reagan wisely enunciated the U.S. policy of opposing the creation of a Palestinian state. Behind President Reagan's policy on Palestinian statehood was his correct understanding that Israel, in order to ensure its own security, needed to be a central participant in determining how and in what form a Palestinian state would come into existence. The Reagan policy has endured since 1982 and has served the interests of the United States, of Israel, and of all other earnest supporters of peace in the Middle East. But the winds of change have been blowing in the past year. The First Lady of our country was quoted in the New York Times in May of 1998 as stating, ``It will be in the long-term interests of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state.'' President Clinton's trip to Gaza last December added a great deal of momentum to Palestinian statehood. In other parts of the world, implicit policy shifts and diplomatic overtures may pass without much notice. But we have to remember that Israel is in one of the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world. Since the beginning of the Oslo process, for example, in 1993, Israel has lost more than 280 of its citizens to terrorist violence. That is a proportion of the Israeli population that would equal 15,000 Americans losing their lives. It is not an inconsequential number, but a very serious number. Those Israeli casualties have come through over 1,000 terrorist attacks, and the death toll in the five years since Oslo is greater than in the 15 years before the Oslo process was initiated. So it is important for us to note that this is not an inconsequential matter. It is, as a matter of fact, a very serious situation that demands our attention. As Israel faces these threats, it must determine finally what steps in the peace process preserve and enhance its security and what steps do not. American policy has been most successful in the region when it has respected the role of Israel in this process. The role of Israel as a respected, necessary component of the process is at odds with the idea of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and such a declaration would undoubtedly upset future peace talks and introduce a destabilizing element into Middle Eastern politics. The administration has said that it opposes unilateral acts by either side in the peace process. But neutral statements are not good enough when it comes to supporting a friend like Israel in this dangerous region of the world. Our leadership must be more consistent and forthright in opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. As a result, I believe that the U.S. Senate should go on record as saying that it is improper and inappropriate to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally. This resolution should be a signal that this country will not recognize a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. This is a matter of great concern to us as a Nation for our own national interests. It is a matter of grave concern to us because we appreciate freedom-loving people around the world, and we understand the very serious threat to the security of Israel that an inappropriate determination of this issue could represent. When countries decide to try to reach agreements as a result of understandings similar to those presented in the Oslo accords, we have to make sure that they are simply not a cover for what would otherwise be a unilateral assertion of the rights of one individual or one individual group against another. It is with that in mind, in reviewing my own experience and the history of Israel, acknowledging the difficult task of security Israel faces, that I have cosponsored this resolution. Rather than eradicate terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian territory, the Palestinian Authority apparently has maintained its revolving door policy in detaining terrorists. Over 20 prominent terrorists have been released since President Clinton's visit to Gaza in December 1998. The Israeli Government reports that at least 12 wanted fugitives, including several who have killed American and Israeli citizens, are known to be serving in the Palestinian police. At times, Mr. Arafat has threatened to cross out the peace accords and unleash a new uprising against Israel. He has described the peace accords as a temporary truce. The Palestinian Authority's official media arm, the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, consistently broadcasts incitement against Israel, including a children's program where martyrdom as ``suicide warriors'' is glorified. Mr. Arafat has not been helpful in resolving Israeli MIA cases, including the case of Zachary Baumel, missing since 1982. This in not behavior of a responsible partner in the search for peace. The United States should be demanding full accountability for these violations of the Oslo Accord. Too often, we have been seen as pressuring our friends and rewarding those who undermine the peace process, both in our dealings with the Palestinian Authority and our diplomacy throughout the Middle East. Palestinian violations of the Wye Accord: In spite of Palestinian violations of the Wye Accord, the latest agreement in the peace process, State Department spokesman James Rubin said Palestinian leaders had ``worked hard'' to fulfill their commitments. Rubin then emphasized ``It is the Israelis who have not fulfilled any of their Phase Two obligations by failing to pull back the further redeployment as required by Phase Two'' (January 6, 1999). Iran poses a military and terrorist threat to Israel: Iran's ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs are a direct threat to Israel. The Senate passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act (H.R. 2709) to sanction missile proliferation to Iran by a 90-4 vote last year, but the President vetoed the legislation. Iran supports terrorist groups which have killed Americans and Israelis, yet the Administration waived sanctions last year under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act designed to restrict billions of dollars in foreign investment in Iran's oil and gas fields--dollars which will fund Iran's support of the enemies of peace in the Middle East. Lack of United States leadership in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is the chief terrorist of a terrorist government committed to the destruction of Israel. The Iraqi president has provided nothing but provocation for over a year and international support for the sanctions regime is eroding. An inconsistent administration policy on Iraq over the last five years has undermined our efforts to bring about a change of government in Baghdad. Syria continues to harbor Hezbollah terrorists: Syria provides safe haven to Hezbollah terrorists which wage an almost constant low-grade war with Israel. Hezbollah killed four Israelis in southern Lebanon on February 28, including a brigadier general, the highest ranking Israeli officer to be killed in Lebanon in 17 years. I have sponsored legislation to sanction the Syrian Government for its support of terrorism, but the administration has opposed the bill for the past 2 years. I urge its passage in the U.S. Senate. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the time for mixed messages in our war against drugs has passed. There was a time when our message on illegal drugs was crystal clear. ``Just say no.'' The results of that simple message were also clear: The decade of the 1980's saw substantial and persistent decreases in the level of drug use, and in the level of teenage drug use in particular. Sadly, however, the current Administration has offered America and its children a mixed message on drugs. The President himself has shifted the message from ``just say no'' to ``just don't inhale.'' Even the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency candidly has admitted that in the current climate we lack the will to win the war against drugs. This is intolerable. We must return to a clear message in the war against drugs--a message of zero tolerance for those who would attempt to ruin our children's lives through the scourge of illegal drugs. The government must speak clearly and unequivocally. Trafficking in illegal drugs will not be tolerated. However, we will not succeed in convincing either drug dealers or our children that we are serious about the war on drugs if we send them mixed messages. One mixed message sent by current law is that convicted drug dealers remain eligible for federal government benefits. We need to change that practice. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today, the ``No Federal Benefits for Drug Traffickers Act'' requires the suspension of federal benefits to convicted drug traffickers. This bill will send a clear message that we mean what we say in the war against drugs. Current federal law provides for the denial of federal benefits (excluding certain programs like food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and approved drug treatment programs) for individuals convicted of drug trafficking offenses. Unfortunately, however, the law gives judges unlimited discretion to decide whether or not to suspend a convicted drug trafficker's federal benefits. For example, under current law a repeat offender could retain his full federal benefits. The ``No Federal Benefits for Drug Traffickers Act'' addresses this loophole in the current law by mandating the suspension of a convicted drug trafficker's federal benefits for at least a minimum period of time. Specifically, the bill requires the suspension of a convicted drug offender's federal benefits for a minimum of one year. The bill also mandates suspension of benefits for at least three years upon a second conviction. In addition, the bill closes a loophole that allowed drug trafficker who were supposed to be barred from receiving federal benefits for life because of three separate drug trafficking convictions to regain their eligibility for federal benefits. Once again we need to make our message clear and unmistakable. Under the bill I introduce today, life means life and it is truly three strikes and you're out. This is what we need in the war against drugs--a clear message. Those who choose to traffic in drugs have no legitimate claim to federal benefits. This is common sense. There is no need for exceptions or discretion. There is a need for clarity, and this bill provides that clarity.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the time for mixed messages in our war against drugs has passed. There was a time when our message on illegal drugs was crystal clear. ``Just say no.'' The results of that simple message were also clear: The decade of the 1980's saw substantial and persistent decreases in the level of drug use, and in the level of teenage drug use in particular. Sadly, however, the current Administration has offered America and its children a mixed message on drugs. The President himself has shifted the message from ``just say no'' to ``just don't inhale.'' Even the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency candidly has admitted that in the current climate we lack the will to win the war against drugs. This is intolerable. We must return to a clear message in the war against drugs--a message of zero tolerance for those who would attempt to ruin our children's lives through the scourge of illegal drugs. The government must speak clearly and unequivocally. Trafficking in illegal drugs will not be tolerated. However, we will not succeed in convincing either drug dealers or our children that we are serious about the war on drugs if we send them mixed messages. One mixed message sent by current law is that convicted drug dealers remain eligible for federal government benefits. We need to change that practice. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today, the ``No Federal Benefits for Drug Traffickers Act'' requires the suspension of federal benefits to convicted drug traffickers. This bill will send a clear message that we mean what we say in the war against drugs. Current federal law provides for the denial of federal benefits (excluding certain programs like food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and approved drug treatment programs) for individuals convicted of drug trafficking offenses. Unfortunately, however, the law gives judges unlimited discretion to decide whether or not to suspend a convicted drug trafficker's federal benefits. For example, under current law a repeat offender could retain his full federal benefits. The ``No Federal Benefits for Drug Traffickers Act'' addresses this loophole in the current law by mandating the suspension of a convicted drug trafficker's federal benefits for at least a minimum period of time. Specifically, the bill requires the suspension of a convicted drug offender's federal benefits for a minimum of one year. The bill also mandates suspension of benefits for at least three years upon a second conviction. In addition, the bill closes a loophole that allowed drug trafficker who were supposed to be barred from receiving federal benefits for life because of three separate drug trafficking convictions to regain their eligibility for federal benefits. Once again we need to make our message clear and unmistakable. Under the bill I introduce today, life means life and it is truly three strikes and you're out. This is what we need in the war against drugs--a clear message. Those who choose to traffic in drugs have no legitimate claim to federal benefits. This is common sense. There is no need for exceptions or discretion. There is a need for clarity, and this bill provides that clarity.