John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills: No. 1, The Protect Our Children Act. This legislation substantially increases the penalties on adults who distribute drugs to minors, who sell drugs in or near schools, and who use minors to distribute drugs. Each of these crimes currently carries a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence. My legislation would raise the mandatory term for each of these crimes to 3 years. The legislation also makes it a crime for an adult to use a minor to commit a violent crime. Adults found guilty of using a minor would be subject to two times the maximum imprisonment and two times the maximum fine for the violent crime itself. We need to make it especially costly for adults who decide to use minors to commit crimes, because they think they can avoid the penalty themselves and because they believe that the minor might not have a substantial liability for punishment. The second bill which I am introducing is the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act. Meth production and trafficking are enormous problems across America, particularly in my home State of Missouri. The Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act equalizes penalties for crack cocaine and meth trafficking by setting a 5-year mandatory term for 5 grams of methamphetamine and a 10-year mandatory sentence for 50 grams. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Drug Czar Responsibility and Accountability Act. It adds to the responsibilities of the drug czar's office the establishment of Federal policies, goals and performance measures, including specific reduction targets. Why is such a measure needed? Consider this: Overall illicit drug use among children age 12 to 17 was 5.3 percent when the President took office. In 1996, it was 9 percent. That is an increase of 70 percent since 1993. Now, the President proposes to cut drug use by 20 percent by the year 2002. In other words, 2 years after the President wants to leave office, he hopes to get teen drug use to only 128 percent of where it was when he took office. I happen to have been a Boy Scout. I think most of us in the Chamber have had some association with scouting. We either hauled kids to the campfires, to the Brownies, or to the Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. The fundamental principle of scouting is you always leave the campground a little better than you found it. Here we have a President who, in terms of teen drug use, wants to set as a goal that there will be 128 percent of the drug use that there was when he came into office, and that goal isn't even supposed to be attained until 2 years after he leaves office. I don't think we will ever achieve greatness in our culture if we don't at least aspire to good things. Our opportunity is to leave the campground better than we found it, not worse than we found it, and certainly not 128 percent worse than we found it. We cannot defer maintenance of the campground until after we are gone. The tradition of America is to provide to the next generation a broader set of opportunities, a brighter set of horizons than we have ever known before. That should not be forgotten when we talk about curtailing the scourge of drugs on our young people. Here we have a President who wants to instruct a drug czar to ratchet the drug problem all the way back to 128 percent of what it was when he started and not to get that done until 2 years after he leaves office. I think it is disgraceful. Mr. President, because of my concern for combating underage drug use, I will also offer an amendment to the tobacco bill when it comes to the Senate floor to make certain the epidemic of underage illegal drug use is addressed in that respect. My amendment will allow States to use tobacco settlement funds for anti-illegal drug and law enforcement purposes, not just teen smoking programs. 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 extend appreciation to Joshua Summers for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Joshua's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Gavin Gilmore for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Gavin's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Mandy Piper for her service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Mandy's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Anne Feygina for her service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Anne's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Nikhil Patel for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Nikhil's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Jenny Behm for her service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Jenny's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect the strength and future growth of the American economy, and to uphold the system of checks and balances that is central to our government. The Clinton Administration's irresponsibility at the Kyoto Summit makes it necessary for Congress to act. On December 11, 1998, this administration agreed to an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. An amendment that clearly did not meet the standards for ratification established by this body in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95- 0. The administration simply ignored the Senate's resolution--thereby ignoring the will of the American people. The resolution was clear and unmistakable it in its criteria. It stated that the administration should not agree to binding emission targets unless developing countries also were bound by the targets and that the administration must not agree to anything that severely damages the economy of the United States. The Kyoto Protocol fails both tests. On the first criteria, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. One hundred and thirty-four developing nations, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, many of whom compete with the United States for trade opportunities, are completely exempt from any obligations or responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. It even goes much further than President Clinton's own bottom line that he personally announced last October pledging would not accept a baseline below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions. He also said there must be ``meaningful participation'' from all developing countries. It is clear that the Protocol fails the second criteria. Numerous independent economic studies predicted serious economic harm even if the administration had held to its position that it enunciated last October. These studies found 2.4 million job losses, significant increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices per gallon, a drop in economic growth rates of more than 1 percent a year, and major American industries being driven out of business or driven out of the United States--industries like steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, chemicals, iron, paper products, and cement. That is why American agriculture, American labor, American business and industry and many consumer groups have all united in opposition to this treaty. Yet, our negotiators in Kyoto--the ones who were supposed to be looking out for the American people--cut a deal that would have had an even more devastating and extreme impact on the U.S. economy and on the lives of the American people. The administration's recent attempt to develop an economic analysis showing ``minimal'' harm to the U.S. economy clearly are flawed. No models, no numbers, no percentages, no economics. It is based on fabrication and vapor, on what Senator Hagel called ``wildly optimistic assumptions'' such as China, India and Mexico agreeing to the binding commitments in this treaty. This is what one observer in Kyoto--the leader on this issue in the United States Senate, along with Senator Byrd--Senator Hagel, had to say about the administration's activities in Kyoto. ``After Vice President Gore came to Kyoto and instructed our negotiators to show `increased flexibility' the doors were thrown open and the objective became very clear. The objective was: Let us get a deal at any cost. The clear advice of the U.S. Senate and the economic well-being of the American people were abandoned under pressure from the U.N. bureaucrats, international environmentalists and the 134 developing countries that were not even included--not even included--in the treaty. The United States of America was the only Nation to come out of these negotiations worse than it came in. In fact, there was no negotiation in Kyoto; there was only surrender.'' From an environmental standpoint, the Kyoto ``deal'' is completely inadequate. The treaty is so flawed that it will do virtually nothing to slow the growth of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Even if one accepts the validity of the science on global warming, which is still uncertain and at best contradictory, this treaty would do nothing to stop any of these emissions. The Kyoto ``deal'' excludes the very developing nations who will be responsible for more than 60 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century. In fact, as more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the Administration in the Kyoto ``deal'' is an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat--``to an exaggerated threat'' that the Vice President himself is caught up in making. Last week, more than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, released a petition they signed urging the United States to reject the Kyoto ``deal.'' The