John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we live in a time of unparalleled prosperity. The stock market continually hits new highs, while unemployment and gasoline plunge to record lows. This prosperity brings many blessings, chief among them material comfort. But sometimes prosperity can mask problems as well as solve them. As Francis Bacon said, ``Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes; and adversity is not without comforts and hopes.'' Prosperity can breed apathy and complacency, weakening a society's ability to respond to the challenges facing it. And as for adversity, it is only when people realize the true extent of their challenges that they can overcome them. One of the greatest challenges we face is drugs, especially the recent rise in the production and use of methamphetamines. Despite the continued challenge drugs present, we have not heard enough about this problem recently. This administration has chosen not to make it a priority. A few years ago, Democrat Representative Charles Rangel lamented this administration's inaction on the drug war: ``I've been in Congress over two decades, and I have never, never, never found any administration that's been so silent on this great challenge to the American people.'' Former Drug Czar William Bennett agrees, having testified before our colleagues in the House of Representatives that: ``The Clinton Administration has been AWOL in the war on drugs.'' We have gone from an era of ``just say no'' to an era of ``I didn't inhale,'' and the numbers concerning youth drug use show that these contrasting messages make a difference. While the financial numbers continue to move in the right direction, the numbers concerning youth direction have gone in the wrong direction. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who had tried illegal drugs was a shocking 54%--133% of the level in 1992. This figure, which had decreased during the 1980s, increased in the 1990s. Similarly, in 1998, the reported illicit drug use by 12th graders in the last 30 days was more than 177% of the level seven years earlier. What is particularly alarming is the drastic increase in the use of heavy drugs by teenagers. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used cocaine in the last 30 days was 178% of the level in 1992. Moreover, the percentage of heroin use was 250% of the 1992 level. The plain facts are that drug use among our nation's youth is far too common and becoming more so. Our nation appears to be sliding backward from the strides we made in the 1980s. The increases in drug use among our children are alarming. Our children are our greatest asset and they are at great risk from drugs. They are the most vulnerable members of our society. And, more than any other group, young people face the highest risk of being lost to drugs forever. The more than half of the nation's high school seniors who have already tried drugs run much greater risks of future drug use than their peers. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, those who do not try drugs by their mid-twenties are unlikely ever to use drugs. Protecting our children from drugs is the best way to stop adults from using drugs. The challenge before us--protecting our children from drugs--becomes ever more difficult in a society plagued by divorce, single-parent households, diffuse communities, and the never-ending beat of ``live for today'' messages coming from our culture. Every one of these factors makes it harder to impart the right messages to the next generation and to keep our children off drugs. Protecting our children from drugs is more difficult than ever. In the last few years, a new enemy has emerged to join the other, more familiar, threats of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. That new threat is methamphetamine or ``meth,'' a dangerous, addictive substance that is ruining lives and weakening communities across this great land. Meth is to the 1990s what cocaine was to the 1980s and heroin was to the 1970s. And the problem is growing exponentially, in both Missouri and the nation at large. In 1992, DEA agents seized 2 clandestine meth labs in the State of Missouri. By 1994, there were 14 seizures. That was serious enough. However, in 1997, they seized 421 labs. Meth ensnares our children, endangers us all, and causes users to commit other crimes. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 level. Meth-related emergency room incidents are up 63 percent over that same period. The National Institute of Justice released a report just a couple of months ago that showed meth use among adult arrestees and detainees has risen to alarming levels across the country. Meth is one of the most serious drug problems in our nation--and, in states like Missouri--it remains the most serious problem. Just ask the McClelland family in Kansas City. Their 11-year-old daughter was bludgeoned to death by a family friend who was high on meth. Her murderer admitted to beating her in the head repeatedly with a claw hammer after she resisted his sexual advances. This is not an isolated incident. Meth kills. Law enforcement officers in Missouri refer to it as a triple threat. It can kill the user; it can make the user kill and, in many cases, even its production can kill. Meth labs have been called toxic time bombs because volatile chemicals are mixed in the manufacturing process. There have been dozens of lab explosions. There are also numerous cases of meth abusers booby-trapping their abandoned labs, resulting in serious injuries to law enforcement agents. Even when not booby trapped, abandoned labs are like toxic waste dumps. Clean up is both dangerous and expensive. Meth production poses a unique challenge to law enforcement because of the difficulties in effective interdiction. Although some meth comes in the United States from Mexico, much of it is home produced from readily-available materials. It can be manufactured in clandestine labs and even in the kitchen of a moving RV--a literal moving target for law enforcement. Meth also can be manufactured in batches large or small. Law enforcement officials in Missouri have told me that as we have poured more resources into the fight against meth, some meth cooks have resorted to smaller and smaller batches to reduce the chances of detection. Other law enforcement officers report meth operations that contract out the various steps in the manufacturing process to different sites to reduce the chances of detection. Meth also has some unique attributes which appeal to users. Smoking meth produces a high that lasts 8 to 24 hours. Cocaine, in contrast, produces a high that lasts for 20 to 30 minutes. Meth appeals not only to those looking for an extended high. It appeals to vanity as well. Meth suppresses appetite and is enticing to young adults trying to lose weight. While meth is different from other drugs in some ways--more dangerous, more difficult to police--at its core, it is the same as other narcotics in that it imposes costs. According to Bill Bennett, the use of drugs ``makes every other social problem much worse.'' Meth contributes to a host of societal ills--violence, unemployment, homelessness, family breakup. I have heard too many stories of neglected children all but abandoned in a home turned into a meth lab. There are enough threats to our children that we do not need meth adding to our burden. I want to fight the scourge of meth because of the violence it causes. I want to fight meth because of the costs it imposes, on society and on families, on taxpayers and on communities. But there is another factor that motivates my opposition to meth: I want to fight meth because its use and production is wrong. And too few people are willing to stand up these days and call drugs wrong. This laissez faire attitude leads to too much permissiveness on the subject of drugs. And permissiveness on drugs imposes terrible moral and psychic costs on America's youth. In fact, much of our current predicament stems for the permissive attitudes that emerged from the 1960s. The decay of enforcement that began in the 1960s helped to cause the problems of the succeeding decades. Make no mistake. Enforcement is an extremely effective tool in diminishing drug use. During the 1960s and 1970s, the period coinciding with the dawn of this country's second great drug crisis, incarceration rates plummeted from 90 per 1,000 arrests in 1960 to only 19 per 1,000 arrests by 1980. Laws are what protects society from anarchy. And when we choose not to enforce our laws, our laws lose their effectiveness, and the bulwark against anarchy withers. While our society too often tends towards laxness, we also have a history of responding to challenges. America has never faced a problem that has proven too great for us to meet or too big for us to tackle. The meth challenge, while daunting, is no exception. If we make a determined and full engagement in our war against meth, we will win. We will defeat meth. In my four years in the United States Senate, I have fought the growth of meth trafficking. In the last Congress, I introduced the ``Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act'' to provide more severe penalties for manufacturing, trafficking, or importing meth. That legislation, which was signed into law last fall, increases prison terms for meth possession to a 10-year minimum for possession of 50 grams of meth or more, and a 5-year minimum for 5 grams or more. That law also made more meth crimes eligible for the death penalty in situations in which a murder is committed in conjunction with the meth offense. In light of the triple threat nature of meth, the availability of the death penalty is particularly relevant and appropriate. In order to protect residents of public housing, I worked with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to place a ``one strike and your out,'' lifetime ban from public housing premises for individuals who manufacture or produce methamphetamine. I also worked to set up a regional High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (or HIDTA) that covers Missouri. More recently, I organized a bipartisan effort by the Missouri congressional delegation that led to increased funding for anti-meth initiatives, including resources for law enforcement and lab cleanup. These steps are all important. When I talked with representatives of Missouri law enforcement earlier this week, they underscored that these programs are having a positive effect in the fight against meth. But winning the battle against meth once and for all will take continued hard work and effort. Mr. President, today I rise to take the next step in the fight against meth, the Determined and Full Engagement Against the Threat of Meth Act, or the ``DeFEAT Meth Act'' for short. My anti-methamphetamine legislation will have five main components. First, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to adjust its guidelines to increase penalties for meth crimes. In the last Congress we were able to raise the mandatory minimum sentences for meth trafficking crimes involving over 5 grams. This provision complements last year's legislation by increasing penalties for meth crimes that do not come under the mandatory minimums, and adding a special sentencing enhancement for meth crimes that endanger human life. This provision completes the process of imposing appropriate and severe penalties on those who wish to tear apart the very fabric of our society by distributing meth. Second, my legislation will provide law enforcement officers with more resources for combating meth. Specifically, it is time to authorize more funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration's meth initiative. This funding is essential. In order to stop the spread of meth, the DEA needs to hire more agents, and provide additional training for state and local law enforcement officers. These agents will participate in the DEA's comprehensive plan for targeting and investigating meth trafficking, production and abuse. The DEA also needs to provide additional support for local law enforcement. When law enforcement busts a meth lab, they are taking over the equivalent of a toxic waste dump. The serious and unique problems cleanup problems created by meth demand a serious and unique response. Third, we need to educate our children about the dangers of meth. While DEA interdiction is vital, we also need to educate parents, teachers, and children--who may not yet be familiar with the dangers of meth--about the size of the threat. We should authorize new funding for programs to educate parents and teachers of the dangers of methamphetamine. Missouri law enforcement officers estimate that as many as 10% of high-school students know the recipe for meth. We must make sure that 100% of them know that meth is a recipe for disaster. Fourth, we need to recognize that, more than any other narcotic, meth can be made all too easily, in home grown laboratories, with readily- available chemicals. To counteract this problem, we must ensure that the list of banned precursor chemicals used to make meth is kept up to date. It seems that when a precursor chemical is added to the list, meth cooks figure out how to manufacture meth with a new unlisted chemical. We must remain vigilant in the battle against meth. After consulting with people on the front line--in the crime labs in Missouri--we have proposed adding two new precursor chemicals: red phosphorous and sodium dichromate. Finally, the bill amends the federal drug paraphernalia statute to cover meth. The current law covers paraphernalia used to ingest a number of specific drugs including marijuana and cocaine. It does not cover meth. There is no basis for this differential treatment, and the bill adds meth to the statute. This comprehensive plan is an essential step in the war against meth. While no plan will not stop the spread of meth overnight, we must continue the long process of stopping this onslaught. Defeating meth will be a struggle that takes place in schools, in communities, in churches, within families. We must teach the next generation the danger of drugs and give them alternatives to the easy short term answers that drugs provide. Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have overcome other challenges in the past and we can conquer this one as well. In fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All we need to succeed is to marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit. The experience of the past few years demonstrates that you cannot win the war on drugs with a half-hearted effort. However, experience also shows that we can win if we commit to a determined and full engagement against the threat of drugs. This bill provides full engagement. With it, we will meet the meth challenge and we will defeat it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we live in a time of unparalleled prosperity. The stock market continually hits new highs, while unemployment and gasoline plunge to record lows. This prosperity brings many blessings, chief among them material comfort. But sometimes prosperity can mask problems as well as solve them. As Francis Bacon said, ``Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes; and adversity is not without comforts and hopes.'' Prosperity can breed apathy and complacency, weakening a society's ability to respond to the challenges facing it. And as for adversity, it is only when people realize the true extent of their challenges that they can overcome them. One of the greatest challenges we face is drugs, especially the recent rise in the production and use of methamphetamines. Despite the continued challenge drugs present, we have not heard enough about this problem recently. This administration has chosen not to make it a priority. A few years ago, Democrat Representative Charles Rangel lamented this administration's inaction on the drug war: ``I've been in Congress over two decades, and I have never, never, never found any administration that's been so silent on this great challenge to the American people.'' Former Drug Czar William Bennett agrees, having testified before our colleagues in the House of Representatives that: ``The Clinton Administration has been AWOL in the war on drugs.'' We have gone from an era of ``just say no'' to an era of ``I didn't inhale,'' and the numbers concerning youth drug use show that these contrasting messages make a difference. While the financial numbers continue to move in the right direction, the numbers concerning youth direction have gone in the wrong direction. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who had tried illegal drugs was a shocking 54%--133% of the level in 1992. This figure, which had decreased during the 1980s, increased in the 1990s. Similarly, in 1998, the reported illicit drug use by 12th graders in the last 30 days was more than 177% of the level seven years earlier. What is particularly alarming is the drastic increase in the use of heavy drugs by teenagers. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used cocaine in the last 30 days was 178% of the level in 1992. Moreover, the percentage of heroin use was 250% of the 1992 level. The plain facts are that drug use among our nation's youth is far too common and becoming more so. Our nation appears to be sliding backward from the strides we made in the 1980s. The increases in drug use among our children are alarming. Our children are our greatest asset and they are at great risk from drugs. They are the most vulnerable members of our society. And, more than any other group, young people face the highest risk of being lost to drugs forever. The more than half of the nation's high school seniors who have already tried drugs run much greater risks of future drug use than their peers. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, those who do not try drugs by their mid-twenties are unlikely ever to use drugs. Protecting our children from drugs is the best way to stop adults from using drugs. The challenge before us--protecting our children from drugs--becomes ever more difficult in a society plagued by divorce, single-parent households, diffuse communities, and the never-ending beat of ``live for today'' messages coming from our culture. Every one of these factors makes it harder to impart the right messages to the next generation and to keep our children off drugs. Protecting our children from drugs is more difficult than ever. In the last few years, a new enemy has emerged to join the other, more familiar, threats of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. That new threat is methamphetamine or ``meth,'' a dangerous, addictive substance that is ruining lives and weakening communities across this great land. Meth is to the 1990s what cocaine was to the 1980s and heroin was to the 1970s. And the problem is growing exponentially, in both Missouri and the nation at large. In 1992, DEA agents seized 2 clandestine meth labs in the State of Missouri. By 1994, there were 14 seizures. That was serious enough. However, in 1997, they seized 421 labs. Meth ensnares our children, endangers us all, and causes users to commit other crimes. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 level. Meth-related emergency room incidents are up 63 percent over that same period. The National Institute of Justice released a report just a couple of months ago that showed meth use among adult arrestees and detainees has risen to alarming levels across the country. Meth is one of the most serious drug problems in our nation--and, in states like Missouri--it remains the most serious problem. Just ask the McClelland family in Kansas City. Their 11-year-old daughter was bludgeoned to death by a family friend who was high on meth. Her murderer admitted to beating her in the head repeatedly with a claw hammer after she resisted his sexual advances. This is not an isolated incident. Meth kills. Law enforcement officers in Missouri refer to it as a triple threat. It can kill the user; it can make the user kill and, in many cases, even its production can kill. Meth labs have been called toxic time bombs because volatile chemicals are mixed in the manufacturing process. There have been dozens of lab explosions. There are also numerous cases of meth abusers booby-trapping their abandoned labs, resulting in serious injuries to law enforcement agents. Even when not booby trapped, abandoned labs are like toxic waste dumps. Clean up is both dangerous and expensive. Meth production poses a unique challenge to law enforcement because of the difficulties in effective interdiction. Although some meth comes in the United States from Mexico, much of it is home produced from readily-available materials. It can be manufactured in clandestine labs and even in the kitchen of a moving RV--a literal moving target for law enforcement. Meth also can be manufactured in batches large or small. Law enforcement officials in Missouri have told me that as we have poured more resources into the fight against meth, some meth cooks have resorted to smaller and smaller batches to reduce the chances of detection. Other law enforcement officers report meth operations that contract out the various steps in the manufacturing process to different sites to reduce the chances of detection. Meth also has some unique attributes which appeal to users. Smoking meth produces a high that lasts 8 to 24 hours. Cocaine, in contrast, produces a high that lasts for 20 to 30 minutes. Meth appeals not only to those looking for an extended high. It appeals to vanity as well. Meth suppresses appetite and is enticing to young adults trying to lose weight. While meth is different from other drugs in some ways--more dangerous, more difficult to police--at its core, it is the same as other narcotics in that it imposes costs. According to Bill Bennett, the use of drugs ``makes every other social problem much worse.'' Meth contributes to a host of societal ills--violence, unemployment, homelessness, family breakup. I have heard too many stories of neglected children all but abandoned in a home turned into a meth lab. There are enough threats to our children that we do not need meth adding to our burden. I want to fight the scourge of meth because of the violence it causes. I want to fight meth because of the costs it imposes, on society and on families, on taxpayers and on communities. But there is another factor that motivates my opposition to meth: I want to fight meth because its use and production is wrong. And too few people are willing to stand up these days and call drugs wrong. This laissez faire attitude leads to too much permissiveness on the subject of drugs. And permissiveness on drugs imposes terrible moral and psychic costs on America's youth. In fact, much of our current predicament stems for the permissive attitudes that emerged from the 1960s. The decay of enforcement that began in the 1960s helped to cause the problems of the succeeding decades. Make no mistake. Enforcement is an extremely effective tool in diminishing drug use. During the 1960s and 1970s, the period coinciding with the dawn of this country's second great drug crisis, incarceration rates plummeted from 90 per 1,000 arrests in 1960 to only 19 per 1,000 arrests by 1980. Laws are what protects society from anarchy. And when we choose not to enforce our laws, our laws lose their effectiveness, and the bulwark against anarchy withers. While our society too often tends towards laxness, we also have a history of responding to challenges. America has never faced a problem that has proven too great for us to meet or too big for us to tackle. The meth challenge, while daunting, is no exception. If we make a determined and full engagement in our war against meth, we will win. We will defeat meth. In my four years in the United States Senate, I have fought the growth of meth trafficking. In the last Congress, I introduced the ``Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act'' to provide more severe penalties for manufacturing, trafficking, or importing meth. That legislation, which was signed into law last fall, increases prison terms for meth possession to a 10-year minimum for possession of 50 grams of meth or more, and a 5-year minimum for 5 grams or more. That law also made more meth crimes eligible for the death penalty in situations in which a murder is committed in conjunction with the meth offense. In light of the triple threat nature of meth, the availability of the death penalty is particularly relevant and appropriate. In order to protect residents of public housing, I worked with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to place a ``one strike and your out,'' lifetime ban from public housing premises for individuals who manufacture or produce methamphetamine. I also worked to set up a regional High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (or HIDTA) that covers Missouri. More recently, I organized a bipartisan effort by the Missouri congressional delegation that led to increased funding for anti-meth initiatives, including resources for law enforcement and lab cleanup. These steps are all important. When I talked with representatives of Missouri law enforcement earlier this week, they underscored that these programs are having a positive effect in the fight against meth. But winning the battle against meth once and for all will take continued hard work and effort. Mr. President, today I rise to take the next step in the fight against meth, the Determined and Full Engagement Against the Threat of Meth Act, or the ``DeFEAT Meth Act'' for short. My anti-methamphetamine legislation will have five main components. First, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to adjust its guidelines to increase penalties for meth crimes. In the last Congress we were able to raise the mandatory minimum sentences for meth trafficking crimes involving over 5 grams. This provision complements last year's legislation by increasing penalties for meth crimes that do not come under the mandatory minimums, and adding a special sentencing enhancement for meth crimes that endanger human life. This provision completes the process of imposing appropriate and severe penalties on those who wish to tear apart the very fabric of our society by distributing meth. Second, my legislation will provide law enforcement officers with more resources for combating meth. Specifically, it is time to authorize more funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration's meth initiative. This funding is essential. In order to stop the spread of meth, the DEA needs to hire more agents, and provide additional training for state and local law enforcement officers. These agents will participate in the DEA's comprehensive plan for targeting and investigating meth trafficking, production and abuse. The DEA also needs to provide additional support for local law enforcement. When law enforcement busts a meth lab, they are taking over the equivalent of a toxic waste dump. The serious and unique problems cleanup problems created by meth demand a serious and unique response. Third, we need to educate our children about the dangers of meth. While DEA interdiction is vital, we also need to educate parents, teachers, and children--who may not yet be familiar with the dangers of meth--about the size of the threat. We should authorize new funding for programs to educate parents and teachers of the dangers of methamphetamine. Missouri law enforcement officers estimate that as many as 10% of high-school students know the recipe for meth. We must make sure that 100% of them know that meth is a recipe for disaster. Fourth, we need to recognize that, more than any other narcotic, meth can be made all too easily, in home grown laboratories, with readily- available chemicals. To counteract this problem, we must ensure that the list of banned precursor chemicals used to make meth is kept up to date. It seems that when a precursor chemical is added to the list, meth cooks figure out how to manufacture meth with a new unlisted chemical. We must remain vigilant in the battle against meth. After consulting with people on the front line--in the crime labs in Missouri--we have proposed adding two new precursor chemicals: red phosphorous and sodium dichromate. Finally, the bill amends the federal drug paraphernalia statute to cover meth. The current law covers paraphernalia used to ingest a number of specific drugs including marijuana and cocaine. It does not cover meth. There is no basis for this differential treatment, and the bill adds meth to the statute. This comprehensive plan is an essential step in the war against meth. While no plan will not stop the spread of meth overnight, we must continue the long process of stopping this onslaught. Defeating meth will be a struggle that takes place in schools, in communities, in churches, within families. We must teach the next generation the danger of drugs and give them alternatives to the easy short term answers that drugs provide. Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have overcome other challenges in the past and we can conquer this one as well. In fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All we need to succeed is to marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit. The experience of the past few years demonstrates that you cannot win the war on drugs with a half-hearted effort. However, experience also shows that we can win if we commit to a determined and full engagement against the threat of drugs. This bill provides full engagement. With it, we will meet the meth challenge and we will defeat it. 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. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' (SSAM) Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill addresses critical personnel and retention issues in our nation's armed forces and hopefully will arrest the accelerating decline in military readiness. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the Committee as a whole for reporting this legislation. I have been concerned for quite some time with declining defense budgets and increased deployments overseas. Those who defend the United States often are the first casualties of budget cuts here at home, even as they have been deployed overseas more frequently than ever before. Declining morale in our armed forces and diminished military readiness are national security legacies this Administration is leaving, legacies I hope the Senate will begin reversing with the passage of S. 4. Our military is hemorrhaging due to poor morale, plentiful private sector opportunities in a robust economy, and burdensome deployment schedules. The pay and benefit provisions in S. 4 will be critical to arrest declining morale and diminished readiness. As General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee last September, ``. . . we must act soon to send a clear signal to the backbone of our military, our mid-grade commissioned and noncommissioned officers, that their leadership and this Congress recognize the value of their service and their sacrifices and that we have not lost sight of our commitment to the success of the all-volunteer force.'' Mr. President, the Administration has taken too long to address the morale and retention problems undermining the readiness of our armed forces. Senior Pentagon officials downplayed evidence of growing personnel and readiness problems for months, but finally began addressing these issues squarely before the Senate Armed Services Committee last September. General Shelton stated that ``. . . our forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal initially, and now measurable, evidence indicates that our readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy.'' A cursory survey of declining defense budgets and increased operations around the world certainly provides the factual background to support General Shelton's statement. For many leaving the forces today, military compensation and benefits simply do not justify extended deployments away from home. Our military is doing more with less. Defense spending has declined in real terms by 27 percent since 1990. Military procurement spending has declined by a staggering 54 percent during that same time period. In the midst of this dramatic downsizing, the pace of operations abroad has risen dramatically. In the 1990s, 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. President Reagan deployed U.S. forces 17 times during his eight year term. During his four-year term, President Bush deployed U.S. forces 14 times. During the six year tenure of President Clinton, however, the U.S. armed forces have been deployed over 46 times. 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. Diminished resources, inadequate benefits, and increased deployments are taking a serious toll on the health of our armed forces. Our Air Force pilots defeat Iraq's forces soundly on the battlefield, but Saddam is winning a war of attrition when it comes to pilot retention. The Air Force has experienced a 14 percent decline in readiness since 1996 and ended 1998 with a 700 pilot shortfall that could grow to 2,000 pilots by 2002. Air Force second-term reenlistment rates have dropped 13% in the last 5 years. The Navy was 7,000 recruits short in 1998 and reports diminished deployed readiness due to personnel shortages, such as a 9% shortfall in junior Surface Warfare Officers. The non-deployed readiness of carrier air wings is at its lowest level in a decade. Retention rates for critical personnel in all services is suffering. Declines in retention of critical personnel since 1995 are very troubling: Air Force enlisted aircrew with 7 years service declined from 83 to 55 percent; Air Force AWAC personnel with 5-8 years service declined from 56 to 35 percent; Army aircraft armament personnel with 8 years service declined from 72 to 47 percent; Army chemical operations specialists with 5-8 years service declined from 69 to 51 percent; Marine aircraft avionics technicians with 9-12 years service declined from 76 to 63 percent; and Navy electronic technicians with 9-12 years service declined from 77 to 63 percent. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' (SSAM) Bill of Rights Act of 1999 addresses these problems on several fronts. The legislation contains important provisions to address immediate needs and establishes longer-term mechanisms to improve retention of military personnel. The bill provides for an across the board pay increase of 4.8 percent. The pay table is reformed to benefit critical mid-career personnel the most. Retirement system reform gives military personnel with 15 years of service the option of remaining in the Redux retirement plan and taking a $30,000 cash bonus or returning to a pre- Redux system with retirement at 50 percent of base pay and no COLA caps. Retirement opportunities also are enhanced by allowing military personnel to contribute 5 percent of their base pay tax-free to a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). A special retention initiative is also provided where the Secretary of Defense can choose to offer 5 percent matching TSP contributions to critical personnel for six years in return for a six year commitment. Finally, there is a special subsistence allowance to address the intolerable condition of 12,000 military personnel on food stamps. In the U.S. military, the finest fighting force in the world, there should never be families who are so poorly provided for as to need food stamps. The monthly subsistence allowance in this legislation, in addition to other pay reforms, will help end this disgraceful treatment of thousands of military personnel. The need for this legislation cannot be more obvious. Our troops maintain a constant presence in the Persian Gulf, East Asia, and Europe. Now in Bosnia two years past the original deadline, American soldiers could face yet another prolonged nation-building exercise in Kosovo if this Administration has its way. These troops have been asked to achieve more missions with fewer resources and less manpower, and the signs of fraying readiness and declining morale are mounting. In addressing current readiness and funding problems, Administration officials repeatedly have said personnel issues were their first priority. General Shelton testified last September: ``. . . if I had to choose the area of greatest concern to me, I would say that we need to put additional dollars into taking care of our most important resource, the uniformed members of the armed forces.'' General Shelton is right to place the highest priority on our military personnel. The defense of this country, in the final analysis, is essentially a personnel issue. Admiral Chester Nimitz stated in 1950: ``Our armaments must be adequate to the needs, but our faith is not primarily in these machines of defense but in ourselves.'' General Shelton seems to concur with that statement when he says: ``The best tanks, the best planes, the best ships in the world are not what makes our military the superb force that it is today . . . Advanced technology and modern weapons are important . . . But even the finest high-tech equipment will never be the determining factor on the battlefield. The most critical factor for both current and future readiness are our men and women . . . in uniform today.'' Our military personnel are our greatest resource, and our failure to take care of them our greatest oversight. No soldier should have to worry about feeding his family as he defends his country. No military family should be repeatedly divided by constant deployments. We entrust our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the responsibility given to our nation as a whole: the defense of liberty. How we provide for those men and women in uniform reflects on how seriously we take that mission, on how seriously we safeguard the blessings of liberty. I urge passage of this legislation to improve much-needed benefits for those who defend the United States and the cause of freedom abroad.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Pastor Jack and Anna Hayford as they celebrate 30 years of service to The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California. It is with great honor and distinction that I commend the Hayfords for their long and outstanding service to their congregation and people of faith throughout this nation and literally around the world. Pastor Jack and Anna have been faithful teachers of God's Word, inspiring millions in their relationship with God. Their personal sacrifices over the past 30 years of service are exemplified by their relentless pursuit to minister to others. Pastor Jack has helped bring pastors and church leaders together at new levels of unity. His tireless and selfless pursuit to build bridges within the Body of Christ across racial divisions is to be commended. Anna Hayford, a wife and mother, serves as a role-model to women in ministry on how to balance the duties of home and church and the demands of marriage and family. She is a faithful source of strength and encouragement to many through her teaching and counseling ministry. Over the past 30 years, the Hayfords have been on a mission to bring understanding, repentance, and healing to the pain that has separated black and white churches in America. As our nation looks increasingly for guidance in this period of moral decay, the Hayfords provide a spiritual path for others to follow. I wish Pastor Jack and Anna Hayford a memorable celebration of their commitment to the redemptive mission of Christ. May God bless them and protect them in their future endeavors.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. When the impeachment trial began on January 7th, I took an oath to render ``impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.'' This oath distinguishes impeachment from all my other responsibilities in the Senate. Although the Constitution requires Senators to take an oath of office and gives the Senate numerous powers and responsibilities, only the obligation to try impeachments demands the swearing of a special, separate oath. While many commentators have sought to mark this trial as a political event, the oath leaves room only for impartial justice. I interpret this oath as requiring that I decide this case based on the evidence in the record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law--and on no other basis. If I were to look beyond the evidence in the case, to public opinion polls, then a path to a decision would be clear. A large majority of Americans, for example, believe that the President committed perjury, but do not think that he should be removed from office. I am sure that those surveyed considered a variety of factors and did not limit themselves to the Senate record. More than anything else, these poll results reflect the American people's capacity for forgiveness. I share this desire to forgive the President for his admitted mistakes. However, the forgiveness we grant in our capacity as individuals must be distinguished from the government's responsibility to remedy wrongdoing. We routinely ask jurors to sentence defendants in accordance with the law, even though they may forgive the defendant. That is the same responsibility that the Constitution and my oath impose on me in this proceeding. On the other hand, if I were simply to vote my conscience as to whether I believe the President's continued service is good for our country and our culture, that is a clear path as well. From the very outset, I have stated consistently that if the allegations were true concerning the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, then the President has disgraced himself and his office, and should resign. In my view, the confessed facts of the President's conduct in the Oval Office make his continued presence an obstacle to the healing our culture. The honorable course would be for the President to resign, to allow the nation to heal from the wounds he has inflicted. My oath, however, forecloses either of these paths, and instead forces me to undertake the far more difficult task of sifting through the record, weighing evidence, determining credibility and reaching a final, impartial judgment on the articles of impeachment. As a result, I cannot explain my judgment by resort to any grand principles or by broad statements about my opinion of the President as a leader. I can only explain my vote through a detailed examination of the articles of impeachment, the evidence presented and the relevant law. article i--grand jury perjury The first article of impeachment charges President Clinton with committing perjury before the grand jury when he testified on four subjects. Attorneys for the President complain that the House Managers failed to specify the particular grand jury statements of the President that constituted perjury. I agree that the President deserves sufficient specificity to provide him the basis for a defense. However, during the course of the House Managers' presentation it became clear that the perjury allegations focused on a handful of specific statements the President made to the grand jury. the president and ms. currie--refreshing memory with lies Perhaps the single most obvious instance of a false statement by the President stems from his explanation of his conversations with Ms. Betty Currie in the days immediately following his deposition testimony in Jones v. Clinton. Ms. Currie told the grand jury that on the evening of his deposition the President called her and requested that she make a rare Sunday appearance at the White House. When she arrived, the President called her in and confronted her with an unusual series of statements and questions, including: ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?''; ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?''; and ``I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. IV, part 1 at 559-60; Ms. Currie 1/27/98 GJ at 70- 75.). When the President was asked to explain this conversation to the grand jury, he stated that he was ``trying to refresh [his] memory about what the facts were.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1 at 651; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 131.) (See also Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1 at 593-94; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 141-42 (Q: ``[Y]ou are saying that your only interest in speaking with Ms. Currie in the days after your deposition was to refresh your own recollection? A: Yes.'')) This statement is demonstrably false. A person cannot refresh his or her memory by repeating lies. The President's leading questions were falsehoods. The President knew that he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, knew that they had been together outside of Ms. Currie's presence, and knew that he had touched Ms. Lewinsky. Repeating these falsehoods to Ms. Currie could not have refreshed the President's memory ``about what the facts were.'' What is more, Ms. Currie testified that the President reviewed these same statements and questions with her again two or three days later. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. IV, part 1, at 560-61; Ms. Currie 1/27/98 GJ, at 80-82.) The President does not have specific memory of this second conversation, but does not dispute Ms. Currie's recollection. If the President were trying to refresh his memory, he would not go through the same questions again two or three days later. However, if the President were trying to coach Ms. Currie's testimony and ensure that her version of events was consistent with his false deposition testimony, then rehearsing these questions and answers a second time would be helpful. Based on all the evidence, I have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the President's testimony concerning these conversations with Ms. Currie was false. The evidence clearly shows that the President gave false testimony to the grand jury in order to cover up his illegal effort to influence Ms. Currie's testimony. the president's lies to his aides Another clear example of a false statement by the President in his grand jury testimony is his claim that he was truthful with his aides in discussing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The exact nature of what the President said to his aides in the immediate aftermath of his deposition was of interest to the grand jury as part of its investigation of whether the President obstructed justice. When asked about these conversations, the President told the grand jury that ``I said to them things that were true about this relationship.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 558; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 106.) The testimony of the President's own aides, however, makes it clear that the President was not truthful with his aides. He did not than mislead them, he lied to them. For example, one presidential aide, John Podesta, testified that the President told him that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky ``in any way whatsoever'' and provided additional, more detailed denials concerning the relationship. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. IV, part 3, at 3311; Mr. Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, at 92.) Sidney Blumenthal, another presidential aide, testified that the President told him that ``Ms. Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me,'' that he ``rebuffed her,'' and that Ms. Lewinsky ``was known as the stalker.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. IV, part 1, at 185; Mr. Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, at 49.) In his Senate deposition Mr. Blumenthal unequivocally stated that he now believes the President lied to him. (See Congressional Record S1249; Mr. Blumenthal 2/3/99 Dep.) As the President's closest aides have conceded, the President was not truthful with them. In reviewing all the evidence, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the President was not truthful with his aides and that his grand jury testimony concerning these discussions was false. the president's testimony about his relationship with ms. lewinsky The first example included in the grand jury perjury article approved by the House focuses on the President's grand jury testimony concerning ``the nature and details of his relationship with'' Ms. Lewinsky. His testimony on this matter also appears to be false. Although some of the detailed testimony underlying this example of perjury is nothing short of sordid, the President's lack of credibility on this matter is straightforward. For a number of months last year, Ms. Lewinsky was on record as having told federal investigators that she and the President had engaged in a sexual relationship. The President publicly and repeatedly denied the truth of these allegations. It was a classic ``he said, she said'' situation. Then physical evidence of a sexual relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky was discovered. After this physical evidence came to light, it ceased to be a ``he said, she said'' situation. He changed his story and admitted an ``inappropriate intimate relationship'' to a federal grand jury, while she was vindicated. However, the President declined to follow his oath to tell the grand jury the whole truth and admit the true nature of the relationship. Instead, the President attempted to walk an impossibly fine line, admitting to a relationship which involved sufficient contact to explain the physical evidence but insufficient contact to make the President's earlier deposition statements about the relationship perjurious. The President's testimony on this matter, therefore, was at the heart of the grand jury's investigation into whether the President committed perjury in the Jones case. The physical evidence strongly suggested that the President had committed perjury in his deposition, and this grand jury testimony was the basis for his defense. The President's testimony flatly contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's testimony concerning the nature and details of their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony provides a much more plausible explanation of the physical evidence, and makes clear that the President perjured himself in his sworn deposition testimony. With respect to the nature and details of their relationship we are once again present with a ``he said, she said'' situation. But now there are two differences. First, the President's implausibly contorted version of events appears to be tailored precisely to avoid admitting a prior perjury. Second, we have the benefit of a prior ``he said, she said'' dispute between the same two people, in which subsequent evidence conclusively proved that she was telling the truth and he was lying. Under these circumstances, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President lied about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky. the president's testimony concerning his deposition The House included two other examples of grand jury perjury in the first article of impeachment. The article alleges that the President lied to the grand jury concerning both his prior, perjurious deposition testimony and whether he was paying attention to his lawyer's statements during that same deposition. While there is considerable evidence that supports the notion that the President did lie to the grand jury regarding these two matters, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President's statements on these matters constitute perjury. The President began his grand jury testimony with the assertion that he was truthful in his deposition testimony. However, later in his grand jury testimony, the President clarified and corrected much of his false and misleading deposition testimony. As a result, it is clear that the President's claim that his deposition testimony was truthful was itself a false statement. However, it is equally clear that this false statement cannot form the basis for a perjury conviction for two reasons. First, when viewed in its entirety, the President's grand jury testimony makes this one statement immaterial. It is the equivalent of the statement of a murderer who begins his confession with the statement that ``I didn't do anything wrong.'' Second, in light of the House's decision to reject a separate article focusing on deposition perjury, I am uncomfortable allowing this one line to be used as a means to ``backdoor'' allegations that the President lied in that forum. The allegation that the President lied to the grand jury when he testified that he was not paying attention to his lawyer when he used Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit to deny that there was any sexual relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky is a closer matter. During the President's deposition in the Jones case, the President's lawyer, Mr. Bennett, argued to the Court that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit demonstrated ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form'' between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. XIV, at 23). The President allowed his lawyer to make this representation to the Court, even though the President knew that representation and the underlying affidavit were both false. When confronted with these facts before the grand jury, the President attempted to excuse his behavior with the claim that he was not paying attention and this ``whole argument just passed me by.