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. John Q. Hammons of Springfield, Missouri, who celebrated his 80th birthday on February 24, 1999. John is truly a remarkable individual. He has witnessed many events that have shaped Springfield. In fact, John has contributed significantly to the growth and spirit of Springfield through his donations to construct and improve such places as schools, hospitals, and theaters. His generosity and personal participation in the life of the community have benefitted us all. Mr. Hammons' celebration of 80 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized on this special occasion. I would like to join his many friends and relatives in wishing him good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for his hard work and the good work he has done on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. This has been a task of assembling the right components that were acceptable to a broad range of interests and reflecting the capacity of States and local communities to make good decisions. I think the Senator has done an outstanding job. I am pleased to have the privilege of being a cosponsor of this bill. Under this legislation, the State of Missouri, my own State, as well as every other State in the Nation, will no longer have to come to Washington on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis to ask for relief from a myriad of Federal education statutes and regulations. Instead, Missouri will have the authority to waive regulations that hinder our schools from providing an excellent education for our students. Now, I know that the occupant of the Chair is a former Governor and had a lot of involvement with individuals in the education effort which is focused at the State level. I remember those days well from my time as Governor. It is most satisfying to try to do something to advance the performance of students. We understand that when students perform well and have great skills, it elevates the potential they enjoy for the rest of their lives. It was always a tremendous matter of concern to me--and I am sure to the occupant of the Chair--how Federal administrative burdens impeded the efforts of States rather than accelerated their capacity to help students perform. I think most Governors and former Governors we talked to would agree that Federal mandates and requirements associated with Federal programs can hinder a State's flexibility and, as a result, they cut into the dollars that could be spent on students. They end up being spent on bureaucracy--not just bureaucracy here in Washington, but a corresponding bureaucracy to deal with the Washington bureaucracy that has to be established and maintained in the States. In response to the question of whether we should impose Federal education standards from Washington, Governor Whitman of New Jersey said, and I think she said it well, What you see now is a huge waste of money on bureaucracy. The more government strings that are on these dollars, the more difficult it becomes to deliver education. If the money that the Federal Government now puts out is too finite and it says you can only spend it for this or for that, that money won't go toward helping students learn, and that's what we want. I agree with the entirety of the statement--``helping students learn, and that's what we want''--and the last line should be the motivation for every one of us not only in the Senate but across America. I simply couldn't agree with Governor Whitman more. States and local schools need more flexibility in how to spend education dollars, to spend them in ways that will help students learn. They are in the best position to make decisions about the education of students. I have to believe that being on site adds value to one's capacity to make an accurate diagnosis or assessment of what is needed. I appreciate the opportunity to speak regarding the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which will provide States and local schools with the kind of flexibility they need to improve education and to elevate student performance. One of our Nation's highest priorities is to ensure that our children receive the kind of challenging and rigorous education that will prepare them for success. By building a strong educational foundation that focuses on the concept of high academic excellence, we will prepare students to make important career decisions and to become lifelong learners. The habit of education should extend beyond school. As a result, their lives will be enriched. We in Congress should develop and support Federal policies that will promote the best education practices in our States and local schools. We have learned from reports and studies that successful schools and successful school systems are characterized by parental involvement in the education of their children. They are characterized by parental involvement and local control, and they emphasize basic academics and make resources available to the classroom. These are the ingredients needed to elevate educational performance. It is with this in mind that we should stop and ask ourselves whether the current Federal education laws contain the elements that further our goal of giving our kids a world-class education. The unfortunate answer to that question is, our current laws don't do that; the answer is no. A number of our Federal education programs contain a plethora of regulations and restrictions that hinder States and local schools, hinder their ability to tailor and design what is needed in the local circumstance to advance the opportunity for students to learn. Whenever they hinder and obstruct that opportunity to tailor and design the right system, they waste the education dollars. Frequently, education dollars that Washington directs in terms of how to spend them are wasted because the how-to doesn't meet the need of the students and the school district. While the Federal Government has played an important but limited role in providing funding for education, it has also played a conflicting role by attaching so many conditions and strings to Federal dollars that it costs States and local schools a lot of time and resources to comply with all the rules and regulations. We have heard much about the paperwork burdens created by the Federal education rules and regulations. The Federal Department of Education requires States and school districts to complete over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This is a statistic that is mind boggling. That translates into the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time just to do the paperwork for States to get their own money back to educate the students, which the State cares enough about to work hard to make sure that they are trying to elevate the students' performance. We heard that in Florida it takes 374 employees to administer $8 billion in State funds, while it takes 297 State employees to oversee $1 billion in Federal funds--6 times as many per dollar. So that to do the paperwork and create the paper trail and all the paper involvement, to be a recipient of Federal funds, it takes six times as many employees as it does to follow a dollar of State funding in Florida. We know it takes a school nearly 20 weeks, 216 steps, to complete a discretionary grant process within the Department of Education. The Department has boasted that it has streamlined the process, because it used to take 26 weeks and 487 steps from start to finish; now it is only 216 steps in the bureaucratic jungle. With this bureaucratic maze, it is no wonder we lose about 35 cents out of every Federal education dollar before it reaches the classroom. If I were to