petition, expressly states that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. The administration understands that the Kyoto ``deal'' does not meet these standards because they have made it clear that the President will not send this document to the Senate for ratification. However, not only did the administration ignore the Senate when agreeing to this deal, they are continuing to ignore it even today. A number of my constituents, particularly farmers and small business owners, have come to me with grave concerns over the administration's ``back door'' implementation of the Protocol's requirements. For example, the Administration has requested $6.3 billion in its 1999 budget in order to begin meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. This money would go to a number of federal agencies and departments including the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Agriculture. The administration, in a document relating to electricity restructuring, which was circulating through the Environmental Protection Agency, referenced reducing emission to ``meet our greenhouse gas emission budget under the Kyoto Protocol.'' The memorandum further states that electricity restructuring also should take environmental concerns into account in order to ``deliver on the President's commitments.'' Many federal agencies are in the process of establishing Kyoto implementation offices. The Environmental Protection Agency currently is discussing whether the agency has the power under the Clean Air Act or the Energy Policy Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions--a key emission limited under the Kyoto Protocol. In the news conference after cutting the deal in Kyoto, administration officials seemed to indicate that since the U.S. has ten years to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets established at Kyoto--the administration has ten years to involve the Senate in its activities. Mr. President, the Constitution clearly states that while the Executive Branch has the authority to negotiate international treaties, that only the United States Senate has the authority to ratify such treaties. We cannot allow the Executive Branch to usurp the power of Congress by implementing the treaty--a treaty that will have such a devastating impact on the United States--without the Senate first being ratified by this body. A treaty is the most solemn international obligation that can be entered upon by sovereign people. The sovereignty of the United States was purchased with the blood of patriots, and the Constitution defined the treaty making power with great care. The blood and treasure of our nation may not be placed at hazard by a treaty unless the President and Congress are in agreement. The Framers created this shared power in part because the United States intended to reject utterly the European tradition that invested the monarch with unfettered power to conduct foreign policy--even to the extremity of spending the lives of citizens in wars conducted to satisfy his vanity or dynastic ambition. Under our Constitution, the President may not on his own bind the sovereignty of the United States to the terms of a treaty unless that treaty has been ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The treaty making power, then is not only shared and checked, but ratification must meet the high standard of a two-third vote. The Administration's Kyoto agenda is constitutionally offensive in several respects. First, the President is not to behave like a pre-democratic ruler who makes commitments at will that bind the nation. Second, the Executive branch is proceeding to inflict severe damage on our economy and our people, without deliberation by the Congress. Finally, the Administration is proceeding to impose an unratified--and therefore meaningless--treaty, a treaty so badly flawed that it would, on its face, be rejected by the Senate. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the administration's activities will stop merely because members of the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, or citizens of the United States point out the Constitutional implications. Therefore, today I am offering the Economic Growth and Sovereignty Protection Act. This act simply would prohibit any federal agency from spending federal funds on implementing the treaty until such time that it is ratified by the United States Senate. In addition, since the EPA has raised the issue of whether it has the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, this act would make it clear that no federal agency has such power without the express authority from the Congress. Mr. President, the Constitution cannot be ignored. It established a system of checks and balances which must be preserved and protected. The interests and the sovereignty of this great Nation cannot be ignored. To allow other nations' interests to become more important--to dictate our domestic policy--would be unconscionable. The will of the American people cannot be ignored. To do so would crush the very foundation on which this democracy was established.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect the strength and future growth of the American economy, and to uphold the system of checks and balances that is central to our government. The Clinton Administration's irresponsibility at the Kyoto Summit makes it necessary for Congress to act. On December 11, 1998, this administration agreed to an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. An amendment that clearly did not meet the standards for ratification established by this body in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95- 0. The administration simply ignored the Senate's resolution--thereby ignoring the will of the American people. The resolution was clear and unmistakable it in its criteria. It stated that the administration should not agree to binding emission targets unless developing countries also were bound by the targets and that the administration must not agree to anything that severely damages the economy of the United States. The Kyoto Protocol fails both tests. On the first criteria, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. One hundred and thirty-four developing nations, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, many of whom compete with the United States for trade opportunities, are completely exempt from any obligations or responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. It even goes much further than President Clinton's own bottom line that he personally announced last October pledging would not accept a baseline below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions. He also said there must be ``meaningful participation'' from all developing countries. It is clear that the Protocol fails the second criteria. Numerous independent economic studies predicted serious economic harm even if the administration had held to its position that it enunciated last October. These studies found 2.4 million job losses, significant increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices per gallon, a drop in economic growth rates of more than 1 percent a year, and major American industries being driven out of business or driven out of the United States--industries like steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, chemicals, iron, paper products, and cement. That is why American agriculture, American labor, American business and industry and many consumer groups have all united in opposition to this treaty. Yet, our negotiators in Kyoto--the ones who were supposed to be looking out for the American people--cut a deal that would have had an even more devastating and extreme impact on the U.S. economy and on the lives of the American people. The administration's recent attempt to develop an economic analysis showing ``minimal'' harm to the U.S. economy clearly are flawed. No models, no numbers, no percentages, no economics. It is based on fabrication and vapor, on what Senator Hagel called ``wildly optimistic assumptions'' such as China, India and Mexico agreeing to the binding commitments in this treaty. This is what one observer in Kyoto--the leader on this issue in the United States Senate, along with Senator Byrd--Senator Hagel, had to say about the administration's activities in Kyoto. ``After Vice President Gore came to Kyoto and instructed our negotiators to show `increased flexibility' the doors were thrown open and the objective became very clear. The objective was: Let us get a deal at any cost. The clear advice of the U.S. Senate and the economic well-being of the American people were abandoned under pressure from the U.N. bureaucrats, international environmentalists and the 134 developing countries that were not even included--not even included--in the treaty. The United States of America was the only Nation to come out of these negotiations worse than it came in. In fact, there was no negotiation in Kyoto; there was only surrender.'' From an environmental standpoint, the Kyoto ``deal'' is completely inadequate. The treaty is so flawed that it will do virtually nothing to slow the growth of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Even if one accepts the validity of the science on global warming, which is still uncertain and at best contradictory, this treaty would do nothing to stop any of these emissions. The Kyoto ``deal'' excludes the very developing nations who will be responsible for more than 60 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century. In fact, as more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the