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 481; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 29). The available evidence and common sense suggest that the President was paying attention. I have reviewed the videotape of the President's deposition, and he appears to be paying attention to his lawyer before, during and after his lawyer's representation. Common sense suggests the President was paying attention because his lawyer made this statement in an effort to keep the President from answering a question the Jones lawyer had just directed to him. The President would have needed to pay attention to the question in order to answer it, and it is hard to believe he would have tuned out his lawyer's objection to the question. What is more, in light of the President's admitted fears about the true nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky becoming public, it is implausible that he would have not paid attention to his lawyer's efforts to use the Lewinsky affidavit to prevent questioning about their relationship. The President does not dispute that he suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit in a December 17, 1997, telephone call. The President's stated objective in suggesting the filing of an affidavit was to keep Ms. Lewinsky from becoming an issue in the Jones litigation. The notion that the President would not pay attention to his lawyer's efforts to have that suggestion bear fruit strains credulity. Finally, it is worth noting that immediately following Mr. Bennett's representation, the presiding judge cautioned Mr. Bennett against coaching the witness. That caution would not have been necessary had the witness, Mr. Clinton, not been paying attention to his lawyer's words. If I were applying a preponderance of the evidence or a clear and convincing evidence standard, I certainly would reject the President's claim that the ``whole argument just passed me by.'' However, applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, I have reached a different conclusion. The problem for me is that the President's statement concerns his own mental state. Although the evidence and common sense suggest the President was paying attention to Mr. Bennett, I have not been able to remove all doubts from my mind on this score. The Legal Elements Of Grand Jury Perjury On the other hand, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President made false statements to the grand jury concerning his conversation with Ms. Currie, his statements to other aides, and the nature and details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Moreover, in light of the legal standards for grand jury perjury, I am convinced the President's conduct satisfies every element of felony perjury under section 1623 of the federal criminal code, Title 18. There are five elements to the crime of grand jury perjury. To constitute perjury a statement must be made under oath, before a grand jury, with intent, and the statement must be both false and material. I have already discussed why I have concluded that these statements were false, and there is no question that they were made under oath to a grand jury. The only two remaining elements are intent and materiality. Neither of these standards is difficult to satisfy in the context of grand jury perjury. Congress passed a special statute, section 1623, to make it easier to prosecute grand jury perjury out of a recognition that grand jury perjury is a more serious threat to the administration of justice than other perjuries. As a result, the intent requirement is not demanding--the defendant need only make the statement with knowledge of its falsity. As the well-respected American Criminal Law Review published by Georgetown University concludes: ``Section 1623, unlike 1621 [the general perjury statute], does not require proof that the allegedly false testimony was submitted willfully. Rather, it requires that such testimony was knowingly stated or subscribed. This requirement is ordinarily satisfied by proof that the defendant knew his testimony was false at the time he provided it.'' The one thing that emerges from the presentations made by both the White House and the House Managers is that the President made his grand jury statements with a great deal of forethought and precision. The President's false statements did not result from inadvertence or confusion. The President knew these statements were false. For example, he knew full well that his conversation with Ms. Currie was not designed to refresh his memory. Likewise, the materiality standard is easily satisfied in this case. Courts are generally quick to find grand jury perjury to be material in deference to the broad investigatory authority of a federal grand jury. As the Second Circuit observed in United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 828 (1994): ``Because the grand jury's function is investigative, materiality in that context is broadly construed.'' The grand jury in this case was investigating whether the President committed perjury in his Jones deposition or obstructed justice in the Jones lawsuit. Specifically, the grand jury was concerned that the President may have lied in denying a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and obstructed justice by coaching Ms. Currie and his other aides. Therefore, the President's grand jury testimony concerning what he said to his aides and the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was directly relevant to the grand jury's investigation. The President's statements were not just material--they were at the heart of the grand jury's inquiry. The President's Legal Defenses Lawyers for the President raised a number of legal smoke screens in his defense that do not change the ultimate conclusion that the President committed perjury. For example, they emphasize the so-called Bronston defense, in which a misleading statement does not constitute perjury if it is technically true. However, the Bronston defense provides no defense to a statement that is literally false. As United States Supreme Court Justice Breyer, while still on the First Circuit, observed: ``The Bronston Court held only that a defendant cannot be convicted of perjury for true but misleading statements, not that a defendant is immune from prosecution for perjury whenever some ambiguity can be found by an implausibly strained reading of the questions he is asked.'' United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47,69 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Likewise, the White House has attempted to rely on the two-witness rule--i.e., the notion that a perjury prosecution cannot rest on an oath versus an oath. That rule of law would not apply here if it were a correct statement of the law because there is ample corroborating evidence. But the truth of the matter is that section 1623 expressly rejects the two-witness rule, stating that: ``it shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses.'' As the American Criminal Law Review puts it: ``the obvious purpose of this language [is] to prevent the application of the two-witness rule in section 1623 prosecutions.'' That view is supported by the Supreme Court's analysis of the purpose of section 1623 in Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 108 & n.6 (1979). In the end, the White House's legal arguments cannot obscure the fact that the President committed perjury in his grand jury testimony. The House Managers successfully carried their burden. They proved the facts underlying the first article of impeachment beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence satisfied every element of proof for grand jury perjury. article ii--obstruction of justice and witness tampering The second article of impeachment approved by the House alleges that the President obstructed justice and provides seven examples of specific conduct that obstructed justice either in the Jones litigation or in the federal grand jury's investigation. I have examined each of these examples in detail and will share my analysis. As with perjury, perhaps the clearest example of obstruction of justice stems from the President's conversation with Ms. Currie the day after his sworn deposition testimony in the Jones case. coaching ms. currie's testimony As noted in the discussion of perjury, the President called in Ms. Currie the day after his sworn deposition testimony and confronted her with a series of questions and answers, such as ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?''; ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' and ``I was never really alone with Monica, right?''; (See Sen. Rec. Vol. IV, part 1, at 559-560; Ms. Currie 1/27/ 98 GJ, at 70-75.). According to Ms. Currie, the President repeated this rehearsal of questions and answers two or three days later. As discussed earlier, the President's explanation for this conversation-- that he was trying to refresh his memory--is simply not credible. The true purpose of these conversations becomes clear in light of the President's sworn deposition testimony. On several occasions during his deposition, the President invoked Ms. Currie's name in answering questions concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, at one point, the President specifically directed the Jones' lawyers to ``ask Betty whether Ms. Lewinsky was alone with him or with Ms. Currie between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. XIV, at 35). In other words, during his deposition, the President attempted to use Ms. Currie as an alibi witness to deny that he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. It is telling in this regard that in his conversation with Ms. Currie the President sought Ms. Currie's agreement that ``he was never alone with her, right?'' This was the exact point as to which the President directed the Jones' lawyers to ``ask Betty.'' In short, having invoked Ms. Currie as an alibi in his deposition, the President wasted no time in contacting Ms. Currie and making sure her story would square with the President's sworn testimony. Indeed, the President contacted Ms. Currie and explained that Ms. Lewinsky's name had come up during the deposition despite Judge Wright's admonition not to discuss the deposition with anyone other than his lawyers. There is simply no innocent explanation for this conversation with Ms. Currie. It was a violation of Judge Wright's order. It was not an attempt to refresh the President's memory. Instead, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an unlawful attempt to obstruct justice by altering Ms. Currie's testimony in the Jones case. the president, ms. lewinsky, and the false affidavit This coaching of Ms. Currie is not the only example of obstruction of justice by the President. For instance, the first example cited in the obstruction of justice article alleges that the President corruptly encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Jones litigation. The President does not dispute that he called Ms. Lewinsky at 2:30 a.m. in the morning on December 17, 1997, to inform her that she was on the witness list in the Jones case. The President likewise does not dispute that he hoped Ms. Lewinsky would not have to testify and suggested to her that she could file an affidavit to reduce her chances of being deposed or called to testify in the Jones proceeding. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 567-73; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 115-121). The President's defense is that although he wanted Ms. Lewinsky to file an affidavit to avoid testifying, he did not want her to file a false affidavit. As the President put in his grand jury testimony, ``I did hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 571; Mr. Clinton 8/17/ 98 GJ, at 119). This claim that an affidavit could be both truthful and result in a reduced chance of Ms. Lewinsky testifying is critical to the President's defense because it is a crime to corruptly persuade a potential witness to delay or prevent their testimony. The fundamental problem with the President's defense is that a truthful affidavit that disclosed the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky would have been inconsistent with the President's stated goal of reducing her chances of being called to testify. A truthful affidavit would have guaranteed that Ms. Lewinsky would have been called as a witness. It is folly to suggest that an affidavit that admitted the relationship but emphasized its consensual nature could have prevented Ms. Lewinsky from being called. Judge Wright had already approved discovery of government employees involved in relationships with the President without regard to whether they were consensual. Additional evidence that the President encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit comes from the President's revival of previously developed cover stories in this same 2:30 a.m. telephone conversation. Specifically, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President reminded her that ``you can always say you were going to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters?'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 843; Ms. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ, at 123). To be sure, Ms. Lewinsky has testified that the ideas of filing an affidavit and using the cover stories were not explicitly linked in her mind. However, there must have been some implicit link, in fact, because Ms. Lewinsky's draft affidavit featured one of the cover stories. Although it was dropped in the editing process to eliminate any suggestion that the President and Ms. Lewinsky were alone, the draft affidavit suggested that Ms. Lewinsky had brought the President papers. In addition, the notions that the President wanted Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit and that only a false affidavit and that only a false affidavit would have the desired effect of keeping Ms. Lewinsky from being called as a witness are supported by the fact that the filed affidavit was false. The affidavit Ms. Lewinsky filed was false, in the following particulars: (1) it stated that Ms. Lewinsky did not ``possess any information that could possible be relevant to the allegations made by Paula Jones . . .'', (2) it stated that on the occasions on which Ms. Lewinsky saw the President after she left employment at the White House in April 1996 were official receptions and formal functions related to her job, and that ``there were other people present on those occasions,'' and (3) it stated that--contrary to the President's admission before the grand jury that he and Ms. Lewinsky had an inappropriate intimate relationship--``the President . . . always behaved appropriately in my presence.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 1235). Moreover, any doubt about the falsity of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit is removed by her decision to enter into an immunity agreement to prevent her prosecution for perjury with respect to the affidavit. Finally, the President's claim that he did not want Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit is belied by the fact that the President allowed his attorney to use the false affidavit in an effort to keep the Jones lawyers from questioning him about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President's attorney, Mr. Bennett, relying on the Lewinsky affidavit, represented to the Court that ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. XIV, at 23). Mr. Bennett expressly told the court that the President was ``fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. XIV, at 23). It is difficult to credit the President's claim that he did not want Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit when he allowed his lawyer to use a false affidavit--of which he was ``fully aware''--to keep him from being questioned about Ms. Lewinsky. The House has alleged that the President's decision to allow Mr. Bennett to use this affidavit--knowing it to be false--was an additional example of obstruction of justice. I am not convinced that the President's failure to correct his attorney's representation to the Court amounts to an obstruction of justice. However, the President's actions in allowing his attorney to use a false affidavit to his litigation advantage undermines his claim that he never wanted Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. When all the evidence is considered, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the President wanted Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. the cover stories The second example cited by the House in its obstruction of justice article was the President's suggestion that Ms. Lewinsky could use cover stories to disguise the true nature of their relationship from the Jones lawyers. These cover stories, of course, were used by the President and Ms. Lewinsky long before her name appeared on the witness list in the Jones litigation. As a result, the cover stories--that she was visiting Ms. Currie or bringing the President papers--were instantly familiar to Ms. Lewinsky. But even though these cover stories were not criminal--only deceptive--in their origins, the President's revival of these cover stories after Ms. Lewinsky became a witness in a civil suit against the President stands on a very different footing. The President's reiteration of the cover stories in the same conversation that he told her she was on the witness list is evidence of an effort to alter her testimony. As demonstrated above, Ms. Lewinsky included one of the cover stories in her false draft affidavit. Although the President emphasizes that the cover stories had an element of truth to them, that claim is not a defense to a witness tampering or obstruction of justice charge. For the federal witness tampering statute it is enough that the President attempted to influence Ms. Lewinsky's testimony through corrupt or misleading conduct, see 18 U.S.C. 1512, and for obstruction of justice it is enough that the President endeavored to influence the due administration of justice, see 18 U.S.C. 1503. As a result, the President's revival of the cover stories constituted obstruction of justice. His actions obstructed the true course of justice and denied an American citizen a fair hearing of her claim. The Gift Exchange The third example of obstruction of justice cited in the House article concerns the efforts to conceal the President's gifts to Ms. Lewinsky from the Jones lawyers. The House alleges that the President orchestrated a scheme by which Ms. Lewinsky concealed the gifts from the Jones lawyers by conveying them to Ms. Currie. In defending against this charge, the President must overcome the undisputed fact that the gifts sought by the Jones lawyers ended up beneath the President's personal secretary's bed. These gifts clearly were relevant evidence in the Jones litigation. The subpoena served on Ms. Lewinsky required the production of ``each and every gift including but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/or hat pins given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Clinton.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 2, at 2704.) Ms. Lewinsky discussed this subpoena with the President on December 28, 1997, and both expressed their concern that the subpoena covered the hat pin. Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the subject of what to do with the gifts came up the President responded: ``I don't know'' or ``let me think about it.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 872; Ms. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ, at 152.) The President, by contrast, told the grand jury that he instructed Ms. Lewinsky that if the Jones' lawyers ``asked for the gifts, [Ms. Lewinsky would] have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 495; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 43.) Ms. Lewinsky left the White House and returned home only to receive a call in which Ms. Currie told her, ``I understand that you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 874; Ms. Lewinsky 8/6/98 GJ, at 154-55.) Ms. Currie does not recall making this call, and instead suggests that Ms. Lewinsky initiated the gift exchange. It is uncontroverted, however, that Ms. Currie went to Ms. Lewinsky's apartment to pick up the gifts and that those gifts were stored under Ms. Currie's bed. The net result of these events is that the gifts that evidenced a relationship the President was trying to conceal in litigation against him were kept from the Jones lawyers. This net result makes the President's sworn testimony that he directed Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts difficult to credit. It is difficult to believe that Ms. Lewinsky would disregard the President's advice on this issue. This evidence makes it more likely than not than the President obstructed justice by orchestrating the concealment of the gifts. However, to prove obstruction of justice, the House must show that the President directed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. That is the missing link in the House's case. Although that is the most likely explanation for the concealment of the gifts, both parties to that conversation-- Ms. Currie and the President--deny that such a discussion took place. As a result, there is a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether the President obstructed justice by concealing the gifts, and I find this issue in his favor. The Job Search The next example of obstruction cited by the House is the job search. The evidence is clear that the President asked Vernon Jordan to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job in New York City. Mr. Jordan was unequivocal that he, not Ms. Lewinsky, was running the job search, and that he was finding Ms. Lewinsky a job at the ``behest'' of the President. (See Cong. Rec. S1245; Mr. Jordan Dep. 2/2/99). This word choice is telling. The Dictionary defines ``behest'' as ``an authoritative order,'' or secondarily as ``an urgent prompting,'' and suggests ``command'' as a synonym. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition 1993) p. 103. The only remaining question is whether the President directed Mr. Jordan to find Ms. Lewinsky a job in order to get Ms. Lewinsky to ``withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document or other object, from an official proceeding,'' or for some other purpose. In evaluating this issue, the President's past failure to provide job assistance to Ms. Lewinsky is relevant. Since Ms. Lewinsky left the White House in April 1996, she was anxious to get back and enlisted the President's support. He never helped her return to the White House. Eventually, Ms. Lewinsky despaired of ever receiving any job assistance from the President to help her return to the White House and turned her sights to a job in New York. Once again, the President's level of job assistance was underwhelming until Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. At that point, Mr. Jordan, at the ``behest'' of the President, put the job search into full gear. However, Mr. Jordan's involvement with Ms. Lewinsky was not limited to finding her a job. He also found her a lawyer, a lawyer who oversaw the filing of an affidavit that turned out to be false. The same affidavit the President suggested Ms. Lewinsky could file in their late night telephone call. The same affidavit that the President's lawyer attempted to use to keep the Jones lawyers from questioning the President about Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan also shared a breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky in which they discussed draft notes between Ms. Lewinsky and the President. Mr. Jordan initially denied that this breakfast meeting had taken place. However, when confronted with a receipt for breakfast, Mr. Jordan conceded the meeting took place and that the subject of the notes came up. Ms. Lewinsky testified that Mr. Jordan told her to make sure that those incriminating notes were destroyed. Mr. Jordan denies that he gave her that advice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on this subject is certainly entitled to great weight because she has consistently remembered the breakfast and what transpired, while Mr. Jordan previously denied that the breakfast had occurred. But this conflict in the testimony need not be resolved. Mr. Jordan is not on trial. The President is, and the fact that the person he designated to get Ms. Lewinsky a job was also discussing incriminating notes relevant to the Jones litigation and finding her a lawyer to file an affidavit in that case undermine the President's claim that the job search and the Jones litigation were unrelated. Although Ms. Lewinsky has testified that the President never expressly conditioned her job assistance on her continued cooperation in the Jones litigation, her conduct shows an implicit connection between the job search and the Jones litigation. When she received a subpoena from the Jones lawyers she went to her job counselor. When she had concerns about what to do with incriminating notes, she discussed the matter with her job counselor. The evidence demonstrates that the motivation for the job search was not to enhance Ms. Lewinsky's career or to find her a ``dream job.'' The President had the opportunity to give her a ``dream job'' at the White House and declined. Instead, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the job search was intimately tied to the Jones litigation and designed to ensure Ms. Lewinsky's continuing cooperation. Mr. Bennett's Use Of The False Affidavit The next example of obstruction of justice is the President's decision to stand mute while his attorney used an affidavit the President knew to be false to make representations to a federal judge that the President knew to be false. As I have noted, I do not think the President's act of omission constitutes a separate act of obstruction. However, I do think the President's failure to object to the use of this false affidavit sheds light on many of the President's acts of commission that do constitute obstruction of justice and witness tampering, such as his suggestion that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case. Influencing The Testimony Of His Aides The final example of obstruction cited by the House involves the President's false statements to aides who were potential grand jury witnesses. Most of the evidence on this point is not in dispute. The President insisted before the grand jury that he was truthful with his aides. However, the President's own aides now admit that he lied to them. There is no dispute that those lies were repeated to the grand jury. The only remaining question is whether the President told these lies to his aides with the expectation that they would resurface in the grand jury. The White House's principal defense on this point is that the President's lies to his aides were no different than the lies he had told the entire American people. This is a strange defense. Essentially, it attempts to make a virtue out of the fact that the President lied to every American, without respect to whether they were potential witnesses. The legal point appears to be that the President's aides could not obstruct the due administration of justice because the grand jurors already were exposed to the President's false denials. There are several problems with this argument, not the least of which is that it is based on a false premise. The President did not merely repeat the same denials he made to the public at large. The President's denials to his aides were embellished and substantially more detailed. The President did not tell the American people that Ms. Lewinsky was a stalker or categorically state that there was no sex ``in any way whatsoever,'' though he labored hard to leave that false misimpression. He did share these details with his aides, and they repeated them to the grand jury. These details, moreover, were not immaterial to the grand jury's investigation. These details, such as the characterization of Ms. Lewinsky as a stalker, directly attack the credibility of the principal witness against the President in the grand jury proceeding. As a result, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President obstructed justice when he lied to his aides. the law of obstruction of justice and witness tampering The President's conduct clearly violates the federal criminal statutes against obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The federal obstruction of justice statute requires the government to prove three elements: ``(1) there was a pending federal judicial proceeding; (2) the defendant knew of the proceeding; and (3) the defendant acted corruptly with the specific intent to obstruct or interfere with the proceeding or due administration of justice.'' 35 American Criminal Law Review 989,992 (1998). There is no real dispute in this case that the President knew that the Jones' suit was pending when he engaged in the conduct covered by the obstruction of justice article. The only relevant legal question is whether he intended to obstruct justice in the Jones case. There is ample evidence in the record to suggest that obstructing justice in the Jones case was the President's precise intent. Indeed, the President's own testimony makes clear that he viewed the Jones litigation as illegitimate. He stated that he ``deplored'' the Jones lawsuit and felt it was only going forward ``because of the funding they had from my political enemies.'' (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 532; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 80.) As a result, the President concedes that, in his words, he was ``not trying to be particularly helpful'' to the Jones lawyers. (See Sen. Rec. Vol. III, part 1, at 480; Mr. Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, at 28.) Moreover, the discussion of the specific examples of obstruction of justice make clear that the President's advice that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit, the President's coaching of witnesses, and the job search were all done with the object of obstructing justice in the Jones litigation. The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 criminalized a particular form of obstruction of justice, witness tampering. Part of that act, section 1512(b) of the federal criminal code, sets out the four elements of witness tampering. ``Under section 1512(b), the government must prove that the defendant: (1) knowingly (2) engaged in intimidation, physical force, threats, misleading conduct or corrupt persuasion, (3) with intent to influence, delay or prevent testimony or cause any person to withhold a record, object or document (4) from an official proceeding.'' 35 American Criminal Law Review 989, 1004 (1998). Each of these elements is satisfied in this case. The President's attorneys have emphasized that the President never physically threatened any potential witness. In particular, they point to Ms. Currie's testimony that she never felt threatened or intimidated in her conversations with the President. However, that is simply not relevant under the federal witness tampering statute, which criminalizes not just physical intimidation, but corrupt persuasion and misleading conduct as well. What is more, the statute makes clear that it applies to any witness in any official proceeding, and the statute specifies in subsection (e) that ``an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.'' As with the perjury counts, the President's legal defenses misstate the applicable law. Just as federal law does not require two witnesses to support a conviction for grand jury perjury, the assertion that witness tampering requires actual intimidation simply misstates the law. high crimes and misdemeanors My careful examination of the evidence, legal precedent and arguments made by both sides convinces me that the President committed perjury, obstructed justice and violated the federal witness tampering statutes. Having reached this conclusion, the remaining step in my analysis of the cases to examine whether these criminal acts require the President's removal from office. In other words, do perjury and obstruction of justice constitute high crimes and misdemeanors? The precedents of the Senate provide an unequivocal answer: the Senate has repeatedly treated perjury as a high crime and misdemeanor that justifies--indeed, necessitates--removal. Three times in the last fifteen years the House has impeached and the Senate has removed a federal judge for perjury or related crimes. In two of the three cases, moreover, the judge was removed for lies that had nothing to do with his official duties. Judge Harold Claiborne was removed for filing false tax returns under penalty of perjury. Judge Walter Nixon was removed for lying to a federal grand jury about his efforts to influence a state judicial proceeding. The Senate's precedents on perjury as an impeachable offense are clear. Moreover, there is simply no basis in the Constitution to apply a less demanding standard of the President than has been traditionally applied to federal Judges. A single provision of the Constitution creates a single standard of impeachment for all ``Officers of the United States,'' Judges and the President alike. To be sure, the Constitution specifies that federal Judges ``shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' Art. III, sec. 1. However, this clause has always been understood as establishing life tenure, as opposed to a relaxed standard for impeachment, and no Judge has ever been impeached or removed for ``bad behavior.'' In sum, the notion that the President--with his infinitely greater effect on the culture, for good or ill--would be held to a lesser standard than one of 800 federal Judges has as little basis in common sense as it has in the Constitution's text. Of course, even if we did not have the benefit of the Senate's precedents treating perjury as a high crime, and had to consider this issue as an original matter, I would have little difficulty concluding that perjury and obstruction of justice qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution's use of the adjective ``high'' to modify the phrase ``crimes and misdemeanors'' suggests that there may be some crimes and misdemeanors that do not form the basis for impeachment. However, those crimes, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, that undermine public confidence in government and strike at the integrity of our systems of government and justice surely must be covered by the phrase ''high crimes and misdemeanors.'' In addition, the scope of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is informed by the two crimes specifically enumerated in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment, treason and bribery. Both these crimes, in common with perjury and obstruction of justice, threaten the proper functioning of government--either directly in the case of treason, or indirectly, by undermining the government's integrity, in the case of bribery. Perjury is bribery's twin. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this point is that the President could have accomplished the same result in this case--interfering with the Jones litigation--by bribing a witness or the Judge. Perjury, like bribery, has been grouped among the most serious crimes at least since the founding of our nation John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist papers and our nation's first Chief Justice, provides a glimpse of the framers' views on the seriousness of perjury. When riding circuit in Bennington, Vermont in the Summer of 1792, Chief Justice Jay instructed the Grand Jury in a perjury persecution. His instruction is worth quoting at length; Independent of the abominable insult which perjury offers to the divine Being, there is no crime more extensively pernicious to Society. It discolours and poisons the streams of justice, and by substituting falsehood for truth, saps the Foundation of personal and public rights. Controversies of various kinds exist at all times, and in all communities. To decide them, Courts of justice are instituted. Their decisions must be regulated by evidence, and the greater part of the evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure. There is ample evidence to support Chief Justice Jay's view that, of all crimes, perjury is among the most pernicous to society, and one that has always been thought to rise to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' It is not surprising then, that the Kentucky Constitution of 1792 directed that: ``Laws shall be made to exclude from office and from suffrage those who thereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.'' Art. VIII cl. 2. Moreover, the belief that perjury is an impeachable high crime is not limited to the framers. Less than a decade ago in a law review article, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the presiding officer in this impeachment trial, summed up our national experience with impeachment by noting that ``impeachment has been confined to flagrant abuse of office--perjury, bribery, and the like.'' William Rehnquist, The Impeachment Clause: A Wild Card in the Constitution, 85 Northwestern University Law Review 903, 910 (1991). The point has also been raised that the President's conduct does not rise to the same levels as President Nixon's conduct in Watergate. That may well be true, but it is also irrelevant. Not every high crime and misdemeanor is created equal, but all require removal under the express terms of the Constitution. However, whatever differences exist between President Clinton's conduct and Watergate, the reaction of Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski to President Nixon's misconduct is telling. Of all the misconduct portrayed on the famous Nixon tapes, Jaworski found one strip of dialogue ``the most repulsive on the tape. In that strip the President--a lawyer--coached [his aide] to testify untruthfully and yet not commit perjury. It amounted to subornation of perjury. For the number-one law enforcement officer of the country it was, in my opinion, as demeaning an act as could be imagined.'' Leon Jaworski, The Right and the Power--The Prosecution of Watergate 47 (1976). That is perjury. The nation's first Chief Justice stated that ``there is no crime more extensively pernicious to Society.'' Our current Chief Justice described it as a ``flagrant abuse of office.'' And the Watergate Special Prosecutor thought subornation of perjury by the President ``as demeaning an act as could be imagined.'' There is no doubt in my mind that perjury and the closely related crime of obstruction of justice are high crime and misdemeanors. Moreover, having concluded that the President committed these high crimes, the Constitution leaves me with no further discretion--it states that the President ``shall be removed from office for impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Some have argued that the Senate retains some discretion not to remove a President even if the evidence shows that he committed acts that constitute high crimes or misdemeanors. This simply misreads the Constitution. The Constitution is unequivocal that the President shall be removed upon conviction of a high crime. As Justice Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution, ``the Senate, on the conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office.'' The Senate recognized this constitutional imperative in the trial of Judge Halsted Ritter in 1936, when it expressly rejected the need for a second vote on the question of removal, after the Senate had convicted him of high crimes. Conviction without removal would be a direct affront to the Constitution. It is no less an affront to refuse to convict despite facts that support conviction for a high crime because of an unwillingness to trigger the consequences demanded by the Constitution. Such an action subverts both the Constitution and the rule of law. It arrogates to Senators the authority to second guess the Constitution and conclude that although the President has committed crimes for which others should be removed, in this case the President should be permitted to remain in office. It is a brazen act of jury nullification. The Constitution empowers the Senate to conclude that the facts do not support the crimes alleged in the articles of impeachment. Likewise, the Senate may conclude that the crimes alleged in the articles do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. But nothing in the Constitution allows the Senate to refuse to convict if it finds that the facts support the articles, and the articles allege high crimes. There has been much talk in this case about the rule of law. A power to refuse to convict in the face of evidence of a high crime is the antithesis of the rule of law. It is the rule of whim. Such an action would go beyond repudiating the value of the Senate precedents that perjury is an impeachable offense, it would destroy the value of all Senate precedents. As Justice Story warned while riding circuit over 160 years ago, if jury nullification were permitted, ``it would be almost impracticable to ascertain, what the law . . . actually is.'' United States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042 (Cir. Ct. D. Mass. 1835). Any discretion that exists in the constitutional framework to refuse to act in the face of impeachable offenses lies in the House of Representatives. The law has long recognized the legitimacy of prosecutorial discretion. But the law has also long criticized jury nullification. Unlike a normal jury, the Senate has the power to determine both law and facts. What it lacks is the raw power to refuse to convict in the face of law and facts that both support conviction. I cannot leave this discussion of perjury and obstruction of justice as high crimes and misdemeanors without a comment on the consequences of failing to remedy perjury and obstruction of justice by the number- one law enforcement in the nation. Chief Justice Jay warned of the dangers of diluting the importance of oaths: ``[I]f oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure.'' If the President of the United States--our nation's leader and the man surveys still identify as the most admired in America even after all this--can commit perjury and obstruct justice without any immediate consequence, it is difficult to see how oaths will continue to be held sacred. We can either abandon all perjury prosecutions or acknowledge that the President is above the law. Those are the choices: lawlessness or hypocrisy. Either option carries grave risks that oaths will ``cease to be held sacred.'' Removing the President, by contrast, will not only reinforce the importance of oaths; it will demonstrate the importance of personal responsibility and accountability. Rather than signaling that some in society are too talented or important for the normal rules to apply, removing the President will teach that actions have consequences, no matter who you are. We have an opportunity either to set a good example for our children or to enshrine the ``Clinton defense'' and the ``Clinton exception'' to the importance of telling the truth. We need to send a message that the grand words that grace the Supreme Court-- equal justice under law--mean what they say. conclusion After sifting through the evidence presented by both sides, all relevant legal precedents, and all the arguments by counsel, it is plain that the President committed perjury and obstructed justice. The prosecutors have done more than show that the President lied and tampered with witnesses. They have proven the elements of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. These federal crimes are not technical violations of an obscure law. They are crimes as old as the nation. They strike at the heart of the integrity of our government. Not surprisingly, Congress always has treated them as high crimes and misdemeanors that require the removal of a guilty party. In light of the President's criminal misconduct, I will vote to convict the President on both articles of impeachment. This is the only conclusion consistent with my oath to do impartial justice. In large measure, this case is all about the importance of oaths. The President's failure to honor his oath has necessitated this entire proceeding. Although some might see a vote to acquit as expedient, I will not further damage the sacredness and vitality of oaths by disregarding my own. I have not relished the responsibility of serving as a finder of fact and determiner of law in an impeachment trial. I am eager to return to a legislative agenda to provide Americans and Missourians with tax cuts, retirement security, educational opportunity and greater safety from drugs and crime. It is regrettable that the President's misconduct forced Congress to consider this matter. I hope the unprecedented time that Senators have spent together in this work will enable us to make strong progress on the people's business when we return to the Senate. Finally, while I have not relished this duty, and sincerely wish the President would have spared the nation this ordeal, this responsibility is among the most important assigned to the Senate under our Constitution. It has been my goal to do my very vest to do my duty as prescribed by the Constitution. While the Constitution calls upon the Senate to remove an unfit President, it does not charge the Senate with punishing the President. Indeed, the Constitution specifically limits the Senate's remedies and leaves the President ``subject to . . . punishment, according to law'' through the courts. The Constitution requires a clear choice: acquit the President and leave him in office, or convict him and remove him. The framers deemed it wise not to allow the Senate to leave a President in place, but wound him with punishments short of removal. Thus, once we discharge our impeachment responsibilities, the Senate should move energetically to its legislative agenda. To accomplish legislative goals for the nation, it will be necessary for Congress and the President to work together. If Senators wish to condemn the President's conduct, they should do so on their own, and should not tie up the Senate and divert energy from doing the people's work.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the debate we will be having in the Senate is on whether to suspend the rules of the Senate to consider a resolution censuring the President's conduct. A motion will be made to indefinitely postpone the motion to suspend the rules. These votes will occur before Senators have the opportunity to amend the resolution censuring the President's conduct. I take the floor of the Senate to make clear that I am opposed to a censure resolution of President Clinton. The Impeachment Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton is over. The Senate has faithfully discharged its constitutional obligation by serving as impartial jurors of the Articles of Impeachment approved by a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate has rendered its verdict, and has found the President not guilty as charged. The consequence of this action by the Senate is to keep the President in office where he is to fully and faithfully discharge the constitutional duties of his office. The trial is over. It is time for the Senate to focus on the national legislative agenda. On this last point, I chose my words carefully. I did not say it is time for the Senate to turn to the people's business. Some have said we should not have had the trial or should have adjourned the trial much earlier so that we could turn to the people's business. I reject that notion. I firmly believe that conducting the trial was doing the people's business. But the truth is the trial is over. I do not see any place for the pending resolution censuring the President. It is not the business of the Senate to punish President Clinton. As Senator Byrd has concluded censure, unlike impeachment, is ``extra-constitutional.'' The Constitution empowers the Senate to try a President impeached by the House and remove him if 67 Senators agree. The Constitution does not empower the Senate to punish a President, in the absence of 67 votes to remove. The impeachment trial is over. The Senate should move on and leave President Clinton alone. The Constitution recognizes that if a President cannot be removed through impeachment, he should not be weakened by censure. Although the Senate passes sense of the Senate resolutions on many subjects, censure is different because the Constitution requires a \2/3\ vote before the Senate can discipline the President and requires removal upon conviction for impeachable offenses. Censure is an effort to end-run these constitutional requirements. One final problem is that any censure resolution will have to be weak. Even proponents of censure concede that a censure resolution that actually punished the President would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Any censure that is consistent with the Bill of Attainder Clause is too weak to be worth doing. The highest form of censure the Constitution allows is impeachment by the House. The failure to convict the President will not erase that action by the House. It is time for the Senate to move on. If the effort to suspend the rules passes, and the text of the censure resolution is before the Senate, and is amendable, I will seek recognition to offer the following substitute, and I quote: After the word ``Resolved'' strike everything and insert the following: ``That the United States Senate at the earliest opportunity will consider and have final votes on legislation favorably reported by its committees that-- (1) reduces taxes so that Americans no longer pay record high levels of federal income taxes; (2) prohibits the financial surplus in the Social Security Trust Funds from financing additional deficit spending in the operating budget of the United States Government; (3) increases funds and flexibility for programs that local school districts and their parents, teachers and principals believe will enhance teaching and learning; (4) offers comprehensive responses to juvenile justice needs and criminal drug abuse, including increased penalties for adults who use minors in the commission of crimes, increased penalties for drug trafficking, and greater resources for local law enforcement agencies to stop methamphetamine trafficking. (5) improves military pay to reduce sharp declines in attracting new and keeping well-qualified solders in the all- volunteer Armed Forces.'' This substitute resolution speaks for itself. This resolution sets the Senate on the right course for the Senate to accomplish the legislative priorities of this nation. These priorities include: Congress this year should direct the budget surplus to where it belongs, and that is to the people whose hard work produced the surplus. That means Congress should cut taxes. Americans should no longer pay record high levels of federal income taxes. The average household paid 25 percent of its income in taxes (federal, state, and local) and 30 percent of every additional dollar earned by a four-person median income household of $55,000 will go to pay taxes. The typical American family spends more money on taxes than on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Each year Americans work four months and 10 days just to pay their taxes. The tax burden is getting worse, not better. For the past five years, tax payments have grown faster than salaries. Total federal taxes in 1997 were the highest since World War II. Second, Congress should protect Social Security. The best action we can take now to protect the economic security of tomorrow's retirees is to protect current surpluses from government raiding. Using these surpluses to pay down our debt will put our country in the best possible financial position to meet our future obligations. Third, we should improve education by increasing funds and flexibility for programs that local school districts and their parents, teachers and principals believe will enhance teaching and learning. The Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of every federal education dollar. Local school districts could find far better uses of the $10-$12 billion Washington spends. With direct funding, local schools could deploy resources to areas they deem most crucial for their students, such as hiring new teachers, raising teacher salaries, buying new textbooks or new computers Fourth, Congress must fight crime and drug abuse. While in the last few years the violent crime rate has declined, it remains at levels that are far too high. In 1960, 159 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants were reported; in 1997, 611 were reported. In short, violent crime has quadrupled since 1960. Drug abuse, especially use of methamphetamines, is also at dangerous levels. Public health and law enforcement officials believe that meth is more dangerous and addictive than cocaine and heroin. Communities are being devastated and the problem is growing exponentially. In 1994, DEA agents in Missouri seized 14 clandestine meth labs. Last year, they seized 421 labs. Meth use is dangerous, threatens our children and causes users to commit other crimes. Among 12th graders, the use of ice, a smokeable form of meth, has risen 60 percent since 1992. Meth-related emergency room incidents are up 63 percent over this same period. Fifth, Congress should improve military pay to reduce sharp declines in attracting new and keeping well-qualified solders in the all- volunteer Armed Forces. 1999 marks the 14th straight year of decline in real dollars spent on our national defense. The number of active duty personnel is down 30% since 1991. Despite these reductions, the military is being asked to do more than it did during the Cold War. Conclusion In writing these principles, I strived for bipartisan agreement. I believe many, if not all of these, principles have been articulated as priorities on both sides of the aisle. I did not include my own proposals for accomplishing these objectives. The details of these principles can and should be worked out by the committees of the Senate, and then by the full Senate. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, with Senators Brownback, Baucus, and Kerrey, the Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999. It's a bill that will help America's farmers, ranchers, and related industries, keep on selling their food and medicine to the world. For over 200 years, farmers and ranchers have been vital to the growth and economic prosperity of the United States--always responding to the challenges of our competitive free-market system with efficient production methods. The agricultural industry is one of the nation's largest employers. Missouri is the nation's second leading state in its number of farms. Clearly, the agricultural industry is a backbone to Missouri's economy, accounting for more than $4 billion annually. The United States has the best farmers in the world--first class in their production, storage, transportation, processing, and marketing. We can produce more food than any other country, yet the United States only accounts for five percent of the world's consuming population. That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our borders. And because of our farmers' efficiency and ability to meet U.S. domestic demand, they rely increasingly on their ability to sell products in foreign markets. Exports now account for 30 percent of gross cash receipts for America's farmers, and nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production is exported. Therefore, it is imperative that we ensure that our farmers have ample export opportunities. Our farmers and ranchers need our help in opening markets abroad and keeping those markets open. Once farmers jump through all the hoops of foreign trade barriers and red tape to establish trusted relationships with foreign buyers, the U.S. government should be extremely cautious about sanctioning their sales and forcing them to lose their markets. Many farmers' livelihood depends on sales overseas. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Missouri's farm marketing came from sales overseas. We know that sanctions hurt America's farmers and ranchers. And we know that sanctions against agriculture and medicine are detrimental to the world's poor that have to live under the rule of tyrants. That is why I am introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act. This bill tries to ensure that farmers don't get sanctioned for the bad acts of foreign governments, and the health and welfare of the world's poor are not damaged further by their leader's indiscretions. Under the Food and Medicine for the World Act, whenever any new unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless he tells Congress why it is necessary to sanction these products and unless Congress approves the sanction. If the Food and Medicine for the World Act is passed, there will not be any more sanctions against U.S. agricultural exports without agreement between the Administration and Congress and without serious deliberation about the effects on America's farmers and ranchers. Our farms should not be sanctioned without the consent of Congress. The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends a message to customers overseas that U.S. farmers and ranchers will be reliable. People around the world depend on our farm products and on U.S. produced medical supplies. When tyrants challenge U.S. foreign policy, we must not respond by cutting off the supply of food and medicine to their poor. The health and welfare needs of those abroad will be best served if we ensure that our farmers and producers are a continuous source of food and medical supplies. The Food and Medicine for the World Act also sends a message to U.S. farmers and ranchers that their livelihood will not be used as a foreign policy tool without due deliberation and involvement of both the President and Congress. Farmers and ranchers are twice as reliant on foreign trade as the U.S. economy as a whole. It is time for us to enact policy that reflects our support for their efforts to reach their competitive potential internationally. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on two separate occasions this year I have made statements about the importance of education to our Nation and to this Congress. I've talked about what our parents want for their children, how to provide a good education, and how many of our current federal policies have failed to achieve what we want for our children. Today, as the Senator from Arkansas introduces his ``Dollars to the Classroom Act,'' which incorporates ingredients for educational success into our federal policy, I want to join in cosponsoring his bill as it will empower states and local school districts to spend federal resources in the best way they see fit. I also want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of education. A Pew Research Center poll conducted last fall found that 88% of those surveyed think that improving the quality of public school education is ``very important.'' Now, I am not one to put a lot of emphasis on polls, but I think that this poll indicates what we already know: that making sure kids get a world-class education is a real priority for our nation. Moms and dads want their children to be in settings where they will be challenged to reach high levels of academic achievement, taught by qualified and caring teachers, and provided a safe learning environment. Obviously, parents want to be sure that schools are using the ingredients of success in education: parental involvement, local control, an emphasis on basic academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must have to elevate educational performance. It is interesting to note that a recent report of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations found that successful schools and school systems were not the product of federal funding and directives. Unfortunately, we are continuing to find that many of our current federal education programs, while well-intended, simply do not contain the ingredients of a successful education. Rather than promoting parental involvement, local control, and dollars going to the classroom, many federal programs promote a ``Washington-knows-best'' policy, in which federal bureaucrats decide exactly what education programs should be developed and exactly how every dollar should be spent. Not only are states, schools, teachers, and parents left without much say in how to educate their children, but they are also drained of time and energy complying with all the federal mandates handed down to them. Our current federal education laws bog states down in mountains of paperwork every year. Even though the U.S. Department of Education recently attempted to reduce paperwork burdens, the Department still requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork per year--or the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full-time. There are more than 20,000 pages of applications states must fill out to receive federal education funds each year. While the Department of Education brags that its staff is one of the smallest federal agencies with 4,637 people, state education agencies have to employ nearly 13,400 FTEs (full-time equivalents) with federal dollars to administer the myriad federal programs. Hence, there are nearly three times as many federally funded employees of state education agencies administering federal education programs as there are U.S. Department of Education employees. It is no wonder that up to 35% of our federal education dollar gets eaten up by bureaucratic and administrative costs. And we should remember this in the context of the fact that only about 7% of all education funding comes from the federal government. As we can see, this small amount of the entire education pie consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school districts must spend to administer education programs. I have also spoken in the past about the Ohio study finding that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio school district was related to participation in federal programs, while federal dollars provided less than 5% of its total education funding. And I've also noted that in Florida it takes six times as many state employees to administer federal funds as it does to administer state dollars. Clearly, federal rules and regulations eat up precious dollars and teacher time. We must find a way to change this. I have also highlighted that the problem that many of our children and school districts never get to see the federal tax dollars paid by their parents for education because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a competitive basis. Local schools must come to Washington and plead their case to get back the money the parents of their communities sent to the federal treasury. Who suffers the most from this system? Smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer to get their fair share of the federal dollar. It is also interesting to note that, according to the Department of Education's own estimates, it takes 216 steps and 20 weeks to complete the review process for a federal discretionary education grant. The Department boasts that this is actually a streamlined process, since it used to take 26 weeks and took 487 steps from start to finish! I have talked about a third problem with many current federal education programs: dollars are earmarked for one and only one purpose, to the exclusion of all other uses. And many times, the distant Washington bureaucrats are designating funds for something that a school district doesn't even need at the time. I like to use an analogy to explain this problem. If you feel a headache coming on, would you rather be treated by a doctor one mile away from where you live, or a thousand miles away? And if you have to use the doctor a thousand miles away, how good is he or she going to be at prescribing what you need for your headache? It sure would be nicer to see someone close by who could take a look at you in person and make a proper diagnosis. And what if, when you tell the doctor a thousand miles away that you have a headache, she says to you, ``Oh, that's too bad. But today we're running a special on crutches. We are prescribing crutches for people like you all over the country, because we've heard that you may need them.'' You say, ``That's fine, but how is a crutch going to help my headache? Can't I get the money to buy some aspirin?'' And the doctor says, ``Sorry, but you can only use this money for crutches, not for aspirin, or anything else.'' This is exactly what happens with so many of these categorical programs mandated from the federal level. Your local school district has determined that it needs funding for one thing, but the federal government will only release it for another. As a result, schools don't have the flexibility to use their funding for what they know they need to provide the best education possible for their students. For all the federal programs and dollars committed to education, are we seeing success? I'm afraid not. I have heard of a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which noted that even though the United States dedicates one of the largest shares of gross domestic product to education, it has fallen behind other economic powers in high school graduation rates. Only 72 percent of 18-year-old Americans graduated in 1996, trailing all other developed countries. Our Congressional Research Service has explained why current federal aid programs may not lead to educational improvement. They note that these programs have generally been focused on specific student population groups with special needs, priority subject areas, or specific educational concepts or techniques. CRS reports: While such ``categorical'' program structures assure that aid is directed to the priority population or purpose, they may not always be effective--instruction may become fragmented and poorly coordinated; the proliferation of programs may be duplicative; each federally assisted program may affect only a marginal portion of each pupil's instructional time that is poorly coordinated with the remainder of her or his instruction; regulations intended to target aid on particular areas of need may unintentionally limit local ability to engage in comprehensive reforms; or the partial segregation of special needs students, while it helps to guarantee that funds can be clearly associated with each program's intended beneficiaries, may also reinforce tendencies toward tracking pupils by achievement level, and unintentionally contribute to a perpetuation of lower expectations for their performance. I think the Congressional Research Service makes some valid observations about why our current federal education policy is not generally boosting student achievement and making our children competitive with other nations. CRS says that current federal policy hinders an important element of educational success: local control. Based upon what we know about the state of our current federal education policy, we must explore how to direct our resources in ways that will stimulate academic success and high achievement. States, school districts, school boards, teachers, and of course, parents, are asking for local control and flexibility to spend federal education dollars in ways they know will work. They know how to incorporate the ingredients of success into the education of their children. Senator Hutchinson's ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' will give states and local schools the flexibility that they desperately need. His legislation takes nearly $3.5 billion from a number of federal education programs, directs the money to the states based upon student population, and requires that at least 95% of it is spent in our children's classrooms. Local school districts may use the funds in ways they believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement. Under the ``Dollars to Classroom Act,'' parents, teachers, school boards and administrators will have the freedom to use federal dollars for what they need: whether it be to hire more teachers, raise teacher salaries, strengthen reading programs, buy new computers, or provide more one-on-one tutoring. The bill ensures that federal bureaucracy will be held at bay by forbidding the Secretary of Education from issuing any regulations regarding the type of classroom activities or services that school districts may choose to provide with the federal dollars. Finally, the ``Dollars to Classroom Act'' calls for ways to streamline regulations and eliminate bureaucracy within major federal education laws. Mr. President, we need to ensure that more federal education money is sent to the classroom, and that states, schools, and parents have more flexibility in using those funds in the way that will best help students achieve their fullest potential. We must find ways to encourage states and local schools to be innovative and creative in finding the most successful ways to challenge our students to the highest levels and achievement. Senator Hutchinson's ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' will help accomplish these goals, and that is why I am pleased to co-sponsor his legislation. During the coming months, Congress should continue to evaluate our current federal elementary and secondary education programs and make the necessary changes to incorporate the ingredients we know have proven successful in providing the best education possible for our children. We cannot afford to maintain the status quo if it is not working. We owe it to our next generation to provide them what they need to be successful in the 21st Century.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is an honor and privilege to rise today to acknowledge and honor the nearly 400 Missouri volunteers of my home state who have donated countless hours and resources to the 1999 Miss USA pageant being held in Branson, Missouri, in February. The volunteer corps is made up of many talented people who have worked in food services, secretarial and administrative positions, provided transportation, medical and emergency services, salon services, and entertainment. The ``behind the scenes'' efforts of these volunteers have done much to make this pageant a great success. The people of Branson and the surrounding area have come together with their many diverse talents and abilities to assure the success of the 1999 Miss USA Pageant. Millions of people around the world will focus their eyes on Branson and Missouri on Friday, February 5, 1999 when the new Miss USA is crowned. The people of Branson have made a significant contribution to the pageant, and deserve recognition and gratitude for their efforts. These volunteers embody the best of the American spirit. Mr. President, I ask that members of the Senate join me in recognizing and honoring the great work of these volunteers.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator from Missouri, I take great pleasure in honoring The Gatesworth at One McKnight Place as it celebrates its 10th anniversary. The Gatesworth is to be commended for its outstanding work in providing the highest quality of services, social programs, and activities to senior adults in the St. Louis community. This organization and those individuals associated with it have demonstrated the true spirit of benevolence. The Gatesworth's commitment to serving our seniors through integrity, innovation, and vision is truly an inspiration. The staff of the Gatesworth is to be commended for its hard work and dedication to providing gracious hospitality and a strong tradition of valued service. Your example of compassion and generosity serves as a model for all Missourians. Again, let me congratulate The Gatesworth at One McKnight Place as it celebrates its 10th year. I wish this organization continued success.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Frist and others today to introduce the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.'' I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this proposal, which will allow states to waive various federal education regulations and give them more flexibility and authority over their use of federal resources to educate their students. Mr. President, we all want our nation's children to get a first-class education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Our role at the federal level should be to help states and local school districts provide the best education possible for their students. Unfortunately, many of our federal education programs, while well- intentioned, are steeped in so many rules and regulations that states and local schools consume precious time and resources to stay in compliance with the federal programs. As a former governor, I have experienced first-hand the frustration of having to jump through a lot of federal hoops to obtain and keep federal dollars designated for various programs. I have also heard of examples around the country demonstrating this same problem I experienced. For example, a 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio school district was related to participation in federal programs, while federal dollars provided less than 5% of total education funding in Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in state funds. However, 297 state employees are needed to oversee only $1 billion in federal funds--six times as many per dollar. The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of every federal education dollar. Clearly, states and local school districts need relief from excessive federal regulations, which take away precious dollars and teacher time from our children. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 will help to relieve administrative burdens and save federal resources by providing states with more flexibility to operate their education programs through the waiver of certain federal and state regulations. The bill expands to all states the highly successful Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program that is currently operating in 12 states and is producing great results. This legislation will help to reduce excessive bureaucratic oversight over education and return more control to the state and local levels. Again, I appreciate Senator Frist's dedication to providing greater flexibility to the states and I look forward to working with him to pass the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. We in Congress should support proposals--such as this one--that return decision-making authority back to state and local decision-makers, where parents, teachers, and school boards have the greatest opportunity to participate in determining priorities, developing curriculum, and making other important education-related decisions.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with the Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, that would ensure that our nation's farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador. Our farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that will focus solely on opening foreign markets and ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and services. In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first-ever monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds the alarm for a state like Missouri that receives over one-fourth of its farm income from agricultural exports. When I'm thinking about what is good for the nation's agricultural policy, I ask, ``What is good for Missouri?'' That's because Missouri is a leader in farming. Missouri is the No. 2 State in the number of farms we have--second only to Texas. We have just about every crop imaginable, and Missourians are the nation's top producers in many of these crops. Missouri is the second leading state for beef cows. Missouri is second in hay production. Missouri is one of the top five pork producing states. And Missouri is among the top ten states for production of rice, cotton, corn, winter wheat, milk, and watermelon. With 26 percent of their income coming from exports, Missouri farmers need to know that their ability to export will expand over time, rather than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them out of their market share. During the 1966 farm bill debate, in exchange for decreased government payments, our farmers were promised more export opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on this promise. America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent Ambassador who will represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face more negotiations in the World Trade Organization and regional negotiations with Central and South America. There are a lot of opportunities that could be opened up to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years. Currently, Mr. Peter Scher serves as a Special Negotiator for Agriculture, and he has already been very helpful in taking strong stands for our farmers and ranchers. I want to thank him for his work most recently on getting pork added to the United States' retaliation list against the European Union. Senator Kerrey and I, and 40 other senators, initiated a broad, bipartisan effort to make the needs of our pork farmers a priority, and we appreciated the fact that we could work closely with someone whose mission is to serve the interests of our nation's farmers. However, while Ambassador Scher may serve our Nation's farmers and ranchers until the end of the current administration, his position has not been made a permanent position through legislation. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation today because we want to ensure that the Agriculture Ambassador position will transcend administrations. The Agricultural Ambassador (the Chief Agricultural Negotiator) will be responsible for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also, under the bill the Chief's Agricultural Negotiator would be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S. agricultural interests. It is imperative that U.S. interests always have a strong, clear voice at international negotiations. Foreign countries will always have agriculture trade barriers--so farmers must always have an ambassador representing their interests. We need to send the message to foreign governments that we are serious about breaking down barriers in their markets--now and in the future. Our farmers and ranchers need to know that their interests will always have a sure seat at the table for trade negotiations. Canada and Mexico have already concluded free trade arrangements with Chile. Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural products to Chile and, in most instances, face a zero percent tariff level, while U.S. farmers are confronted with an average tariff rate of 11 percent in the same market. The EU is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will give European farmers lower tariffs and more access to their markets at U.S. farmers' and ranchers' expense. America must lead, not follow--in our back yard and around the world. The Agriculture Ambassador bill we are introducing today is supported by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. Additionally, State branches of these national associations, such as the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers Council, are weighing in their strong support. We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and ranchers. Making permanent the position of a U.S. Trade Representative for Agriculture will guarantee that the interests of American farmers and ranchers will always have a prominent seat at the negotiating table and will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced. 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 to commend the Senior Senator from Missouri for his introduction of the ``Direct Check for Education'' bill. It is with great pleasure that I add my name as a cosponsor of this important legislation, which will improve the educational opportunities for our nation's school children by sending federal resources directly to local school districts to use in the way they know will benefit students most effectively. Mr. President, when we talk about education, we should start by asking: ``What do our parents want for their children? We know that parents want their children to get a first-class education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Parents want schools that are safe, classes that are small, and principals and teachers to have authority to make the right decisions in all areas of learning, school discipline and after-school activities. Parents want teachers who care for students and know the subjects they teach. Parents do not want Washington in control of classrooms. The next question we should ask is: How can we attain what parents want? How can our children achieve academic excellence? The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations answered this question in a report released in July of 1998, called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today.'' The Subcommittee found that successful schools and school systems were not the product of federal funding and directives, but instead were characterized by: parental involvement in the education of their children, local control, emphasis on basic academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must have to elevate educational performance. Knowing the ingredients of educational success for our children, we must next ask whether our current federal education programs contain these ingredients. First, we should observe that in a sense, the federal government has played conflicting roles in education, providing resources with one hand, while creating obstacles with the other. We have spent over $12 billion on major education programs in the last two years, and this year, we are slated to spend nearly $15 billion. Yet, if current trends continue, only about 65% of federal education dollars will be spent this year on educating our children, due to the excessive bureaucracy in our federal programs. And we should remember that federal funding accounts for only about 7% of the total amount spent on education, while the lion's share comes from state and local taxes. However, that 7% of the funding pie consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school districts need to administer education programs. Unfortunately, most federal education programs often do not contain the basic ingredients for educational success, but rather contain components that can actually stifle the ingredients for success. In the last 35 years, the federal government has continued to take away parental involvement, local control, flexibility, and teacher and community input by spinning a complex web of federal elementary and secondary education programs, each of which contain their own set of rules that consume the time and resources of states and school districts. A 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio school district was related to participation in federal programs, while federal dollars provided less than 5% of total education funding in Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in state funds. However, 297 state employees are needed to oversee only $1 billion in federal funds--six times as many per dollar. The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of every federal education dollar. Many federal programs have taken away precious dollars and teacher time. Rather than being able to spend time on classroom preparation, teachers instead have to spend hours filling out federal forms to comply with federal rules. Another problem with a number of our federal education programs is that many of our children and school districts never get to see the federal tax dollars that their parents pay for education. This is because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a competitive basis. In essence, local schools must come to Washington and beg for the money taxpayers sent to the federal treasury. As a result, smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer, cannot share in the money their parents sent to the federal government. To make matters worse, once a school district is successful in obtaining a competitive grant after a harrowing application process, it must spend countless hours and resources complying with the leviathan of regulations and rules attached to the grant. Competitive funding, along with the vast number of federal education programs, has led to a cottage industry in selling information on education program descriptions, filing instructions, and application deadlines for each of these programs. The ``Education at a Crossroads'' report I mentioned earlier describes this cottage industry: ``The Education Funding Research Council identifies potential sources of funds for local school districts, and sells for nearly $400 the Guide to Federal Funding for Education. The company promises to steer its subscribers to ``a wide range of Federal programs,'' and offers these subscribers timely updates on ``500 education programs.'' More recently, the Aid for Education Report published by CD Publications advertised that ``huge sums are available. . .in the federal government alone, there are nearly 800 different education programs that receive authorization totaling almost a hundred billion dollars.'' It's a shame that a school district has to pay $400 for a catalog to learn how to get back the money that its community has sent to Washington to educate its children. But sadly, this is often the case. A third problem we can identify with many current federal education programs is that federal dollars are often earmarked for one particular use, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This inflexible funding hurts schools that have other needs than the ones prescribed by the federal government. A recent example of this is the $1.2 billion earmarked last year for classroom size reduction. While more teachers and class size reduction are noble endeavors, some schools don't need more teachers, but instead need more computers. However, the only use of this $1.2 billion can be for hiring more teachers. Such a policy flies in the face of one ingredient for educational success, local control. So, we know we have created a lot of federal education programs and we have dedicated a great deal of resources for these programs. What results are we getting? The National Center for Education Statistics' NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States reveals that 40 percent of fourth graders do not read at a basic level. The same report also indicates that half of the students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. And the NAEP Report Card also shows that United States 12th graders only outperformed two out of 21 nations in mathematics. The Brookings Institution released a study in April of 1998 indicating that public institutions of higher education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for students. Knowing these disastrous results, we cannot afford to keep spending our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for years if it's not stimulating academic success. Parents, teachers, school boards, and members of our community won't stand for this kind of failure. They want and need opportunities to be more involved in deciding how to spend the federal education dollar, because they know what works. We must spend our federal resources for elementary and secondary education in ways that embrace the ingredients of success. Rather than fund the patchwork of federal elementary and secondary education programs that Washington wants, Congress should send that money directly to local school districts. Parents and teachers need the financing, flexibility and freedom to fund programs they know will improve their children's education. Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal does just this. He takes some of the Department of Education's largest competitive grant programs and returns the money in the form of a ``direct check'' to the local school districts based on the number of students in each district. Schools may use the funds in ways they believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement. Under the ``Direct Check'' proposal, no longer would school districts have to come to Washington and beg for the money they sent to Washington to educate their children. No longer would teachers and administrators have to spend countless and wasted hours filling out federal grant application and compliance forms. No longer would schools be forced to earmark federal dollars for programs that have no relevance to their students' needs. Rather, school districts with the input of teachers, school boards, administrators, and of course, parents, would have the authority and flexibility to use federal dollars for what they best see fit. For example, local schools could deploy resources to hire new teachers, raise teacher salaries, buy new textbooks or new computers-- whatever the schools deem most important to the educational success of their students. The Direct Check to Education proposals gives schools more time, flexibility, and money to spend on what's most important: providing classroom instruction to our nation's children. With the flexible, equitable distribution of federal funding under Senator Bond's proposal comes accountability. Local school districts will be penalized for knowingly submitting false information regarding the number of students in their districts. Moreover, the Secretary of Education may audit local educational agency expenditures to ensure that funds are used in accordance with the Direct Check in Education Act. And most importantly, parents, school boards, and members of the community will be able to give direct input into funding decisions, since those decisions will be made right in the community, rather than hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of miles away in Washington, D.C. Local decision making allows for local accountability. Mr. President, we have learned from experience that our many of our current federal education programs and dollars are not producing what we expect for our students. We know that successful education programs occur when crucial decisions are made by local communities, teachers, school boards, and parents. This is why I support Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. His plan embraces the ingredients of educational success, as it gives parents, teachers and school boards the authority and flexibility to direct funds to programs they know work for their children. As I said earlier, Senator Bond's proposal consolidates a number of the Department of Education's federal programs for elementary and secondary education. I believe we should explore whether other federal education programs--both within and outside the Department of Education--should also be taken and put into a ``direct check'' to our local school districts. We must continue to look for ways to direct our federal resources in ways that reflect the ingredients of success and educational excellence for our children.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senior Senator from Missouri for his introduction of the ``Direct Check for Education'' bill. It is with great pleasure that I add my name as a cosponsor of this important legislation, which will improve the educational opportunities for our nation's school children by sending federal resources directly to local school districts to use in the way they know will benefit students most effectively. Mr. President, when we talk about education, we should start by asking: ``What do our parents want for their children? We know that parents want their children to get a first-class education that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Parents want schools that are safe, classes that are small, and principals and teachers to have authority to make the right decisions in all areas of learning, school discipline and after-school activities. Parents want teachers who care for students and know the subjects they teach. Parents do not want Washington in control of classrooms. The next question we should ask is: How can we attain what parents want? How can our children achieve academic excellence? The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations answered this question in a report released in July of 1998, called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today.'' The Subcommittee found that successful schools and school systems were not the product of federal funding and directives, but instead were characterized by: parental involvement in the education of their children, local control, emphasis on basic academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must have to elevate educational performance. Knowing the ingredients of educational success for our children, we must next ask whether our current federal education programs contain these ingredients. First, we should observe that in a sense, the federal government has played conflicting roles in education, providing resources with one hand, while creating obstacles with the other. We have spent over $12 billion on major education programs in the last two years, and this year, we are slated to spend nearly $15 billion. Yet, if current trends continue, only about 65% of federal education dollars will be spent this year on educating our children, due to the excessive bureaucracy in our federal programs. And we should remember that federal funding accounts for only about 7% of the total amount spent on education, while the lion's share comes from state and local taxes. However, that 7% of the funding pie consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school districts need to administer education programs. Unfortunately, most federal education programs often do not contain the basic ingredients for educational success, but rather contain components that can actually stifle the ingredients for success. In the last 35 years, the federal government has continued to take away parental involvement, local control, flexibility, and teacher and community input by spinning a complex web of federal elementary and secondary education programs, each of which contain their own set of rules that consume the time and resources of states and school districts. A 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio school district was related to participation in federal programs, while federal dollars provided less than 5% of total education funding in Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in state funds. However, 297 state employees are needed to oversee only $1 billion in federal funds--six times as many per dollar. The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of every federal education dollar. Many federal programs have taken away precious dollars and teacher time. Rather than being able to spend time on classroom preparation, teachers instead have to spend hours filling out federal forms to comply with federal rules. Another problem with a number of our federal education programs is that many of our children and school districts never get to see the federal tax dollars that their parents pay for education. This is because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a competitive basis. In essence, local schools must come to Washington and beg for the money taxpayers sent to the federal treasury. As a result, smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer, cannot share in the money their parents sent to the federal government. To make matters worse, once a school district is successful in obtaining a competitive grant after a harrowing application process, it must spend countless hours and resources complying with the leviathan of regulations and rules attached to the grant. Competitive funding, along with the vast number of federal education programs, has led to a cottage industry in selling information on education program descriptions, filing instructions, and application deadlines for each of these programs. The ``Education at a Crossroads'' report I mentioned earlier describes this cottage industry: ``The Education Funding Research Council identifies potential sources of funds for local school districts, and sells for nearly $400 the Guide to Federal Funding for Education. The company promises to steer its subscribers to ``a wide range of Federal programs,'' and offers these subscribers timely updates on ``500 education programs.'' More recently, the Aid for Education Report published by CD Publications advertised that ``huge sums are available. . .in the federal government alone, there are nearly 800 different education programs that receive authorization totaling almost a hundred billion dollars.'' It's a shame that a school district has to pay $400 for a catalog to learn how to get back the money that its community has sent to Washington to educate its children. But sadly, this is often the case. A third problem we can identify with many current federal education programs is that federal dollars are often earmarked for one particular use, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This inflexible funding hurts schools that have other needs than the ones prescribed by the federal government. A recent example of this is the $1.2 billion earmarked last year for classroom size reduction. While more teachers and class size reduction are noble endeavors, some schools don't need more teachers, but instead need more computers. However, the only use of this $1.2 billion can be for hiring more teachers. Such a policy flies in the face of one ingredient for educational success, local control. So, we know we have created a lot of federal education programs and we have dedicated a great deal of resources for these programs. What results are we getting? The National Center for Education Statistics' NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States reveals that 40 percent of fourth graders do not read at a basic level. The same report also indicates that half of the students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. And the NAEP Report Card also shows that United States 12th graders only outperformed two out of 21 nations in mathematics. The Brookings Institution released a study in April of 1998 indicating that public institutions of higher education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for students. Knowing these disastrous results, we cannot afford to keep spending our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for years if it's not stimulating academic success. Parents, teachers, school boards, and members of our community won't stand for this kind of failure. They want and need opportunities to be more involved in deciding how to spend the federal education dollar, because they know what works. We must spend our federal resources for elementary and secondary education in ways that embrace the ingredients of success. Rather than fund the patchwork of federal elementary and secondary education programs that Washington wants, Congress should send that money directly to local school districts. Parents and teachers need the financing, flexibility and freedom to fund programs they know will improve their children's education. Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal does just this. He takes some of the Department of Education's largest competitive grant programs and returns the money in the form of a ``direct check'' to the local school districts based on the number of students in each district. Schools may use the funds in ways they believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement. Under the ``Direct Check'' proposal, no longer would school districts have to come to Washington and beg for the money they sent to Washington to educate their children. No longer would teachers and administrators have to spend countless and wasted hours filling out federal grant application and compliance forms. No longer would schools be forced to earmark federal dollars for programs that have no relevance to their students' needs. Rather, school districts with the input of teachers, school boards, administrators, and of course, parents, would have the authority and flexibility to use federal dollars for what they best see fit. For example, local schools could deploy resources to hire new teachers, raise teacher salaries, buy new textbooks or new computers-- whatever the schools deem most important to the educational success of their students. The Direct Check to Education proposals gives schools more time, flexibility, and money to spend on what's most important: providing classroom instruction to our nation's children. With the flexible, equitable distribution of federal funding under Senator Bond's proposal comes accountability. Local school districts will be penalized for knowingly submitting false information regarding the number of students in their districts. Moreover, the Secretary of Education may audit local educational agency expenditures to ensure that funds are used in accordance with the Direct Check in Education Act. And most importantly, parents, school boards, and members of the community will be able to give direct input into funding decisions, since those decisions will be made right in the community, rather than hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of miles away in Washington, D.C. Local decision making allows for local accountability. Mr. President, we have learned from experience that our many of our current federal education programs and dollars are not producing what we expect for our students. We know that successful education programs occur when crucial decisions are made by local communities, teachers, school boards, and parents. This is why I support Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. His plan embraces the ingredients of educational success, as it gives parents, teachers and school boards the authority and flexibility to direct funds to programs they know work for their children. As I said earlier, Senator Bond's proposal consolidates a number of the Department of Education's federal programs for elementary and secondary education. I believe we should explore whether other federal education programs--both within and outside the Department of Education--should also be taken and put into a ``direct check'' to our local school districts. We must continue to look for ways to direct our federal resources in ways that reflect the ingredients of success and educational excellence for our children.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a great honor and privilege to extend congratulations to the Reverend Peter (Yee Chung) Chei as he celebrates the granting of his United States citizenship on Friday, October 16th, 1998. Reverend Peter Chei has served our nation admirably during the thirty-three years he has made his home on our shores, and now, as a United States citizen, his continuing commitment to this nation has been sealed with the words of the Oath of Allegiance. The United States has thereby greatly profited. The Reverend Peter Chei has long been held in my highest regard. His dedication to the redemptive mission of Christ has been an inspiration for many people across the state of Missouri, this country, and the world. It was my good fortune to meet Reverend Chei when he was still living in Hong Kong. His father had escaped with the Chei family to Hong Kong after the communists took over the Chinese mainland in 1950. The trials faced by the Chei family as they were uprooted from Peter's birthplace parallel the trials faced by many of America's first adopted citizens escaping religious persecution. Peter Chei's decision to move to the United States in 1965 and his decision to become a United States citizen are made all the more meaningful by this stark comparison. Having arrived in this country, Reverend Chei determined to serve God and his adopted country through a life of evangelism. His long history of ministerial and community service demonstrates his commitment. Reverend Chei has volunteered as Head Start Policy Council President, Head Start Parents Association President, Coordinator for the American Bible Society, Coordinator for the National Day of Prayer, Coordinator for the International Year of Bible Reading, Coordinator for the 1999 Year of the Bible, and as a member of the Crosswalk Teen Center. The Reverend Peter Chei founded Missouri Head Start Parents' Association, Singles and Families Educational Seminar, Christians Together in the City of Nevada, His Hope House, the Christian Artist Series, Hope for America, and Missionary to America. He has taken on all of these extra responsibilities while serving faithfully as a minister of music and as a pastor. I consider it a great blessing to be counted among Reverend Chei's friends and it is my distinct honor to salute this patriot on the occasion of his swearing in as a citizen of our great country.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we have made some important advances on the encryption issue during this Congress. We held a hearing in the Senate Constitution Subcommittee, which pointed out the constitutional problems with the Administration's proposed domestic encryption policy and put individual privacy rights back into the discussion. More recently, as everyone is aware, the Administration has taken a few modest steps toward liberalizing its export policy. However, we have to be wary of piecemeal approaches to the problem. The Administration's decision to relax its export policy helps out big businesses with subsidiaries in certain selected countries, but it leaves most ordinary consumers out in the cold. In the Judiciary Committee, I resisted another piecemeal approach-- making the use of encryption in furtherance of a felony a separate crime, without addressing the broader encryption issue. As a former Attorney General of Missouri, I am keenly aware of the interests of law enforcement in not having encryption unduly hinder law enforcement. On the other hand, in my work on the encryption issue, I have come to appreciate the concerns of privacy groups who are opposed to this proposal. I explored some ways of working this issue out with my colleagues in this Congress, but we could not work out an acceptable compromise. In the next Congress, I look forward to working with my colleagues--on and off the Judiciary Committee--to fashion a comprehensive resolution of the encryption issues that balances the needs of law enforcement and law-abiding citizens. In the next Congress, our goal must be to move beyond such piecemeal approaches to find a comprehensive solution to computer privacy issues. This will not be easy. Twice recently, President Clinton has told high-tech audiences that ``we've reached broad agreement on encryption policy.'' Unfortunately, that is just not true--at least not yet. The Administration's water torture approach to encryption--liberalizing export policy drip by drip--demonstrates that they do not understand two fundamental principles: (1) that robust and reliable encryption is available on the world market, and (2) that ordinary Americans should have access to the best available encryption to protect their privacy. In short, it does us no good to talk about ``broad agreement'' that does not actually exist. Instead, we need to work hard to make such broad agreement a reality. That is the task for the next Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get the job done.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, We are very fortunate, Will Rogers once observed, that we've never gotten all the Government we've paid for. For most of this century, Mr. Rogers' words have stood the test of time. Unfortunately, I fear that with this omnibus appropriations bill, this 3,000-page, 40-pound, 2 foot high, $500 billion monster, we will be getting all the Government we have paid for and then some. This omnibus legislation reflects the Federal budget process at its worst. This package was not the result of democratic votes, open discussion, and legislators reflecting the will of the people. With little debate and lots of backroom deals, 8 of the 13 annual appropriations bills have been tossed into one enormous heap of spending. This is wrong. Who has read this pile of programs and pork? Not a single Senator has. We didn't get a peek at a summary of this Government colossus until Monday afternoon, just 2 days ago. We won't see it in the Congressional Record until after the vote. The truth of the matter is, no one knows what is in this colossal creation, and no one claims to be its father. It is said that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. This forsaken monstrosity, which no one claims, nor has anyone read, deserved defeat today. We don't know much, but here is some of what we do know about this measure. The Social Security trust fund has been raided for spending more on the programs and pork in this bill. Billions of dollars will be added to the national debt that our children will one day have to pay. This legislation also breaks the much-heralded Balanced Budget Agreement. And finally, we know that taxes, which are at record high levels, will not be cut. Washington thinks it needs the people s money more than the people need it. When I came to the Senate in 1995, at the same time that the new Republican majority assumed control of Congress, I hoped that Congress would downsize the Federal Government and return money and power to the American people. After 40 years of Democratic control of one or both Houses, it was finally time for Congress to uphold its responsibility, to minimize the Federal Government's intrusion into our citizens' lives and pocketbooks, to lower taxes and to reduce the size of Government. Unfortunately, President Clinton remains the chief obstacle to lower taxes and smaller Government, despite his claim in the 1996 State of the Union Address that ``the era of big Government is over.'' That famous line from President Clinton is about as accurate as his pronouncement in January of 1998 that he wanted to save ``every penny of any surplus'' to preserve the Social Security system. Both are intentionally misleading and factually wrong. But Congress also shares the blame. The 105th Congress has been either unable or unwilling to cut spending, has been, at best, reluctant to fight for tax cuts, and has now cut a budget deal that guarantees that Bill Clinton's vision of a costly and intrusive Federal Government survives for at least one more year. The cost of the Federal Government is so staggering that numbers alone do not convey its enormity. We are spending more money today than our Founding Fathers ever thought possible. As Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute has indicated: Adjusted for inflation, the . . . [Federal] spending total of $7.5 trillion for 1998-2002 is more money than America spent to fight both world wars, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War [combined]. In fact, in today's dollars, it is more money than the U.S. Government spent on everything from 1787 to 1960. In the fiscal year 1999 alone, the Federal Government will spend more than the entire Federal Government spent from our founding until 1920. Without taking into account the $21 billion in new emergency spending contained in this omnibus legislation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Federal spending has increased $205 billion over the last 4 years. By comparison, in the previous 4 years, Federal spending increased only $192 billion. Last year, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. There was much rejoicing, celebration and self-congratulations surrounding the passage of the bill, congratulations from the Halls of Congress and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. The backers of the bill proclaimed fiscal discipline was being imposed on Washington. Mr. President, I did not join in that celebration, nor share in Washington's enthusiasm. The 1997 budget deal spent too much, provided too little tax relief and was unenforceable. The bill contained no meaningful enforcement provisions, nothing to guarantee that future Congresses and administrations would limit spending or require the budget caps to be strictly enforced. As a matter of fact, I proposed an amendment to impose the spending controls on the balanced budget agreement, and that amendment to that agreement was defeated. As a result, we have seen just today that the balanced budget agreement has been broken. Now promises made one year are ignored the next. Promises made last year for a balanced budget are ignored this year. This omnibus bill we have voted on today confirms my worst fears: It breaks the budget limits set just 1 year ago, spends the budget surpluses instead of saving it for Social Security, and keeps more money in Washington without returning it to the rightful owners--the families that work day and night to earn it. Mr. President, Americans are working longer than ever before to pay their taxes. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the average American now works until May 10 to pay Federal, State and local taxes. In a typical workweek, the average American works until late Tuesday afternoon just to pay taxes. And the tax burden is getting worse, not better. For the past 5 consecutive years, the growth in personal tax payments has outstripped that of wages and salaries. Americans deserve better than this tax burden and better than a spending bill for which no one is accountable. America needs a real tax cut. The Federal Government has collected more taxes than the year before every year since 1983. We have been on an ascending, accelerating juggernaut of tax collections, and that means that the American people have not had a true tax cut in 15 years, while Washington has increased taxes twice in this decade, in 1990 and 1993. Those two tax hikes will take a combined $600 billion extra from the American people over the next 5 years. It reminds me a bit of President Reagan's telling definition of a taxpayer. Reagan defined the taxpayer as ``someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take a Civil Service exam.'' During the debate on the Senate budget resolution last April, a number of fiscally conservative Senators and I announced that we were prepared to vote against the resolution because it planned to spend too much and cut taxes too little--only $30 billion over 5 years, or a whopping $1.83 per month in tax relief for every person in the country. We asked instead for a meaningful tax cut and the elimination of the marriage penalty which unfairly burdens 21 million couples simply because they are married. In response to our concerns, the Senate leadership pledged to support the larger of the tax cuts contained in either the House- or Senate- passed budget resolution. The leadership also agreed to make repeal of the marriage penalty the Senate's top tax priority. After the House adopted its budget resolution last May, the budget resolution process screeched to a halt. Why? The House budget resolution recommended cutting taxes $101 billion over 5 years. Given the agreement we had with the leadership, the Senate was to have pushed the House proposal. Unfortunately, many Senators would have rather seen the budget resolution die than have Congress pass even modest tax relief, equal about 1 percent of the revenue the Federal Government is projected to collect over the next 5 years. For the first time since the process was established in 1974, Congress failed to produce a budget resolution and killed any chance for meaningful tax or spending cuts this year. This unwillingness to cut taxes comes during a period in which we anticipate over $500 billion in surpluses over the next 5 years. This unwillingness comes from President Clinton's misleading political promise to ``protect'' the surplus for Social Security. In his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton proposed reserving, in his words, ``100 percent of the surplus--that's every penny of any surplus--for Social Security.'' Well, promises made, promises broken. The mantra here in Washington lives on: ``You send it, we spend it.'' Despite President Clinton's promise not to use the Social Security for anything but Social Security, the Administration has raided Social Security to fund a series of new spending initiatives--paid for by the same surplus he is purporting to save for Social Security. While the 1997 balanced budget agreement limits discretionary spending through fiscal year 2002, this new spending has overridden these discretionary spending caps, shrinking the budget surplus and consuming money that could be used to ``save'' Social Security. It took Congress and the White House only 1 year to breach the budget caps--1 year to break the promises made to the American people. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, October 20, that congressional aides have confessed that the omnibus bill not only contains $20.9 billion in ``emergency'' spending, but also busts the caps by another $7 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending. That is $7 billion in broken promises--$7 billion in spending that under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 should not be allowed to occur. It is not surprising that the President found a way around the spending limits so quickly. As I have said on many occasions, taxes and spending are the only things in Washington more addictive than nicotine. In fact, this bad habit of resorting to bogus ``emergency'' spending to circumvent the discretionary caps resembles the behavior of an addict trying to rationalize his inability to stay sober. Since 1991, Congress has passed $53.7 billion in emergency spending; that is excluding Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Unfortunately, the President's ``emergency'' spending requests do not meet any emergency other than his inability to get all he wants to spend. There are no eleventh hour developments that have made Social Security solvency a secondary concern. The President is proposing that the equivalent of at least 24 percent of this year's surplus be spent on a Bosnia deployment that is now 4 years old, Government computer repairs--we have known about these needs--increased embassy security, and a variety of other initiatives. Now, many of these requests constitute real and important funding issues. But emergencies? Mr. President, the well-being of our elderly is too important for half-truths and doublespeak. Nothing but the President's unwillingness has prevented the Administration from offering $21 billion in emergency spending reductions out of the Federal Government's $1.7 trillion budget. In other words, the President could have offered to reduce spending elsewhere to accommodate his emergencies. But apparently the President would rather see our seniors' Social Security checks shipped overseas in the form of foreign aid or squandered on more Washington bureaucrats than find savings amounting to less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. Mr. President, as I am sure you know, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Federal Government will run a $137 billion on-budget deficit over the next 5 years--fiscal years 1999 to 2003. In other words, 21 percent of the $657 billion Social Security surplus over that period will be used to finance non-Social Security spending. Yet, the administration is strangely silent about this matter. If the administration sincerely opposes using the surplus for anything but Social Security, it should call upon Congress--as I have-- to reduce projected spending by $137 billion over the next 5 years in order to eliminate the on budget deficit. Of course, the President will not do this. He prefers to block tax cuts by scaremongering vulnerable older Americans on Social Security, while spending all the money he can through budget loopholes--like the designation of his needs or desires as ``emergencies.'' Mr. President, we are here today almost 3 weeks into the 1999 fiscal year. We voted on the omnibus appropriations package, one which I voted against, that will fund the Federal Government for the next 11 months. This omnibus bill contains eight complete appropriations bills; but it also contains increased funding for the other five appropriations bills that have either been signed by the President or await his signature. Every single one of the 13 appropriations bills was affected by the bill we passed today. It even increases spending in the bills already signed into law by the President. Several of the appropriations bills included in this humongous monstrosity were never even considered by the Senate--not at all, not even for 1 day. Again, this massive pile of programs and pork, weighing 40 pounds, standing 2 feet high, over 3,000 pages long, was not available until mid-day yesterday. Then there was just one copy in the Cloakroom for all offices to share. This bill is so huge that the Congressional Record could not even print the bill until this morning, to be available after the Senate vote. Although the President and congressional leaders announced they had reached an agreement last Thursday, a rough summary was not even available until Monday. We do not know everything that is in this bill. I do not know half of what is in this bill, and not a single Senator does, including the leadership and the appropriators. There is something wrong when Congress passes one bill, one huge bill, that spends so much--all 13 appropriations bills are affected, even those already signed by the President--and there is only one copy to be shared. We should be held responsible for the decisions that we make--decisions to spend the people's money, to spend the Social Security surplus, to increase the debt that will be owed by our children and grandchildren. Who is responsible here? Who can be accountable when they do not know for what they are accountable? Today, it feels like I was asked to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for a deal made by a handful of individuals who assume they had the power to speak for all of us. I know what the press reports say, and what the Appropriations Committee says, and what the President has said, but the bottom line is this: This legislation has not been scored by CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. Nor has the Office of Management and Budget determined that all of the emergency spending requests will be categorized as budgetary ``emergencies.'' Of course, with no office getting a copy of the bill before it was voted on, and with some 3,000 pages to review, weighing about 40 pounds, such an analysis was impossible. So where does this leave the country? Congress has rejected calls for tax relief and has just passed a $500 billion omnibus spending bill that will cut the surplus and boost the size and the intrusiveness of Government. The President says he wants to save Social Security, yet his every action has been designed to save a catchy campaign slogan --``Save Social Security First''--while he spends the Social Security surplus on new initiatives. The Government continues to grow, and a tax cut is nowhere in sight. Yes, I fear we may soon get all the Government we have paid for--and then some. But then Congress does not even know what we have just paid for. And we do not know what we have just passed. We can do better, and we must do better. Our resolve must stiffen. The people of this country deserve better service from us, and we must provide it. It is with that in mind that I object to the passage of this measure today. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I would like to hear the Senator, if we could have order in the Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, recently, both the House and Senate voted unanimously to pass the conference report on S. 2206, the ``Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998.'' During House debate on the conference report, some members expressed concerns regarding bill language described as the ``charitable choice'' provision, which is similar to language I drafted for the welfare reform law passed in the 104th Congress and signed by the President in August of 1996. As I have said in a previous floor statement, the charitable choice provision will expand the opportunities for private, charitable, and religious organizations to serve their communities with Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds. This provision expresses the judgment of Congress that these organizations can play a crucial role in helping people out of poverty through the CSBG program. I am confident that the charitable choice language in the Community Services Block Grant reauthorization is constitutional and represents sound public policy. However, I want to respond to the comments made regarding this provision, as critics of the provision seem to overlook recent case law of the Supreme Court regarding this issue, and even mischaracterize certain sections of the charitable choice provision. First, most of the concerns expressed by certain House members are based upon case law that does not represent the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. In recent years, the general trajectory of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause cases has been in the direction of what constitutional scholars describe as ``neutrality theory.'' Under this theory, private organizations are eligible to provide government- funded services to beneficiaries through contracts, grants, or vouchers without regard to religious character. Moreover, there are serious constitutional problems when the government screens potential service providers based upon religious beliefs and practices--which is what the critics of charitable choice want to do. The charitable choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform law and the Child Care Development Block Grant Program of 1990 conform to the principle of religious neutrality. Under the first legislation, charitable and faith-based organizations are eligible, on the same basis as all other non-governmental organizations, to receive federal funds to provide services to welfare recipients. Similarly, the child care law allows low-income parents to choose among an array of private providers--including religious ones--in obtaining federally funded day care services. The test the Supreme Court has used over the years to analyze Establishment Clause cases has been the ``Lemon test,'' which has the two-fold requirement that the government action in question must have a valid secular legislative purpose, and a primary effect that neither enhances nor inhibits religion. (In the recent case of Agostini v. Felton, the Court took the third prong, the ``entanglement'' analysis, and folded it into the second prong of the test). The first prong, requiring a valid secular purpose, is usually not subject to much controversy, as the Court has been highly deferential to the legislature's action. In its review of the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), for example, the Court noted that the ``provisions of the statute reflect at most Congress' considered judgment that religious organizations can help solve the problems to which the AFLA is addressed. Nothing in our previous cases prevents Congress from making such a judgment or from recognizing the important part that religion or religious organizations may play in resolving certain secular problems.'' The serious debate generally concerns the second prong of the Lemon test, namely, whether the ``primary effect'' of these social welfare initiatives is to advance religion. In neutrality theory, Lemon's primary-effect inquiry is accomplished by examining how a service provider actually spends the program monies. Obviously, the test is whether funds are being spent in accordance with the valid secular purposes set out in the governing statute, and as expressed in the service contract or grant at issue. These purposes necessarily exclude use of the monies for inherently religious programming. On the other hand, critics of charitable choice would argue that the primary-effect inquiry should focus on whether a service provider is religious in character, and if so, how religious. An organization found ``too religious'' is dubbed ``pervasively sectarian,'' thereby disqualifying the organization as a provider of government-funded services. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been moving away from this ``too religious'' versus ``secular enough'' inquiry, and toward the neutrality approach. Two of the Court's most recent pronouncements on this issue are Agostini v. Felton and Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. Although the Court did not embrace the neutrality principle in these cases without certain qualifications, the law today is far closer to neutrality than to the ``no-aid separationism'' of the 1970s and mid-1980s espoused by critics of charitable choice. In Agostini, decided in 1997, the Court held that remedial education for disadvantaged students could be provided on the premises of K through 12 religious schools--the only entities the Court has declared in the past to be ``pervasively sectarian.'' The Court was no longer willing to assume that direct assistance would be diverted to the inculcation of religion by authorities at Roman Catholic elementary and secondary schools. In the 1995 Rosenberger case, the Court held that a state university could not deny student activity fund money, which was generally available to all students groups for student publications, to a certain student group based upon the religious content of its publication. The Court warned that the government's attempt to draw distinctions regarding religious content would require the government--and ultimately the courts--``to inquire into the significance of words and practices to different religious faiths, and in varying circumstances by the same faith. Such inquiries would tend inevitably to entangle the State with religion in a manner forbidden by our cases.'' The critics would ignore this warning in order to apply their ``too religious'' test. Several prominent constitutional law scholars have recognized the Court's movement toward neutrality, including Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas, Professor John Garvey of Notre Dame, Professor Michael McConnell of the University of Utah, Professor Michael Paulsen of the University of Minnesota, and finally, Professor Carl H. Esbeck of the University of Missouri. Professor Esbeck worked closely with my staff to draft the charitable choice provision of the welfare law, as well as my Charitable Choice Expansion Act, which I introduced earlier this year. The consequences of relying upon the view propounded by critics of the charitable choice concept go beyond ignoring recent constitutional jurisprudence. They also result in bad public policy. Demanding that religious ministries ``secularize'' in order to qualify to be a government-funded provider of services hurts intended beneficiaries of social services, as it eliminates a fuller range of provider choices for the poor and needy, frustrating those beneficiaries with spiritual interests. In examining a neutral program that includes both religious and secular providers, what matters is how the government money is actually spent, not the ideological character of the provider. Strict adherence to the ``too religious'' distinction perpetuated by the critics could actually eliminate current successful providers from eligibility to receive government funds. Congress should continue to find ways to encourage successful charitable and faith-based organizations to unleash their effective good works upon society. The charitable choice provision is one such way to accomplish this goal. In their discussion of the charitable choice provisions in the CSBG reauthorization bill, critics fail to acknowledge a valid distinction made by the Supreme Court: the difference between direct and indirect funding of government programs. When a program is administered through the use of certificates or vouchers given to beneficiaries, the religious nature of the organization at which the beneficiary redeems the voucher is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has consistently held that government may confer a benefit on individuals, who exercise personal choice in the use of their benefit at similarly situated institutions, whether public, private nonsectarian, or religious, even if the benefit indirectly advances religion. The Court has made these rulings in Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993), a case holding that the provision of special education services to a Catholic high student was not prohibited by Establishment Clause; in Mueller v. Allen (1983), where it upheld a state income tax deduction for parents paying religious school tuition; and in Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986), where the Court upheld a state vocational rehabilitation grant to disabled student choosing to use his grant for training as a cleric. Moreover, the Child Care and Development Block Grant program, which has been in existence since 1990, allows parents to send their children to day care centers that are unquestionably ``pervasively sectarian'' in nature. This program has never been challenged as being violative of the Establishment Clause. Should a community wish to set up a Community Services Block Grant program that gives individual beneficiaries vouchers or certificates to redeem at the location of their choice, there is no constitutional concern as to the religious nature of the organization providing services to that beneficiary. There were also concerns expressed on the House floor that individuals would be directed by the government to religious organizations to receive Community Services Block Grant Services and forced to participate in religious activities. These concerns indicate that some members may not fully understand how the Community Services Block Grant program operates. Under this program, beneficiaries choose where they want to receive CSBG services--the government does not force certain individuals into certain programs. CSBG services are not federal entitlements. This program was designed in the 1960s to provide flexible federal funding to communities to identify problems and needs in the community, and to then fashion and design a local solution. This is not a federally-directed solution. Rather, the CSBG program allows the community to find the most appropriate organizations in the community to offer different types of services to individuals. Community Services Block Grant services are offered voluntarily to individuals in the community. People are not directed into these programs by the government. In fact, there are most likely existing government programs in the community, offering similar types of services, such as job training, basic education courses, and housing services. The Community Services Block Grant program maximizes individual choice at the local level by providing services to those who are fighting their way out of poverty. Therefore, those who say that the charitable choice provision in the CSBG program is going to force individuals into religious programs and provide no alternatives misunderstand how the CSBG program operates. The critics are also wrong when they say that a faith-based provider can compel a beneficiary to go to worship services or to submit to an attempt of proselytization. The argument fails to acknowledge that the charitable choice provision contains language stating that ``[n]o funds provided directly to organizations shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.'' Thus, CSBG funds must not be used to carry out inherently religious purposes. Rather, the funds are for the secular public purposes of the legislation, which include reducing poverty, revitalizing low-income communities, and empowering low-income families and individuals in rural and urban areas to become fully self-sufficient, especially those families who are attempting to transition off of welfare. Therefore, the structure of the Community Services Block Grant program, along with the clearly spelled-out uses of and prohibitions on CSBG funding, ensure that beneficiaries will have maximized choices of where to receive services to help them escape poverty and reach self- sufficiency. One argument was made that the charitable choice provision could result in the government having to provide financial audits of churches and other religious organizations who might be eligible for funds under a charitable choice program. This statement appears to express a concern that a religious organization would subject itself to government intrusion by its receipt of CSBG funds. I share this concern, and for that reason, I included in the charitable choice provision language protecting a religious organization from such intrusion. This language requires a religious organization to segregate government funds from funds received from non-government sources. Additionally, the provision states explicitly that only government funds are subject to government audit. Therefore, the charitable choice provision protects participating religious organizations from unwarranted governmental oversight, while also holding such organizations financially accountable in the same way as all other non-governmental providers receiving government funding. There was also a statement made on the House floor that the charitable choice provision ``would seek to enact exemptions from the religious discrimination clauses of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' This is a misstatement of what the provision says. Charitable choice does not create an exemption from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather, it states that it preserves the exemption in the law allowing religious organizations to make employment decisions based on religion. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of this provision in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987). Receiving government funds for a secular purpose does not, of course, result in a waiver of this exemption. See, e.g., Siegel v. Truett-McConnell College, 1994 WL 932771 (N.D. Ga. 1994). If a religious nonprofit organization must hire persons in open disagreement with the religious background and mission of the organization, its religious autonomy would be severely infringed. In fact, many successful faith-based organizations have stated that they would not take government funding if it would require them to hire employees who did not hold the same religious beliefs of the organization. For example, the International Union of Gospel Missions conducted a survey of their missions and found that some of these missions refused government funding if it required them to hire non- Christians. The Charitable Choice makes clear that a religious organization maintains its Title VII exemption when it receives government funds to provide social services. There was also an argument made that the charitable choice provision would require the government to consider using fringe religious groups to provide CSBG services. Although I find this to be more of a scare tactic than a legitimate argument, I think it is obvious that the charitable choice provision will not require the government to blindly select any non-governmental organization that applies for CSBG funds. The government may require legitimate, neutral criteria to all who apply. No organization, religious or otherwise, can become a provider unless it can deliver on its grant or contract. Finally, there was an argument that the charitable choice provision could override the constitutional language of states prohibiting public funds from going to religious organizations. I would simply respond that the charitable choice provisions are in federal law dealing with federal dollars. We do not tell the states how to spend their own state tax funds. In conclusion, the opponents of the charitable choice concept have not taken into account the latest Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If there is a comprehensive, religiously neutral program, the question is not whether an organization is of a religious character, but how it spends the government funds. To reject charitable choice is to jeopardize Congress' ability to encourage proven, effective religious organizations to provide social services to our nation's needy with government funds. For years, these organizations have been transforming broken lives by addressing the deeper needs of individuals--by instilling hope and values that help change behavior and attitudes. By contrast, government-run programs have often failed in moving people from dependency and despair to independence. We must continue to find ways to allow private, charitable, and religious organizations to help administer the cultural remedy that our society so desperately needs. The charitable choice provision in the ``Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998'' is one way of accomplishing this goal.