give my children a dollar and, before I got it from my hand to their hand, I took 35 cents out of the dollar, they would know the difference. We tell ourselves that we are doing great things for education, but before the dollar reaches the student, 35 cents is taken out of the dollar. They know the difference. The difference is felt. And then sometimes we are telling them it has to be spent in a way that doesn't elevate student performance. Current Federal laws, of course, can also be inflexible, requiring the Federal education dollar to be spent only for a narrow purpose, to the exclusion of all others. This type of inflexibility hurts schools that have needs other than the ones prescribed by the Federal Government. A recent example was the $1.2 billion earmarked exclusively for classroom size reduction for the early elementary grades. What a noble aspiration. But it wasn't what a number of schools needed. Governor Gray Davis of California recently described how the inflexibility of this initiative is hindering his State's ability to direct Federal funds to areas where they are most needed. Governor Davis said: We need to have the flexibility to apply those resources where we think they could best be used. He went on to say: For example, I was just with Secretary Riley, our U.S. Secretary of Education, for 2 days last week in California. And Secretary Riley was telling me about the $1.2 billion that was appropriated to reduce class size to 18 in the first 3 grades. Now, in California, we are already down to 20 students per class size in K through four. So that money, which is supposed to be earmarked to the area where we have pretty much achieved the goal, would best serve our needs by reducing class size in math and English at the tenth grade level, because we have just started to use a high school graduation exam. Here is a State wanting to elevate the performance of students, with a massive Federal program directed at an area where they have already addressed the problem, but it is ineligible to be used in an area where they need help. We should really understand this. That is why we are proposing in this Ed-Flex program a massive new capacity on the part of States to use money where it is needed, to use money to help get the dollar all the way to the student, and not take 35 cents out of the dollar when it is on its way from the folks in Washington to the classroom where the student studies. Another example is found in title I, which authorizes aid for the education of disadvantaged children. Some of the rigid standards in this program can result in a school losing its ability to provide intensive services to students on a schoolwide basis because it fails by 1 percentage point to have the requisite number of children below a certain income level. Such policies fly in the face of one ingredient for educational success, one vital ingredient: local control. Fortunately, there is a current Federal policy that has helped provide more flexibility and relieve States of regulatory burdens that are associated with otherwise inflexible education dollars. Under the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program, the Department of Education has delegated its authority to 12 participating States to grant individual school districts waivers from certain Federal requirements that hinder States and schools in their efforts to improve their education programs. Under Ed-Flex--this proposal, not just for the 12 States, but for all 50 States--school districts do not have to march up to Washington each time they want to ask for a waiver. Instead, they can get the waiver from their own State. The Ed-Flex program, as it is called, has reduced paperwork burdens. That sounds good, to reduce paperwork, but when you take the expensive paperwork out of the equation, more of the resource reaches the classroom. Sure, it is good to reduce paperwork, but it is even better to deliver the resource to the site of learning, where students learn. For example, in response to a perceived need, Texas schools have been able to direct some of their Federal funds from the title II Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which is targeted primarily for science and mathematics, to reading, English language, arts, and social studies. If you need help in English and the arts and social studies, why not be able to focus the attention there? In Howard County, MD, Ed-Flex authority has allowed schools to provide additional instruction time in reading and math to better meet the needs of their students. Well, you mean a program that serves the needs of the students instead of serving the plan of the bureaucracy? What a good program. These are all States that have been allowed, in the 12-State pilot program, to have this kind of flexibility--it is interesting that they are moving resources to help students. Oregon used its waiver authority to simplify its planning and application process so that its school districts can develop a single plan that consolidates the application for Federal funds. Well, that is great. Instead of spending more money on paperwork, we are making resources available to the classrooms where students study and achieve. In Vermont, they have reported that the greatest advantage of having Ed-Flex is the ability of schools and districts to gain waivers without having to go directly to the Department of Education. The fact that the State can grant waivers with a minimum of redtape encourages schools and districts to ask for waivers they might not otherwise have asked for. You see, the intimidation factor of Federal regulation is one that is hard to assess. But here is the State of Vermont basically saying they were lacking creativity in their schools and people didn't bother to try to ask for the waiver. They went ahead and did what Washington said, in spite of the fact that it may not have been best for students, because they had been intimidated. The process was too complex. The desire to get a waiver may never have been really strong enough to get them past the Federal bureaucracy. But the schools are now doing things, trying things, delivering help to students, meeting needs at the site of learning, rather than meeting the appetite of the bureaucracy. Other Ed-Flex States have used the waiver authority to include all school improvement resources in a single 34-page plan rather than 8 separate plans totaling 200 pages. Can you imagine that? If you can move the paperwork down in the direction of sort of manual operations from 200 pages to 34 pages, you will cut out that kind of paperwork and you are cutting out a wasted resource, and when you stop wasting, you can start delivering. I am sure this next item is of special interest to the occupant of the Chair, who served as the chief executive of Ohio. Reports indicate that Ohio used its Ed-Flex authority to significantly reduce paperwork in the schools. The education agency of the State also reduced its paperwork. This is great news to hear. Ohio is the State that reported at one time that 52 percent of all the paperwork--I think that is right; the Chair might correct me--required