Administration in the Kyoto ``deal'' is an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat--``to an exaggerated threat'' that the Vice President himself is caught up in making. Last week, more than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, released a petition they signed urging the United States to reject the Kyoto ``deal.'' The petition, expressly states that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. The administration understands that the Kyoto ``deal'' does not meet these standards because they have made it clear that the President will not send this document to the Senate for ratification. However, not only did the administration ignore the Senate when agreeing to this deal, they are continuing to ignore it even today. A number of my constituents, particularly farmers and small business owners, have come to me with grave concerns over the administration's ``back door'' implementation of the Protocol's requirements. For example, the Administration has requested $6.3 billion in its 1999 budget in order to begin meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. This money would go to a number of federal agencies and departments including the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Agriculture. The administration, in a document relating to electricity restructuring, which was circulating through the Environmental Protection Agency, referenced reducing emission to ``meet our greenhouse gas emission budget under the Kyoto Protocol.'' The memorandum further states that electricity restructuring also should take environmental concerns into account in order to ``deliver on the President's commitments.'' Many federal agencies are in the process of establishing Kyoto implementation offices. The Environmental Protection Agency currently is discussing whether the agency has the power under the Clean Air Act or the Energy Policy Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions--a key emission limited under the Kyoto Protocol. In the news conference after cutting the deal in Kyoto, administration officials seemed to indicate that since the U.S. has ten years to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets established at Kyoto--the administration has ten years to involve the Senate in its activities. Mr. President, the Constitution clearly states that while the Executive Branch has the authority to negotiate international treaties, that only the United States Senate has the authority to ratify such treaties. We cannot allow the Executive Branch to usurp the power of Congress by implementing the treaty--a treaty that will have such a devastating impact on the United States--without the Senate first being ratified by this body. A treaty is the most solemn international obligation that can be entered upon by sovereign people. The sovereignty of the United States was purchased with the blood of patriots, and the Constitution defined the treaty making power with great care. The blood and treasure of our nation may not be placed at hazard by a treaty unless the President and Congress are in agreement. The Framers created this shared power in part because the United States intended to reject utterly the European tradition that invested the monarch with unfettered power to conduct foreign policy--even to the extremity of spending the lives of citizens in wars conducted to satisfy his vanity or dynastic ambition. Under our Constitution, the President may not on his own bind the sovereignty of the United States to the terms of a treaty unless that treaty has been ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The treaty making power, then is not only shared and checked, but ratification must meet the high standard of a two-third vote. The Administration's Kyoto agenda is constitutionally offensive in several respects. First, the President is not to behave like a pre-democratic ruler who makes commitments at will that bind the nation. Second, the Executive branch is proceeding to inflict severe damage on our economy and our people, without deliberation by the Congress. Finally, the Administration is proceeding to impose an unratified--and therefore meaningless--treaty, a treaty so badly flawed that it would, on its face, be rejected by the Senate. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the administration's activities will stop merely because members of the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, or citizens of the United States point out the Constitutional implications. Therefore, today I am offering the Economic Growth and Sovereignty Protection Act. This act simply would prohibit any federal agency from spending federal funds on implementing the treaty until such time that it is ratified by the United States Senate. In addition, since the EPA has raised the issue of whether it has the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, this act would make it clear that no federal agency has such power without the express authority from the Congress. Mr. President, the Constitution cannot be ignored. It established a system of checks and balances which must be preserved and protected. The interests and the sovereignty of this great Nation cannot be ignored. To allow other nations' interests to become more important--to dictate our domestic policy--would be unconscionable. The will of the American people cannot be ignored. To do so would crush the very foundation on which this democracy was established.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Neil Kulkarni for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Neil's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the order of business?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I am pleased to have this opportunity to make some comments about NATO expansion, particularly as it relates to the resolution of ratification for protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty. As was evident earlier, I had an amendment which was designed to challenge a transformation of NATO that would take place as a result of the resolution of ratification which would essentially expand the scope of NATO. I would refer Members of the Senate to the New York Times of last Friday, April 24. The editorial is identified as ``The Senate's Duty on NATO.'' It reads as follows: The ratification resolution promiscuously opens the door to NATO military actions almost anywhere in the world. That startling expansion of NATO's license to conduct military operations demands extensive debate. Here you have the New York Times drawing attention to this expansion of NATO's scope and mission. It says that the mission of NATO is being--in the words of the New York Times--changed when the resolution ``promiscuously opens the door to NATO military actions almost anywhere in the world.'' To change the nature of a treaty promiscuously, as the New York Times suggests, without asking the Senate to ratify the change, is a dangerous and troubling precedent. It is inappropriate. I have raised this issue of NATO's broadened mission throughout the debate on NATO expansion. I raised it before this New York Times editorial was published, but I am very pleased that they would draw attention to this ``startling expansion of NATO's license to conduct military operations.'' I don't think you can expand a treaty's license to conduct military operations without consulting the Senate and obtaining this body's advice and consent. The New York Times stated this issue demands extensive debate. I proposed that we debate it, and I proposed that we curtail this expansive extension of the ability of the NATO alliance to be involved in military operations around the world, regardless of whether they are related to NATO's collective defense mission. Frankly, I am very disappointed that the Members of the Senate have not engaged in extensive debate in this area--an area in which the Senate has been largely ignored by an administration which seeks to transform NATO into an entirely new organization. Treaty creep is what is occurring and NATO is being altered from a defense of territory organization to a defense of interest organization. The interests of NATO nations can be pursued around the globe, with international deployments of NATO forces not necessarily for the defense of NATO territorial integrity or political independence. The New York Times properly says this expansion of NATO's scope demands extensive debate. I am sorry to say that the Senate decided to walk away from its obligation to oversee the ratification of this fundamental change in the treaty. By tabling the amendment, the Senate has failed to address an issue of fundamental importance for the future strength of NATO and the security of the United States. It is not every day that I agree with the New York Times, but I think the article is insightful and clear on this point. I would like to take just a few minutes--and I will use some of these charts--to indicate the missed opportunity of the Senate to look carefully at what is happening to the mission of NATO. I intend to vote against the ratification of this treaty, if for no other reason than the promiscuous expansion of NATO's mission endorsed in this resolution of ratification. This shift from a defense of territory to a defense of interests is a tremendous question that must be addressed with regard to the future of NATO. Let me just refer the Senate to the statement of William Perry, the immediate past U.S. Secretary of Defense. He was one of the architects of the treaty expansion that is before us. Here is what he