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe these are times in which anyone, anywhere would wish to live--times of boundless opportunity when distant horizons are brought near. Since the second year of Ronald Reagan's first term, America has seen her GDP climb every year but one. Our unemployment rate stands at a historic low. Poverty has dropped by more than ten percent. And our budget is in surplus for the first time in a generation. For the first time since 1969, the federal government will run a surplus estimated to be $70 billion. It is a surplus that could allow us to do so much for so many. We could free American families from a debilitating tax burden or help the forgotten middle class keep more of what they earn with tax relief. Beyond meaningful tax relief, the surplus offers another great potential--ensuring the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. The surplus is an opportunity for us to honor our commitment to the men who scaled the cliffs at Normandy and the mothers who sent their son to defend America's freedom halfway around the world. It is, Mr. President, a once in a lifetime chance for us to make the paper IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund real--to pay our debts and keep our word. We can use the surplus to do this. Unfortunately, the President and his apologists on Capitol Hill have a different plan. It is an attack given to platitudes rather than principle, an approach long on meaningless rhetoric and short on meaningful reform. It is a plan that calls for a return to the profligate spending of yesterday at the cost of a brighter tomorrow. As I suggested last Monday on the Senate floor, since late September the President has submitted a series of requests to fund new ``emergency'' spending initiatives. And, because current law subjects discretionary spending to annual caps through FY 2002, this so-called ``emergency'' spending would increase the discretionary spending caps, decrease the budget surplus, and take money from the Social Security Trust Fund. And what are the President's ``emergency'' spending requests? What are the eleventh hour developments that have made Social Security's solvency a low priority instead of a high one? The President is proposing that the equivalent of at least 24% of this year's surplus-- $14.4 billion to date--be spent on a Bosnia deployment that is now four years old, government computer repairs, increased embassy security and a variety of other initiatives. Now, I will be the first to concede that many of the President's requests constitute real and important funding issues. But emergencies? Mr. President, the lives of our elderly are too important for half- truths and doublespeak. Social Security should not be betrayed by emergencies that are conjured up and have been anticipated for quite some time. The definition of an emergency is not something that we have known about for 4 years or 2 years or something that we are really trying to get money to spend in the last fiscal year and not in this one. In his January 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton made the following statement: ``What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple four word answer: Save Social Security first. . . . I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that's every penny of any surplus--for Social Security.'' And just 10 days ago, the President repeated his demand again (October 2, 1998). ``I made it clear and I want to make it clear again. . . . We simply have to set aside every penny of it [the budget surplus], . . . to save Social Security first.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. We can't hide from the truth. More to the point, you can't save Social Security by wasting the surplus on mislabeled emergencies or more big spending. Even as I speak here, the President and his aides are working to see that our seniors' Social Security checks either are shipped overseas or squandered on more bureaucrats in Washington, DC, with more spending programs proposed for money to be shipped overseas or bigger bureaucracies here in the nation's capital. Tragically it is what Chairman Greenspan warned us about just weeks ago. Referring to whether the surplus should be spent, saved, or returned to the taxpayers, Greenspan said, ``. . . I am also, however, aware of the pressures that will exist to spend it, and that in my judgment would be the worst of all outcomes.'' Greenspan says, ``. . . the pressures . . . to spend it . . . would be the worst of all outcomes.'' Mr. President, if increased spending is labeled as ``emergency'' as an accounting gimmick in order to authorize us to spend the surplus, I will not be a party to it. Labeling the taxpayers' money ``emergency'' doesn't make it any less wasteful. Just because it is called emergency doesn't prevent it from adding government and adding bureaucracy. As was said by another, putting a sign on a pig and calling it a dog doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. And there is going to be plenty of pork in this ``Mother of All Pigs,'' that is coming to the Senate for its approval by way of a proposal for spending. For example, the Wall Street Journal this morning reported that Labor, Health and Human Services and Education account for the single largest part of the Omnibus bill in terms of add-ons sought by the Administration. The President wants a total of $1.6 billion, including almost $1.2 billion for his ``class size'' initiative and another $182 million for a child care block grant. Mr. President, all of this $1.6 billion dollars in increased education spending is paid for from the Social Security Trust Fund. The President has not offered one dime in spending cuts to pay for his ``priorities,'' which he has labeled as ``emergencies.'' What is equally as shocking is that the underlying Labor/HHS/ Education appropriations bill is estimated to be about $4 billion over its spending allocation even before accounting for the extra money sought by the Administration this weekend. The President should explain to the voters that his pledge to ``save every penny of any surplus'' was untrue. His promise to ``save Social Security first'' was just a slogan--offered during his State of the Union with a wink and a nod, and broken days later. Only days after first promising to save the surplus, he submitted a budget to Congress calling for $150 billion in additional spending. And in the entire legislative year since the President made his pledge, he has done nothing to fix the Social Security problem--and far too much to fix the blame. He has wasted this entire year, just as he is proposing to waste our senior's Social Security checks on overseas deployments and projects. If the President truly meant what he said about Social Security, he would propose real fixes instead of empty promises. If the President truly meant what he said about saving the surplus, he would not be trying to spend the taxpayer's money under the camouflage of bogus ``emergencies.'' This whole notion of false ``emergency'' spending is a dangerous ploy. It puts the President of the United States in the position of the little boy who cried wolf. If and when we face a true emergency, we will be forced to fund it through this discredited process. And when that time comes, we will regret having engaged in this sleight-of-hand, in this legerdemain, in this charade. Words should have real meaning, Mr. President, and actions should have consequences. Two lessons we would do well to remember. Mr. President, the normal appropriations process is what every American family does when they plan their spending for the upcoming week, or month, or year. Families measure how much they can afford to spend, and where they have to cut back. In some years, when there is an illness or a recession, they may have emergency savings that they use. Perhaps it is a rare occurrence--one they take only in extraordinary circumstances. But think what would happen if families used their savings for non- emergencies--for a new car or a new dress. They would quickly find themselves unprepared for true emergencies. The Federal Government should treat its emergencies the same way families do. Necessary but non-emergency problems should be addressed by achieving savings in lower priority federal spending programs. The President's commitment to send troops to Bosnia was made 4 years ago. It is time to account for that in the normal appropriations process. The Year 2000 problem is a very real threat. But it is also a problem that we have known about for some period of time--since we do have calendars here in Washington. No, instead of anticipating the need and including it in the regular budget process, the President has chosen to ask for this kind of additional funding in the ``emergency'' category. The President is crying wolf and I only hope the Republican Congress has the good sense say, ``No.'' Mr. President, I don't agree always with what I read in the newspaper, but here's an editorial with which I do agree. ``Republicans rightly point out,'' the Christian Science Monitor recently noted, ``that there's a double standard here: It's OK for Clinton and the Democrats to propose spending $20 billion of the coming surplus for `emergencies,' but when the GOP suggests returning some of it to taxpayers, that's a `threat' to Social Security.'' (Christian Science Monitor editorial, September 28, 1998) The Christian Science Monitor had it right in that editorial. And the double standard is even worse than the Monitor suggests. For when this $20 billion is spent, the money will be gone. Whereas if we had given it back to the taxpayer, at least we would have provided some measure of relief from the highest tax burden in the history of this republic-- a helping hand to the forgotten middle class. And that is the key question here. Who owns the surplus? President Clinton and the Democrat Party see the surplus as own private slush funds--money he can hoard with the shield of false promises, but spends whenever it suits them. I would argue that the American people own the surplus. And it is time to give it back. As we have learned with all too great a frequency in recent years, if we leave the surplus in Washington, supposedly far- sighted bureaucrats will find a way to spend it. For there is no end to the good Washington believes it can do with their brains and our money. This town specializes in spending. I believe it is time for us to make the American people aware of the deceitful and dishonorable efforts to use the budget surplus on mislabeled emergencies and increased spending. I came to Washington 4 years ago to cut taxes and decrease government interference in our lives. I also made a sacred commitment that I would protect and defend the Social Security Trust Fund. I intend, therefore, to oppose any effort to spend the elderly's Social Security checks on overseas deployments or the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and mislabeling those things as ``emergencies'' will not change my commitment or determination. Mr. President, I yield the floor. PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Without losing the floor, I would be happy to yield to the majority whip.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 represents a vitally important piece of legislation to raise awareness of and combat religious persecution overseas. Some would downplay the problem of religious persecution abroad, but preserving religious freedom at home and promoting it in other countries is central to the purpose and objectives of the United States. In our own history as a nation and in the histories of countries around the world, religious freedom has been at the center of movements for broader civil liberty. Efforts to restrict religious freedom strike at the heart of liberty itself. Thus, the United States has a duty to stand for religious liberty abroad as we continue to preserve it at home. If the Administration had been more aggressive in confronting religious persecution, such legislation might not be necessary. In fact, at a White House meeting to discuss one of the major bills on religious persecution, President Clinton told religious leaders that legislation which actually required him to confront persecution abroad would put ``enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on.'' That is a troubling statement by the President of the United States, which not only calls us to question this Administration's commitment to fight religious persecution, but the reliability of other presidential certifications on issues such as Chinese missile and nuclear proliferation. Such statements by Administration officials make it clear why legislation to address religious persecution is needed. Religious persecution is a tragic fact of life in many countries, from Latin America to Asia to Africa. Religious persecution in Sudan and China has been of particular concern to me. As Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I held a hearing on religious persecution in Sudan in September of last year. Religious persecution has become enmeshed in a brutal Sudanese civil war that has taken more than 1.5 million civilians since 1983, with over 4 million more being displaced by the fighting. An estimated 430,000 refugees have fled Sudan to seek safety in neighboring countries. Human rights organizations working in Sudan have testified before Congress that the government uses ``aerial bombardment and burning of villages, arbitrary arrests, torture, chattel slavery--especially child slavery--hostage taking, summary execution, inciting deadly tribal conflict, the abduction and brainwashing of children, the arrest of Christian pastors and lay church workers, and the imprisonment of moderate Muslim religious leaders'' to suppress dissent and form a radical Islamic state. Such barbarous atrocities, along with Sudan's support for international terrorism, has led me to introduce legislation to cut off financial transactions with the Sudanese government. The viciousness of religious persecution in Sudan should not callous us to the very real and brutal oppression taking place in other countries. As Nina Shea notes in The Lion's Den, China has more Christians in prison because of religious activities than any other nation. The State Department's first comprehensive review of persecution against Christians, issued in July 1997 and entitled ``U.S. Policy in Support of Religious Freedom,'' says, ``The Government of China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to government-subsidized religious organizations and registered places of worship.'' China's efforts to restrict religious freedom are driven by oppressive policies which seek to make all religion subservient to the state's secular objectives. In the book China: State Control of Religion, Human Rights Watch states that ``the Chinese government believes that religion breeds disloyalty, separatism, and subversion.'' The book goes on to note: ``Chinese authorities are keenly aware of the role that the church played in Eastern Europe during the disintegration of the Soviet empire.'' Rather than embrace and encourage the free expression of faith, the Chinese government is engaged in a massive, ongoing, and brutal effort to repress non-sanctioned religious activity. Ministers or lay people who seek to practice their faith free from bureaucratic interference and oppression are subjected to imprisonment, torture, and worse. The Far Eastern Economic Review noted that 15,000 religious sites were destroyed by government police in the first five months of 1996 alone. Paul Marshall and Nina Shea note that ``China's underground Christians are the target of what they themselves describe as the most brutal repression since the early 1980s when China was just emerging from the terror of the Cultural Revolution.'' And yet, in spite of such repression by the Chinese Communist government, this Administration declined even to sponsor a resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemning China's human rights record. Apparently, some type of back door deal was made with the Chinese government in which a few prisoners would be released and we would turn our head and close our ears to the thousands that remain in Chinese prisons and labor camps. I am aware of mounting concern in the U.S. business community on the damage done to U.S. competitiveness due to unilateral sanctions. I want U.S. companies to compete and succeed in the international marketplace. The Nickles legislation, however, is a carefully crafted bill which offers the President an array of options to promote religious liberty abroad and will target any resulting sanctions on those countries most deserving of reproach for religious persecution. This legislation is a necessary first step to address the problem of religious persecution. Mr. President, I submit that it is time for the Senate of the United States to take a stand on this issue of religious persecution, and passage of the Nickles legislation offers just such an opportunity. It is also time for the Executive Branch to take a stand on this issue. Rather than look at how we might ``fudge'' legislative requirements to avoid confronting oppression abroad, let us have the courage of our convictions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2281, a bill to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright treaties. I am pleased that the final product of the many months of negotiations has produced a bill of appropriate scope and balance, and reflects many of the priorities I established through the introduction of my own bill to implement the WIPO copyright treaties, to begin updating the Copyright Act for the digital era, and to address the potential problem of on-line servicer liability. First, with respect to ``fair use,'' the conferees adopted an alternative to section 1201(a)(1) that would authorize the Librarian of Congress to selectively waive the prohibition against the act of circumvention to prevent a diminution in the availability to individual users (including institutions) of a particular category of copyrighted materials. As originally proposed by the Administration and adopted by the Senate, this section would have established a flat prohibition on the circumvention of technological protection measures to gain access to works for any purpose, and thus raised the specter of moving our Nation towards a ``pay-per-use'' society. Under the compromise embodied in the conference report, the Librarian of Congress would have authority to address the concerns of libraries, educational institutions, and other information consumers potentially threatened with a denial of access to categories of works in circumstances that otherwise would be lawful today. I trust that the Librarian of Congress will implement this provision in a way that will ensure information consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use privilege to continue to gain access to copyrighted works. Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying the ``no mandate'' provision of the bill. Because the conference report is silent, I thought that I should explain this provision in some detail. As my colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S. 2037 could be interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to design products so as to affirmatively respond to or accommodate technological protection measures that copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying of their works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological protection measure. The amendment reflected my belief that product manufacturers should remain free to design and produce the best, most advanced consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Creative engineers--not risk-averse lawyers--should be principally responsible for product design. As important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called ``black boxes'' and not at legitimate products that have substantial noninfringing uses. As my colleagues know, there had been some concern expressed that the ``so long as'' clause of section 1201(c)(3) made the provision appear to be circular in its logic. In other words, there was concern that the entire provision could be read to provide in essence that manufacturers were not under any design mandate to respond to technological measures, as long as they ``otherwise'' designed their devices to respond to existing technological measures. I never shared that perspective. To eliminate any uncertainty, the House Commerce Committee simply deleted the ``so long as'' clause. As I explained on the floor in September, that change merely confirmed my original conception of the amendment. Now that the conferees have adopted a provision requiring certain analog videocassette recorders to respond to certain existing analog protection measures, the ``so long as'' clause has a meaning that all should agree is logical: Manufacturers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products are not under a design mandate generally, but they are otherwise subject to a single, very limited, and carefully defined mandate to design certain analog videocassette recorders to respond to existing analog protection measures. Quite importantly from my perspective, this provision is limited so as not to impair the reasonable and accustomed home taping practices of consumers recognized in the Supreme Court's Betamax decision. It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in making fundamental design decision or revisions, whether in selecting certain components over others or in choosing particular combinations of parts. Third, I am pleased to see that the conferees have addressed the device ``playability'' problem. As I pointed out in my floor speech just prior to final passage of S. 2037, ``playability'' problems may arise at two levels. Technological measures may cause noticeable and recurring adverse effects on the normal operation of products, and thus adjustments may be necessary at the factory levels to ensure consumers get what they expect. In addition, adjustments to specific products may be necessary after sale to a consumer to maintain their normal, authorized functioning. Subsequently, I was pleased to see that the Commerce Committee's report explicitly reaffirmed my interpretation. I also was pleased that the conferees shared my perspective on encouraging all interested parties to strive to work together through a consultative approach before new technological measures are introduced in the market. As the conferees pointed out, one of the benefits of such consultations is to allow the testing of proposed technologies to determine whether they create playability problems, and to have an opportunity to take steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate such adverse effects before new technologies are introduced. As the conferees recognized, however, persons may choose to implement a new technological measure (or copyright management information system) without vetting it through an inter-industry consultative process, or without regard to the input of the affected parties. Whether introduced unilaterally or developed with the input of experts in the field, a new protection technology coming to market might materially degrade or otherwise cause recurring appreciable adverse effects on the authorized performance or display of works. Given the multiplicity of ways in which devices might be interconnected, some playability problems may not be foreseeable. I was thus pleased that the conference report unambiguously provides that manufacturers and persons servicing popular consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products who make product adjustments solely to mitigate a playability problem--whether or not taken in combination with other lawful product modifications--shall not be deemed to have violated either section 1201(a) or section 1201(b). Having heard directly from a major trade association representing professional servicers, I am pleased we could include such strong language so that they can go about their business without fear of facing crippling liability. Fourth, the conferees adopted specific provisions making it clear that the bill is not intended to prohibit legitimate encryption research or security systems testing. As my colleagues know, Senators Burns, Leahy, and I have lead the effort in the Senate to ensure that U.S. business can develop and export world-class encryption products. by explicitly fashioning an affirmative encryption research defense, the conferees made an important contribution to our overall efforts to ensure that U.S. industry remains at the forefront in developing secure encryption methods. In addition, by including a security system testing amendment, the conferees have confirmed that professional consultants and other well-established, responsible corporate citizens can survey and test IT security systems for vulnerabilities. Finally, the conferees built on my efforts to ensure that this legislation would not harm the efforts of consumers to protect their personal privacy by including two important amendments proposed by the House Commerce Committee. The first amendment would create incentives for website operators to disclose whenever they use technological measures that have the capability to gather personal data, and to give consumers a means of disabling them. The second amendment strengthened section 1202 of this legislation by making explicit that the term ``copyright management information'' does not include ``any personally identifying information about a user of a work or a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a work.'' In my view, these amendments will help preserve the critical balance that we must maintain between the interests of copyright owners and the privacy interests of information users. We should all be gratified that so much has been done to appropriately calibrate the WIPO copyright treaties implementing legislation. Each of us, working alone, would undoubtedly have produced a different bill. But we have a good bill, perhaps one more balanced and limited in scope than might have been thought possible at times throughout the debate. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.