of their school districts was related to participation in Federal programs while the Federal dollars were about 5 percent of the State's total education budget. That means we are costing people a lot in terms of paperwork to get a very small amount of the resource. It is time we freed the system from the burden of paperwork so it can get moving forward to the task of helping students. States are finding that flexibility and regulatory relief they have gotten under the Ed-Flex program has caused increased student performance. Texas has found that its schools with Ed-Flex waivers made gains that match--and in many instances exceed--those as a whole in the State. And frequently those schools with the waivers were ones that were especially challenged. Because of the success of the Ed-Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program, we need to expand this concept to every State in America. In my home State of Missouri, we don't currently have broad authority, the kind of authority we need to waive the Federal regulations that keep our schools from improving education programs. In the past few years, my State, as well as local districts in Missouri, have had to come to Washington on a number of occasions and ask for waivers of certain Federal education statutes so they could administer their programs in such a way that they can better serve their students. It doesn't make any sense for a State or a school district to keep coming to Washington time after time to beg for permission to help their students. It seems like we could agree that we would allow States to help their students. That is why I support the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, because it gives the States the authority on their own to grant to schools waivers of Federal statutes and regulations for many Federal education programs. States will also be expected to grant waivers of their own regulations which schools believe are barriers to improving education programs. This is a design--a conspicuous and conscious design--to deliver resources to classrooms where students learn and improve their performance. Around the Nation, Governors of both political parties have called for quick passage of this legislation as it will allow educators to design and to deliver federally funded education dollars in ways that meet the needs of students. As a former Governor, I know how important it is for a State and its local school districts to have decisionmaking authority over educational matters. The closer the decisionmaking is to the local level, I feel, the better. States and local schools are in a better position to know what programs work in their community and elicit the necessary enthusiasm and response from their families which are being served. I also know that States want to show that their education reforms will actually improve quality of education. When I was Governor of Missouri, I also served as chairman of the Education Commission of the States--all 50 States, legislators, governors, school board officials-- the Education Commission of the States. During that time I emphasized a point. And it was this: We must insist that our reform programs create a current of educational improvement. We must show that reforms actually help our children learn more. Mr. President, I believe that Ed-Flex boosts educational achievement by allowing States to direct resources where they will get to the classroom and help students learn. So today I want to voice my strong support for the Educational Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Under this legislation, Missouri schools and schools across America no longer have to come to Washington to seek education waivers one at a time. But they will have more flexibility to administer federally funded education programs in ways that boost student achievement, and ultimately have as a result more capable students. States and local schools want more flexibility because they have the best ideas of what will work in their communities. And they want the ability to take that good news to the students of their schools. Important education groups in my State such as the Missouri State Teachers Association and the Missouri School Board Association have said that flexibility and local control are important goals in Federal education policy. The Ed-Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 helps to accomplish these goals. This bill, Ed-Flex, will ultimately help to improve educational opportunities for the children in my State and all over the country by reducing the Federal redtape involved currently with trying to comply with Federal rules and regulations related to educational programs.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled to occur at 2:15 today now occur at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the Ed-Flex bill while in morning business.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a serious national problem--the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crime. It seems that nearly every day we hear encouraging news about the progress we are making in the fight against crime. There is no doubt that this is good news. But reports about reductions in the crime rate obscure two unfortunate realities: First, although the rate of crime has dropped over the past few yeas, the level of crime remains far too high. Second, whatever progress has been made in the reduction of overall crime rates, we are still confronted with a serious problem with violent juvenile crime. Statistics about crime rates are useful, but what really matters is the level of violent crime. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went down over twenty points. If we were focus on that fact alone, it would appear that the stock market was down, when in fact the Dow is near its all time record high. The same is true of crime, especially juvenile crime. Although the most recent data show some drops in the crime rate, the overall level of crime, especially juvenile crime is unacceptably high. There are about as many violent crimes committed today as in 1987. The number of violent juvenile crimes is at roughly the 1992 level and at 150% of the 1987 level. I do not think anyone thought they were safe or secure enough in 1987 or in 1992. Statistics about crime rates also mask the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crimes. Seventeen percent of all forcible rapes, fifty percent of all arsons and thirty-seven percent of all burglaries are committed by juveniles. The juvenile justice system is no longer being asked to deal with juveniles who have committed a youthful indiscretion. The system is being asked to deal with juveniles who become hardened criminals before they turn eighteen. Finally, the recent dip in crime rates is cold comfort for victims of violent crimes. My constituents in Missouri continually identify violent juvenile crime as a paramount concern, and you only have to read the newspaper to understand why. When parents read in the newspaper about a 16-year old who raped four young girls in St. Charles County, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. When