says: The original mission of NATO--deterring an attack from the Soviet Union--is obviously no longer relevant. Then he goes on. The original geographical area of NATO responsibility is no longer sufficient. The original military structure of NATO is no longer appropriate. . . . The new missions of NATO-- You know, this debate hasn't been about new missions. This debate has been about three new countries. But here the architect of the expansion said: The new missions of NATO should be preventive defense-- creating the conditions for peace in Europe . . . the geographical area of NATO interests should be anywhere in the world . . . . That means the ambit of deployment, the arena for the deployment of NATO troops, including young men and women from the United States, is anywhere in the world. I think before we make that kind of change, we ought to think very carefully. No wonder the New York Times says, ``That startling expansion of NATO's license to conduct military operations demands extensive debate.'' I shudder to think that we consider tabling ``the most extensive debate.'' But here is what the Secretary of State had to say. Secretary Albright, according to the Washington Post: . . . also has urged that an expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . . must extend its geographic reach beyond the European Continent and evolve into a `force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa.' All of us want to see peace around the world. We all want peace in the Middle East. We all want peace in central Africa. But if we allow a treaty to evolve through treaty creep, letting it expand on its own rather than having a real discussion on the role and responsibility of the United States and NATO and its proposed new missions of serving as a force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa, then we are not fulfilling our responsibility as members of this body. It is sad that the Senate of the United States decided to turn its back from that kind of discussion and decided that it would table that debate. This is a serious matter, whether we are going to be sending young men and women of the United States of America to perhaps stain the soil of Africa under some NATO mission, perhaps an international policing operation not envisaged in the NATO treaty. Such operations were never before thought to be within NATO's scope, because the alliance was explicitly for the defense of territory. Now, by expansion of NATO's mission through press release and speech, the Secretary of State says we are going to be involved in central Africa and the Middle East in ways we had not ever anticipated. This treaty is changing in fundamental ways. If we allow NATO's expanded mission to be achieved through the unilateral press release, statement, and policy of this administration, what is the value of the U.S. Senate in giving its advice and consent to treaties? If the Senate does not fulfill its role, perhaps it would just take a single treaty that any administration then could evolve into whatever it chose. I think we ought to think seriously about allowing an organization, the most successful military collective defense organization in the history of the world, to be simply evolved into something for which it was never intended. Just to make it clear that it was never intended, let me refer you to the statement of Senator Tom Connally. Tom Connally is not one of our contemporaries but was a Senator, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the year 1949, when the NATO alliance first came into existence. Here is what Tom Connally said: ``Let us not forget''-- awesome words, because I think we are in the process of forgetting-- ``that this treaty is limited in scope.'' It was to be limited to North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states. Now we are talking about anywhere in the world. We are talking about beyond Europe to central Africa. This treaty is limited in scope. [I quote again Senator Connally.] Its main purpose is to maintain the peace and security of the North Atlantic area. We do not propose to stretch its terms to cover the entire globe. The elasticity of stretched treaties has reached new limits, or perhaps has found no limits in what we are willing to do here today. The suggestion of the New York Times that this kind of expansion, this promiscuous opening of the door to military deployments around the world, doesn't merit discussion at all, it merited tabling--this is a sad day. A global NATO? That is not what Tom Connally thought we had. As a matter of fact, NATO's first strategic concepts really focused on two things, ``Defense planning limited to the defense of the treaty area,'' and, ``NATO military authorities have no responsibilities or authority except with respect to incidents which are covered by articles V and VI of the North Atlantic Treaty.'' It was a defense of area treaty. It wasn't to be an alliance the troops of which could be deployed like a mini-United Nations, with a standing army, to the hot spots around the globe for so-called international policing or so- called peacekeeping. It was to be something that defended the NATO nations. And to change this essential mission for NATO, I contend, should come before the Senate for its advice and consent. However, these strategic concepts of the past have been superseded by the Strategic Concept of 1991. Here, instead of having the defense of territory as being primary, we find ``to provide one of the indispensable foundations for a stable security environment in Europe''--all of Europe this time, not just the NATO nations--``in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any European Nation.'' This is treaty creep. We have gone from the member nations of NATO to the European Continent as a whole to ``stop intimidation'' and ``coercion''. The first priority in the 1991 Strategic Concept is to expand beyond the member nations of NATO. Talk about the latitude to deploy troops throughout Europe, and we have seen out-of-area deployments become the primary focus of the NATO alliance. No. 2, ``to serve as provided for in article IV of the North Atlantic Treaty, as a transatlantic forum for allied consultations on any issues that affect their vital interests.'' Oh, no, we have moved from defense of territory and the defense of the political integrity of member nations to the defense of vital interests. I suppose ``vital interests'' could include trade interests or interests in humanitarian concerns or interests in cultural exchanges. We find ourselves with a real potential for the expansion of the scope of this treaty. All of a sudden, the collective defense of the territory of the NATO nations is no longer the prime task, according to the Strategic Concepts of 1991. Where do we find the collective defense? We find them down in 3 and 4. They have been placed at the bottom of the list. There is a new agenda for NATO nations. Not the defense of territory, it is the defense of ``vital interests.'' No wonder they are talking about deploying troops in Africa in international policing operations. No wonder Secretary Perry talked about deploying troops around the globe. The NATO nations could have commercial interests and trade interests around the world. Some would say this expansion of mission is an appropriate thing. I think when the New York Times said this demands extensive debate, they weren't ruling out such an expansion of mission out of hand. I don't think setting NATO on a course to become a mini-U.N. with a standing army is a good thing, and, as the New York Times points out, we should at least have an extensive debate before NATO takes this step. When the time came this evening to look carefully at this, we found the Senate saying, ``We'll table it; we won't consider it.'' As we all know here, a motion to table cuts off debate. It doesn't provide for debate. Let me just say, when the treaty was entered into, it was pretty clear what territory was covered. Article VI defined the territory that was to be defended: Any of the parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey, or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Sounds like the legal description of a deed to the house. It is specific; it is particular. It doesn't say you deploy resources all around the globe to protect interests. It says that resources are to be used to defend territory. We have seen this change, and it is reflected over and over again. The point that I am making is that when you change the nature of a treaty, you have a responsibility, at least as members of the United States Senate, to do so carefully. We didn't even have debate on this amendment today. We simply had a motion to table the amendment in haste to move on to other things. Here is what happens when you cut defense and you start thinking about global deployments. One of the things I fear is that the same problem that has attended the deployment of our own Armed Forces around the world in peacekeeping and policing operations could happen to NATO. And you know, our Armed Forces are threatened because we have a tremendous willingness in the administration to deploy, but not much willingness to fund. We cut the funding and cut the funding and cut the funding, and we keep sending more troops to different places. As this administration has slashed defense spending, one wonders whether the resource that is devoted to the military and defense of this country is being impaired. I am confident that there are instances where it is. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic comprise 301,000 new square miles of territory to be defended; 2,612 miles of new borders to be defended. And yet, our total national defense spending fell by 27 percent over the last 8 years. And we are going to take on a substantial new commitment. Our share of whatever happens in NATO has always been about 25 percent. We are going to have that kind of an increase in commitment while we are having this kind of plummeting devotion of resources to our own military spending. Additionally, we have spent money in a lot of different ways in these out-of-area deployments for our own Armed Forces. Outside normal training and alliance commitments, the Army conducted 10 operational events between 1960 and 1991. Ten times we deployed troops in that 31- year period, and that is when we had a significant devotion of resources to support the troops. Since 1991, we have been cutting our resources to the troops substantially. And what have we done while we have been cutting their supplies? We have been sending them out at an alarmingly higher rate. We had 10 deployments in 31 years, and then in the next 7 years, we have had 26 deployments. That is a formula for difficulty, and if that is the way we are going to treat NATO, by having increasing deployments based on the interest of the parties, not to defend the strategic territories of the parties, but to just sort of defend their vital interests, be they in Africa, Asia or the Middle East or somewhere else, then the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is North Atlantic in name only. If we begin to deploy NATO forces without reference to the alliance's mission, we could hollow out this most successful defense organization ever in the history of mankind. We could hollow it out so it loses its effectiveness. Our Marine Corps conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989 and 62 since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This business of deploying people all around the world is serious, and if we are going to do that with NATO, we are going to see some of the same challenges that we have seen in our own operations, because we are having trouble with maintaining our armed forces. Our fleets are getting old, and we are having trouble with reenlistments because we don't have the resources. The same kind of problems besetting our own military also could beset the NATO alliance. The point I am making is simply this: If you are going to change the mission of NATO, if you are going to change it from defending territory, which is identified and understandable, located and clearly marked, and you are going to start making NATO into an organization the troops of which can be sent anywhere, anywhere in the world in the defense of ``the interests,'' we may well threaten the viability of NATO itself. Let me just conclude by making this statement: We talk about NATO troops as if they are individuals who are strangers. Well, NATO troops include folks from the United States of America. They include our sons and our daughters, our brothers and sisters, our nephews and nieces. I don't think we should embark upon a program of substantial change in the responsibility and duty of those troops without considering it very, very carefully. To switch from defending the territory of the NATO nations to defending interests potentially around the globe is to make a major change that merits the close scrutiny and extensive debate that this Senate should and could provide but which it declined to provide when this amendment was tabled. However, these strategic concepts of the past have been superseded by the Strategic Concept of 1991. Here, instead of having the defense of territory as being primary, we find ``to provide one of the indispensable foundations for a stable security environment in Europe''--all of Europe this time, not just the NATO nations--``in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any European Nation.'' This is treaty creep. We have gone from the member nations of NATO to the European Continent as a whole to stop intimidation and coercion. The first priority in the 1991 Strategic Concept is to expand beyond the member nations of NATO. Talk about the latitude to deploy troops throughout Europe, and we have seen out-of-area deployments become the primary focus of the NATO alliance. No. 2, ``to serve as provided for in article IV of the North Atlantic Treaty, as a transatlantic forum for allied consultations on any issues that affect their vital interests.'' Oh, no, we have moved from defense of territory and the defense of the political integrity of member nations to the defense of vital interests. I suppose ``vital interests'' could include trade interests or interests in humanitarian concerns or interests in cultural exchanges. We find ourselves with a real potential for the expansion of the scope of this treaty. All of a sudden, the collective defense of the territory of the NATO nations is no longer the prime task, according to the Strategic Concepts of 1991. Where do we find the collective defense? We find them down in 3 and 4. They have been placed at the bottom of the list. There is a new agenda for NATO nations. Not the defense of territory, it is the defense of ``vital interests.'' No wonder they are talking about deploying troops in Africa in international policing operations. No wonder Secretary Perry talked about deploying troops around the globe. The NATO nations could have commercial interests and trade interests around the world. Some would say this expansion of mission is an appropriate thing. I think when the New York Times said this demands extensive debate, they weren't ruling out such an expansion of mission out of hand. I don't think setting NATO on a course to become a mini-UN with a standing army is a good thing, and, as the New York Times points out, we should at least have an extensive debate before NATO takes this step. When the time came this evening to look carefully at this, we found the Senate saying, ``We'll table it; we won't consider it.'' As we all know here, a motion to table cuts off debate. It doesn't provide for debate. Let me just say, when the treaty was entered into, it was pretty clear what territory was covered. Article VI defined the territory that was to be defended: Any of the parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey, or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Sounds like the legal description of a deed to the house. It is specific; it is particular. It doesn't say you deploy resources all around the globe to protect interests. It says that resources are to be used to defend territory. We have seen this change, and it is reflected over and over again. The point that I am making is that when you change the nature of a treaty, you have a responsibility, at least as members of the United States Senate, to do so carefully. We didn't even have debate on this amendment today. We simply had a motion to table the amendment in haste to move on to other things. Here is what happens when you cut defense and you start thinking about global deployments. One of the things I fear is that the same problem that has attended the deployment of our own Armed Forces around the world in peacekeeping and policing operations could happen to NATO. And you know, our Armed Forces are threatened because we have a tremendous willingness in the administration to deploy, but not much willingness to fund. We cut the funding and cut the funding and cut the funding, and we keep sending more troops to different places. As this administration has slashed defense spending, one wonders whether the resource that is devoted to the military and defense of this country is being impaired. I am confident that there are instances where it is. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic comprise 301,000 new square miles of territory to be defended; 2,612 miles of new borders to be defended. And yet, our total national defense spending fell by 27 percent over the last 8 years. And we are going to take on a substantial new commitment. Our share of whatever happens in NATO has always been about 25 percent. We are going to have that kind of an increase in commitment while we are having this kind of plummeting devotion of resources to our own military spending. Additionally, we have spent money in a lot of different ways in these out-of-area deployments for our own Armed Forces. Outside normal training and alliance commitments, the Army conducted 10 operational events between 1960 and 1991. Ten times we deployed troops in that 31- year period, and that is when we had a significant devotion of resources to support the troops. Since 1991, we have been cutting our resources to the troops substantially. And what have we done while we have been cutting their supplies? We have been sending them out at an alarmingly higher rate. We had 10 deployments in 31 years, and then in the next 7 years, we have had 26 deployments. That is a formula for difficulty, and if that is the way we are going to treat NATO, by having increasing deployments based on the interest of the parties, not to defend the strategic territories of the parties, but to just sort of defend their vital interests, be they in Africa, Asia or the Middle East or somewhere else, then the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is North Atlantic in name only. If we begin to deploy NATO forces without reference to the alliance's mission, we could hollow out this most successful defense organization ever in the history of mankind. We could hollow it out so it loses its effectiveness. Our Marine Corps conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989 and 62 since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This business of deploying people all around the world is serious, and if we are going to do that with NATO, we are going to see some of the same challenges that we have seen in our own operations, because we are having trouble with maintaining our armed forces. Our fleets are getting old, and we are having trouble with reenlistments because we don't have the resources. The same kind of problems besetting our own military also could beset the NATO alliance. The point I am making is simply this: If you are going to change the mission of NATO, if you are going to change it from defending territory, which is identified and understandable, located and clearly marked, and you are going to start making NATO into an organization the troops of which can be sent anywhere, anywhere in the world in the defense of ``the interests,'' we may well threaten the viability of NATO itself. Let me just conclude by making this statement: We talk about NATO troops as if they are individuals who are strangers. Well, NATO troops include folks from the United States of America. They include our sons and our daughters, our brothers and sisters, our nephews and nieces. I don't think we should embark upon a program of substantial change in the responsibility and duty of those troops without considering it very, very carefully. To switch from defending the territory of the NATO nations to defending interests potentially around the globe is to make a major change that merits the close scrutiny and extensive debate that this Senate should and could provide but which it declined to provide when this amendment was tabled. Absent that kind of consideration, I find it very, very difficult to say that we should expand an alliance whose purpose is not clear. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity, and I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Scott Borger for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Scott's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Bethany Cooper for her service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made a pledge of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. We also dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Bethany's contribution to our effort to fulfill this pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank a number of individuals for their willingness to cosponsor the amendment, not the least of which is the individual inhabiting the Chair at this time, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, Senator Helms, Senator Warner, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Faircloth, and Senator Bond. I am pleased they would support this effort. I indicate that this amendment, which is to reinforce the original intent of the treaty to protect the security, the political independence, and territorial integrity of these treaty nations, is what has been and will continue to be a part of our commitment in NATO, and that is reflected in the amendment. We have the former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, saying there should be a global mission for NATO. We have Secretary Albright saying we should expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a ``force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa.'' We have witnessed what happens when our soldiers are involved in so- called peacekeeping organizations and operations in Africa. Not too long ago in Somalia, 18 Americans died in a peacekeeping effort. Frankly, the tragedy in Somalia disrupted our foreign policy in Africa for years, and we lost 18 Americans in the process. We have little to show for it. As we noted just 2 weeks ago, one American, a part of a humanitarian team to Somalia, was taken hostage within this last month. We withdrew from Somalia, the warlords are back in business there, and we have not made the kind of progress we ought to make. I think the first thing to say is that there was a purpose for NATO. It was manifestly successful, the most successful military alliance ever, and it saved Americans from having to spend their lives in Europe in defense of freedom. The success of NATO is incontrovertible. The second point I make, those now asking for an amendment to the treaty are asking to change it from what it was, a treaty to defend the territory of NATO nations, into a ``global organization,'' according to William Perry and to become ``a force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa,'' according to Secretary of State Albright. Now, just to make it clear that these proposals are a dramatic change from the intention and character of NATO, let me just quote Tom Connally, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at the time of NATO's establishment. ``Let us not forget that this treaty is limited in scope.'' Doesn't sound very global. ``Its main purpose is to maintain the peace and security of the North Atlantic area.'' Doesn't sound much like Middle East and central Africa. ``We do not propose to stretch its terms to cover the entire globe.'' Now it is not impossible to change a treaty, but if this treaty is to be changed it ought to be changed through the appropriate constitutional processes in which the Senate plays a central role in offering its advice and consent. Tragically, the focus of all our attention is on three countries to be added to the NATO alliance. But it has not been on this new mission. It has not been on this attempt, this aspiration, to convert the treaty from one which defends the territory of NATO nations to a treaty which would, in fact, attempt to be a force for peace across the Middle East and into central Africa. This responsibility and this problem has not gone unnoticed. In last week's New York Times, an editorial reads as follows: ``The White House has provided no military rationale for expanding NATO eastward while Europe is at peace and democracy and free markets are taking root in Russia. Instead, the ratification resolution promiscuously opens the door to NATO military actions almost anywhere in the world. That startling expansion of NATO's license to conduct military operations demands extensive debate.'' That is the New York Times recognizing what so many in the Senate have failed to recognize, that we are not just dealing with this treaty in terms of three additional members. We are dealing with an intended expansion that would take NATO from a limited treaty designed to protect a specific territory into a global organization; if you will, a United Nations called NATO, with a standing army subject to deployment at the authorization of the NATO council around the world. I think that deserves debate. I think it deserves our inspection. I think there are reasons why we should have real reservations with regard to the transformation of a treaty before our eyes. Now, some have argued that my amendment will impose new constraints on NATO not contained in the treaty. Let me make it clear that the amendment which I have sent to the desk merely asks that the President certify that any action taken under the treaty is in strict conformance with the limitations and language of the treaty itself. Those who oppose this treaty are those who are opposed to living by the rules of the treaty. Let those who are willing to live within the limits of the treaty sign the rules and play the game. Let those who do not want to play by the rules object to this amendment and say we want the President to have latitude to go beyond the limits of this treaty, to send American forces, in conjunction with NATO forces, into central Africa, to send them into the Middle East in operations outside the scope of the treaty, to deploy American lives in settings where it is an international policing operation, in settings where it is not relevant or essential to the security interests of NATO. Given the level of international trade that exists, it is pretty easy to understand that there would be those who would suggest that any country, anywhere, could be an interest of another country. If we are going to convert this treaty to a defense-of-interest treaty instead of a defense-of-territory treaty, we are fundamentally altering the scope of NATO. Now, the parameters of the treaty have long been understood. I have just indicated that Senator Tom Connally understood the alliance was limited in scope. A focused and limited NATO was the alliance that was ratified. This expanded scope of NATO has never been subject to the Senate's advice and consent. Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson also defined the limits of the NATO treaty in a letter transmitting the treaty to President Truman, a great Missourian. Secretary Acheson acknowledges the parameters of the treaty and stated flatly that the North Atlantic Council will have ``No powers other than to consider matters within the purview of the treaty.'' If Acheson viewed the treaty as limitless in scope, why would he testify about the careful limits in various articles? The Foreign Relations Committee, in its report on the treaty, took pains to show that NATO was not an old-fashioned military alliance. The report states, ``In both intent and language it is purely defensive in nature. It comes into operation only against the Nation which by its own action has proved itself an international criminal by attacking a party to the treaty. If it can be called an alliance, it is an alliance only against war itself.'' This was the intention. I don't think we are going to find central African states attacking NATO. I don't think we will find countries from central Africa launching a war machine against the North Atlantic nations. But the Secretary of State wants to be able to deploy NATO forces there in her concept of a force for peace, and I translate that into deploying American troops. The President has sought and asserted his right to deploy American forces as Commander in Chief. This amendment does not seek to infringe on that right. It has to do with protecting American interests by maintaining the scope and integrity of NATO. I don't think we should try to convert the NATO alliance into something it was never intended to be. With that in mind, there is a real contrast in terms of what the NATO concept of defense was in the past and what we are currently being told NATO ought to be. In NATO's strategic concepts of the past, collective defense was of paramount importance, a priority. NATO defense planning is limited to the defense of the treaty area. . . NATO military authorities have no responsibilities or authority except with respect to incidents which are covered by articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. . . Article VI specifies the territory rather directly and comprehensively and tells you what we are really looking at when we are talking about NATO. Here is article VI of the treaty. This is how definite and specific it is: For the purpose of article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian departments of France, on the territory of Turkey, or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. . . That doesn't sound like central Africa to me. It has the specificity and particularity of a carefully drafted treaty that was designed to protect territories, not to be another mini-U.N. with a standing army, the forces of which can be deployed anywhere around the world. The lives of Americans and the treasure of America should not be directed into international policing operations through a transformed NATO never approved by the American people. We should remain true to the North Atlantic Treaty. The article goes on: On the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories, or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the treaty entered into force, or the Mediterranean Sea, or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Article VI clearly specifies that NATO is a defensive instrument, an alliance designed to protect the territory. To convert it into something else more or less than that is to involve ourselves in what I would have to say is ``treaty creep.'' We have heard of ``mission creep.'' We know what happened in Somalia as the mission expanded, which threatened the lives and safety of our soldiers. We lost lives because we undermined our preparedness; we hadn't planned or designed the operation for that into which it evolved. I suggest that if we allow NATO to creep into a wide variety of international policing operations that it wasn't designed for, it will undermine and hollow out NATO. We have seen what international deployments have done to our own military in terms of our preparedness, our maintenance, and our ability to have the fighting force ready that we need. I think it would be perilous indeed if we were to change the nature of this important defensive alliance and amend it in a way that would make it a global police operation instead of the defense of territory that it was designed to be. So, Mr. President, I have submitted this amendment. I am delighted to have as a cosponsor of this amendment the Senator from Kansas, and I know he wants to make remarks. I have about 10 minutes remaining in my time. Senator Grams would like to be listed also as an original cosponsor of this amendment. I am delighted, and I know the Senator from Kansas will welcome his cosponsorship as well. I thank the Senator from Kansas. I look forward to his remarks, which will exhaust the last 10 minutes of the time to which I have been allotted.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to comment on an important aspect of this great Nation's efforts to defend freedom generally, and in this specific instance, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Senate is being asked to give its stamp of approval to a new NATO, not only changing in membership, but changing in its scope and purpose. The focus of the change in NATO upon which we are being given this opportunity to vote is the expansion of the membership of NATO. But I would submit that there is something far more important than simply this change in the numerics of NATO, simply this change in the number of nations that are members of the alliance. There is an alteration of NATO more profound than the expansion of its membership, and the Senate should not overlook this crucial aspect of the debate. Let me just say that I believe NATO has been one of the most successful defense organizations in the history of mankind. NATO has been an agency to preserve the peace and has done that so successfully that we have not had to offer American lives on European soil in the second half of the 20th century. That is in stark contrast to the first half of the 20th century where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought for freedom and hundreds of thousands gave their last full measure of devotion in liberty's defense. I think the success of NATO, though, is something that should be respected by preserving NATO and not changing the character of the alliance. And, to be frank, since the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists, a number of officials associated with NATO have come to the conclusion that this laudable organization, this most successful of all alliances, should be devoted to new ends and new objectives. I submit that if we allow, in this vote, the devotion of NATO's resources to new objectives and to new ideas, we will be undermining the very success and purpose for which NATO was constituted 50 years ago. Let us just look at some of the statements of administration officials as they convey what they propose for the scope and mission of NATO in the future. Here is William Perry, the immediate past former U.S. Secretary of Defense, who left office recently and was replaced in that office by one of our own, former Senator Cohen, now Secretary Cohen. This is testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 19, 1998. Of course, it was Secretary Perry who was a part of negotiating this expansion of NATO, which we will vote on in the Senate. Here is what Secretary Perry says: The original mission of NATO--deterring an attack from the Soviet Union--is obviously no longer relevant. The original geographical area of NATO responsibility is no longer sufficient. The original military structure of NATO is no longer appropriate. . .the new missions-- This is important language-- new missions of NATO should be preventive defense--creating the conditions for peace in Europe. . .the geographical area of NATO interests should be anywhere in the world-- This is operative language here. The geographic area of NATO should no longer be confined to the North Atlantic area. If you will read article VI of the treaty, we get into a very clear specification of territory, and it is exacting. It talks about latitudes and longitudes and the like. Here Secretary Perry reveals what the real agenda is, that we would create a new geographic area for NATO and it would be ``anywhere in the world where aggression can threaten the security of NATO members. . .'' Secretary Albright has also urged that ``an expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization must extend its geographic reach beyond the European continent and evolve''--key word, evolve-- ``into a force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa.'' We are changing the mission of NATO from a mission which was designed to protect the territory of the member nations to being some kind of international policing operation. With that in mind, it is my intention to send to the desk an amendment which would require that the President certify that actions by NATO are in keeping with the terms of the treaty itself. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will yield.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Lloyd Pelfrey for his service to Central Christian College of the Bible in Moberly, Missouri. Mr. Pelfrey, an ordained minister of the Christian Church since 1953, will retire as President of the college on May 8, 1998. President Pelfrey's service to Central Christian College started when the school opened in September 1957. He has worn many hats during his tenure at the school, serving as: the President of the college, the Acting President, the Executive President, the Dean of Faculty, the Academic Dean, and a Professor of Old Testament. On April 6, 1973, Mr. Pelfrey became the fourth President of Central Christian College. He has held this esteemed position longer than any other president of the college. Under President Pelfrey's leadership many exciting transformations have occurred at the college. He oversaw the completion in the construction of the Memorial building. Central Christian College received accreditation with the Accrediting Association of Bible College under President Pelfrey's administration. He also contributed to an increase in the college's endowment. I wish President Pelfrey all the best and thank him for his service to the community of Central Christian College of the Bible. May God bless him and protect him in his future endeavors.