parents in Hazelwood read about a 13-year old convicted of murder for fracturing his victim's skull with the butt of a sawed-off shotgun, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. And when people in Poplar Bluff read about a 16-year old, encouraged by his 20-year old accomplice, who held a pizza delivery man at the point of a shotgun to steal $32, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. Mr. President, that is precisely what the bill I am introducing today does--it targets violent juvenile crime. This bill, the Protect Children from Violent Act, will update our current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. It treats the most violent juvenile offenders as adults and punishes those adults who would exploit or endanger our children. The Act has several components. First and foremost, it would require federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 million in new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles fourteen and older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must be treated and tried as adults. Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for violent criminals. In order to do this, we also must ensure that our law enforcement officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communication and access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill accomplishes this goal by requiring the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles found guilty of crimes that would be felonies if committed by an adult. The bill also would ensure that those records are made available to federal and state law enforcement officials and school officials, so thy will know who they are dealing with when they confront a dangerous juvenile offender. Typically, state statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal predators understand that when they reach their eighteenth birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous the crime. Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile crimes. The current state of juvenile record keeping is simply unacceptable. As part of the message that juvenile crime is something less than real crime, many jurisdictions have kept inadequate juvenile records or kept records sealed and inaccessible. What is more, whatever juvenile records they did keep were expunged when the juvenile turned eighteen. A judge sentencing a fresh-faced nineteen-year-old would sentence him like a first-time offender, blissfully ignorant of his prior record of similar incidents. These problems are made worse by the absence of any system to provide for the nationwide sharing of juvenile records. This is not a problem that any one State can solve alone. Even if a State treats juvenile criminal records like any other criminal record, it is still vulnerable to violent juveniles who move into the State. The problem we face is that although juveniles frequently cross state lines, their records do not follow them. For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles they have no idea who they are dealing with because the records are kept confidential. School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting the innocent--those who go to school to learn, not to maim or murder. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, Missouri, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer? The proposed bill solves these problems by providing a nationwide system of record sharing. What is more, the bill provides block grants to the States for the purpose of establishing improved juvenile record keeping. To qualify for these block grants, States must keep records for juveniles that are equivalent to those they keep for adult criminals. The States must then make those records available to the FBI, law enforcement officers, school officials and sentencing courts. These provisions allow those who have to deal with these violent juveniles to do so based on full information. That is the only basis on which those decision should be made. In addition to requiring that federal and state prosecutors try violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing record keeping and sharing capabilities, this bill enhances the federal criminal penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or drug use. For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would face a minimum three year jail sentence (as compared to the 1 year minimum under current law). This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence and fine. The fact that our current system treats juvenile crime lightly has not been lost on young people. Not has it been lost on hardened adult criminals. If the system is going to let young people off with a slap on the wrist and then give them a clean slate when they turn eighteen, why should any adult criminal risk serious jail time by committing a crime themselves. Why not, instead, just use a juvenile and have the youth commit the crime for them. This use of juveniles is deplorable. But, sadly, our current treatment of juveniles gives adults an incentive to exploit children in this way. If a store sold candy for $5 to adults, but for $1 to children, there would be a lot of adults sending a kid in to buy them a candy bar. So too, with the criminal justice system. Our light treatment of juveniles has led adults to corrupt children in order to escape the penalties imposed by the adult system. It is no wonder that a 20-year old in Poplar Bluff has her 16- year old accomplice take the lead in the armed robbery. We cannot continue to encourage this intolerable behavior. Those who would corrupt our children should received our stiffest and swiftest sanction. To this end, my bill imposes enhanced penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit violent offenses, and also will encourage the States to adopt similar provisions. Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates to a federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into gangs will face a federal prosecutor and a federal penitentiary. A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But a second study, conducted just two years later, found that the number of gangs had increased more than four-fold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide. Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by adults, and States mut allow public access to juvenile criminal records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults who prey on the, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a school will face three times the penalty under current law. This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that violent youth, and the adults that lead them into a life of crime, pose to our children. the monies authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, demands more than that. We need to take into account the needs of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of privacy for violent juvenile perpetrators. For too long now we have treated juvenile crime as something less than real crime. Even the language we use--referring to adult crimes, but to acts of juvenile delinquency--suggests that juvenile crime is not real crime. But we are not talking about throwing spit-balls or juvenile horseplay. We are talking about murder and assault and rape. And I assure you that for the victims of these crimes, the crimes are all too real--no less so because the perpetrator was under eighteen. The time has come to take juvenile crime seriously and protect our children from violence.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a serious national problem--the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crime. It seems that nearly every day we hear encouraging news about the progress we are making in the fight against crime. There is no doubt that this is good news. But reports about reductions in the crime rate obscure two unfortunate realities: First, although the rate of crime has dropped over the past few yeas, the level of crime remains far too high. Second, whatever progress has been made in the reduction of overall crime rates, we are still confronted with a serious problem with violent juvenile crime. Statistics about crime rates are useful, but what really matters is the level of violent crime. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went down over twenty points. If we were focus on that fact alone, it would appear that the stock market was down, when in fact the Dow is near its all time record high. The same is true of crime, especially juvenile crime. Although the most recent data show some drops in the crime rate, the overall level of crime, especially juvenile crime is unacceptably high. There are about as many violent crimes committed today as in 1987. The number of violent juvenile crimes is at roughly the 1992 level and at 150% of the 1987 level. I do not think anyone thought they were safe or secure enough in 1987 or in 1992. Statistics about crime rates also mask the increasingly violent nature of juvenile crimes. Seventeen percent of all forcible rapes, fifty percent of all arsons and thirty-seven percent of all burglaries are committed by juveniles. The juvenile justice system is no longer being asked to deal with juveniles who have committed a youthful indiscretion. The system is being asked to deal with juveniles who become hardened criminals before they turn eighteen. Finally, the recent dip in crime rates is cold comfort for victims of violent crimes. My constituents in Missouri continually identify violent juvenile crime as a paramount concern, and you only have to read the newspaper to understand why. When parents read in the newspaper about a 16-year old who raped four young girls in St. Charles County, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. When parents in Hazelwood read about a 13-year old convicted of murder for fracturing his victim's skull with the butt of a sawed-off shotgun, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. And when people in Poplar Bluff read about a 16-year old, encouraged by his 20-year old accomplice, who held a pizza delivery man at the point of a shotgun to steal $32, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile crime. Mr. President, that is precisely what the bill I am introducing today does--it targets violent juvenile crime. This bill, the Protect Children from Violent Act, will update our current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. It treats the most violent juvenile offenders as adults and punishes those adults who would exploit or endanger our children. The Act has several components. First and foremost, it would require federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 million in new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles fourteen and older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must be treated and tried as adults. Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for violent criminals. In order to do this, we also must ensure that our law enforcement officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communication and access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill accomplishes this goal by requiring the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles found guilty of crimes that would be felonies if committed by an adult. The bill also would ensure that those records are made available to federal and state law enforcement officials and school officials, so thy will know who they are dealing with when they confront a dangerous juvenile offender. Typically, state statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal predators understand that when they reach their eighteenth birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous the crime. Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile crimes. The current state of juvenile record keeping is simply unacceptable. As part of the message that juvenile crime is something less than real crime, many jurisdictions have kept inadequate juvenile records or kept records sealed and inaccessible. What is more, whatever juvenile records they did keep were expunged when the juvenile turned eighteen. A judge sentencing a fresh-faced nineteen-year-old would sentence him like a first-time offender, blissfully ignorant of his prior record of similar incidents. These problems are made worse by the absence of any system to provide for the nationwide sharing of juvenile records. This is not a problem that any one State can solve alone. Even if a State treats juvenile criminal records like any other criminal record, it is still vulnerable to violent juveniles who move into the State. The problem we face is that although juveniles frequently cross state lines, their records do not follow them. For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles they have no idea who they are dealing with because the records are kept confidential. School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting the innocent--those who go to school to learn, not to maim or murder. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, Missouri, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer? The proposed bill solves these problems by providing a nationwide system of record sharing. What is more, the bill provides block grants to the States for the purpose of establishing improved juvenile record keeping. To qualify for these block grants, States must keep records for juveniles that are equivalent to those they keep for adult criminals. The States must then make those records available to the FBI, law enforcement officers, school officials and sentencing courts. These provisions allow those who have to deal with these violent juveniles to do so based on full information. That is the only basis on which those decision should be made. In addition to requiring that federal and state prosecutors try violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing record keeping and sharing capabilities, this bill enhances the federal criminal penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or drug use. For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would face a minimum three year jail sentence (as compared to the 1 year minimum under current law). This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence and fine. The fact that our current system treats juvenile crime lightly has not been lost on young people. Not has it been lost on hardened adult criminals. If the system is going to let young people off with a slap on the wrist and then give them a clean slate when they turn eighteen, why should any adult criminal risk serious jail time by committing a crime themselves. Why not, instead, just use a juvenile and have the youth commit the crime for them. This use of juveniles is deplorable. But, sadly, our current treatment of juveniles gives adults an incentive to exploit children in this way. If a store sold candy for $5 to adults, but for $1 to children, there would be a lot of adults sending a kid in to buy them a candy bar. So too, with the criminal justice system. Our light treatment of juveniles has led adults to corrupt children in order to escape the penalties imposed by the adult system. It is no wonder that a 20-year old in Poplar Bluff has her 16- year old accomplice take the lead in the armed robbery. We cannot continue to encourage this intolerable behavior. Those who would corrupt our children should received our stiffest and swiftest sanction. To this end, my bill imposes enhanced penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit violent offenses, and also will encourage the States to adopt similar provisions. Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates to a federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into gangs will face a federal prosecutor and a federal penitentiary. A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But a second study, conducted just two years later, found that the number of gangs had increased more than four-fold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide. Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by adults, and States mut allow public access to juvenile criminal records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults who prey on the, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a school will face three times the penalty under current law. This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that violent youth, and the adults that lead them into a life of crime, pose to our children. the monies authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, demands more than that. We need to take into account the needs of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of privacy for violent juvenile perpetrators. For too long now we have treated juvenile crime as something less than real crime. Even the language we use--referring to adult crimes, but to acts of juvenile delinquency--suggests that juvenile crime is not real crime. But we are not talking about throwing spit-balls or juvenile horseplay. We are talking about murder and assault and rape. And I assure you that for the victims of these crimes, the crimes are all too real--no less so because the perpetrator was under eighteen. The time has come to take juvenile crime seriously and protect our children from violence.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to take an opportunity to congratulate the senior Senator from my home State for introducing and reporting the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. This is an important bill that I am happy to co-sponsor and support. The bill represents an important step in Congress' ongoing efforts to limit the scope and impact of the Year 2000 problem before it is too late. Last year, we passed the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act, which was an important first step in removing any legal barriers that could prevent individuals and companies from doing everything possible to eliminate Year 2000 problems before they happen. I was particularly gratified that I was able to work with Senators Hatch and Leahy to include the provisions of my temporary antitrust immunity bill, S. 2384, in last year's act. However, as I said at the time, the Disclosure Act must be understood as only the first step in our efforts to deal with this problem. Senator Bond's bill, along with the liability bills working their way through the Commerce and Judiciary Committees, on which I sit, are the next logical steps in this ongoing effort. Countless computer engineers and experts are busy right now trying to solve or minimize the Year 2000 and related date failure problems. Part of what makes this problem so difficult to address is that there is no one Year 2000 problem. There are countless distinct date failure problems, and no one silver bullet will solve them all. The absence of any readily-available one-size-fits-all solution poses particularly serious challenges for small business. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act addresses this problem by providing loan guarantees to small businesses to remedy their year 2000 problems. The act provides the necessary resources so that small businesses can nip this problem in the bud, so that the Year 2000 problem does not become the Year 2000 disaster. The act is narrowly targeted at enabling small business to remedy Year 2000 issues before they lead to costly damages and even more costly litigation. Like the antitrust exemption I authored in the last Congress, this provision automatically sunsets once the window of opportunity for avoiding Year 2000 problems closes. Finally, let me say, that like Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act we enacted last year, this law does not offer a complete solution to the Year 2000 problem. There are many aspects to this problem--both domestic and international--and there may be limits to what government can do to solve this problem. These loan guarantees are one constructive step Congress can take. Another constructive step is to remove government-imposed obstacles that limit the ability of the private sector to solve this problem. For example, Congress needs to address the liability rules that govern litigation over potential Year 2000 problems. That process is ongoing in both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both committees to reach an acceptable approach that can be enacted quickly. The remaining issues are difficult, but we cannot shrink from tackling the tough issues. Many have talked about the unprecedented prosperity generated by our new, high-tech economy. I want to make sure that the next century is driven by these high-tech engines of growth and is stamped made in America. But we will not make the next century an American Century by dodging the tough issues and hoping the Year 2000 problem will just go away. We need to keep working toward a solution. Resources to address the Year 2000 problem, particularly time, are finite. They must be focused as fully as possible on remediation, rather than on unproductive litigation. This issue is all about time, and we have precious little left before the Year 2000 problem is upon us. I hope we can continue to work together on legislation like this to free up talented individuals to address this serious threat. Mr. President, I yield the floor.