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am happy to have this opportunity to rise and discuss some of the ramifications of the proposed expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A number of issues have received attention, and it is appropriate that we focus on those issues and give them very, very close scrutiny. The cost of enlargement, for instance, deserves our attention; the political and strategic benefits or deficits that of new NATO members deserves our attention; and finally, the effect of NATO expansion on the relationship of the United States with the Soviet Union deserve the Senate's full attention. But while all these issues are important, I think in some respects they divert inquiry into a fundamental issue regarding NATO's future, and that is, ``What is the purpose of the organization?'' Is the purpose of the organization being altered inappropriately? Is it being transitioned away from that for which it was initially called into existence? The expansion of NATO and the question about whether it should or should not be expanded is significant. But defining the purpose of the organization is even more significant. I just might, in an aside here, mention that I am not sure we can redefine NATO. One of the most serious questions I raise is, Is it possible for NATO to be redefined without the redefinition being subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate? If a treaty, once it is enacted and ratified by the United States, could then be changed without the U.S. Senate again offering its advice and consent, we would never need but to enter into one or two treaties, and then, subsequently, administrations could transfer, transition, enlarge, subtract, or shrink the treaty in accordance with the particular foreign policy strategy of the moment. A treaty's purpose might be distorted from defense to trade, or otherwise changed, if it is possible to change a treaty without being subject again to the Senate' advice and consent. Now, we obviously find ourselves, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, looking at a treaty designed to protect the member states from a hostile foreign invasion. The Soviet Union no longer exists. There are nations that were a part of the Soviet Union that now exist, but we find ourselves with a significantly different configuration of forces and challenges to the United States. Challenges to the member states of NATO are different than they were when the treaty was called into existence in 1949. So I think it is important now for the U.S. Senate--which is, if you will, the quality control organization as it relates to U.S. treaties-- to ensure that U.S. treaty commitments are not expanded inappropriately and the American people are not subjected to obligations that have not been approved through the proper constitutional processes. The U.S. Senate has a role of assessing the quality of treaties as they proceed through the Senate before the Senate's imprimatur of approval is given. Here we stand at this moment in time debating perhaps the most successful collective defense organization in the history of the world, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO still stands, although the specific threat for which it was created has disappeared for the time being. We have to ask ourselves at this juncture, ``What is the purpose of the treaty?'' Would some try to change the purpose of the treaty? Is it appropriate or possible to change the treaty, without amending the treaty, just by beginning to lean everyone in one direction, to turn the treaty to one side or another, or begin to assert that there are new things to be considered because the treaty is evolving? I have to say to you, Mr. President, I don't believe in treaty evolution anymore than I believe in the evolution of the Constitution. If you could just evolve treaties, as I said, U.S. treaty commitments would seldom have to be brought before the Senate. In this case, NATO would be evolving and going on its way, entangling this country with potentially serious obligations which place in jeopardy the lives and fortunes of those who serve in our armed forces and those who support the military. I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow treaties to simply evolve. It is interesting to me that as we work to address where NATO is and the purpose of the organization, that we be clear about what it is supposed to do. What is interesting to me is that there is a group of individuals who now say that NATO is totally different than the organization created in 1949. I want to call attention to this idea that NATO, which was once designed to protect individuals in the North Atlantic area, is now, according to a number of people, becoming an organization with a global scope. Expanding the scope of NATO has serious ramifications: if the responsibility of NATO is no longer confined to specific territory, but now is global in nature, the kinds of required military devices, the kinds of technology, the kinds of cooperation, and the expenses are going to be massively different. Here is what the immediate past U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Perry, said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the 19th day of March of this year: The original mission of NATO--deterring an attack from the Soviet Union--is obviously no longer relevant. Well, I would say the Soviet Union might be reconstituted, or there certainly might be a threat, but we will give him that much. The original geographical area of NATO responsibility is no longer sufficient'', Mr. Perry continues. Sufficient for what? It is sufficient for the people who live in that area. NATO helps secure the homes and livelihoods of people in the North Atlantic area. Mr. Perry states, The original military structure of NATO is no longer appropriate. We are going from a military alliance to something else. He says: The new missions-- I am taken aback. ``New missions''? How can a treaty organization ratified by the U.S. Senate, in place for 50 years, all of a sudden have new missions, new purposes? Mr. Perry continues, ``The new missions of NATO should be preventive defense--creating the conditions for peace in Europe.'' Mr. Perry refers to Europe--not NATO member nations. There are a number of nonmember nations in the European area. All of a sudden, we are expanding beyond the concept of a group of individual countries who have agreed to defend themselves to the projection of a peace guarantee on an entire continent. Mr. Perry continues, ``The geographical area of NATO interests should be anywhere in the world * * *'' Mr. President, that is a substantial change. That is a significant departure. This is not the traditional understanding of NATO. This is not in the language of the original treaty. This is an effort to make NATO a worldwide organization. ``* * * anywhere in the world where aggression can threaten the security of NATO members.'' I wish to emphasize that we need to be very careful about anybody who threatens the security of NATO members. But what does this administration mean when it makes statements endorsing a global NATO? We don't have to rely on the former U.S. Secretary of Defense for guidance on that question. We can go to the current Secretary of State. According to the Washington Post, Secretary Albright ``also has urged that an expanding national North Atlantic Treaty Organization must extend its geographic reach beyond the European continent and evolve into a `force for peace from the Middle East to Central Africa.' '' I think it is only fair that we go beyond focusing on three new members in Eastern Europe. If a new mission is really what we are talking about, if this is what the intention is, the change here is far more than adding three new countries. The transformation is a shift from the defense of territory--specified and outlined with clear boundaries--to an organization whose impact will be worldwide. According to the Secretary of State NATO should be a ``* * * force for peace from the Middle East to central Africa.'' If what the Senate is really considering here is the transformation of NATO's mission, then I think it requires us to ask, ``Is this what was intended when this NATO agreement came into existence? Was it designed to have this kind of elasticity? Was it designed to evolve, as an ameba does, changing shape with different circumstances to fill any void? Not according to the folks who presided in the U.S. Senate in 1949 when this great treaty organization was ratified. Listen to the words of Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time: ``Let us not forget that this treaty is limited in scope. Its main purpose is to maintain the peace and security of the North Atlantic area. We do not propose to stretch its terms to cover the entire globe.'' It is interesting to consider these comments by Senators from the past. ``We do not propose to stretch its terms to cover the entire globe'', stated Senator Connally. His statement offers a striking contrast to the language of a globalist NATO offered by officials from this administration. This administration is now supporting the expansion of NATO to three new members, but is also presiding over an incredibly significant transition in the scope and shape of the organization itself. In NATO, the United States was making a calibrated commitment. We joined NATO and considered the possible deployment of U.S. forces with the utmost caution. In 1949, our Congress was not about to deploy U.S. forces willy-nilly around the world. The collective defense mission of NATO was defined explicitly in article V, and I quote: ``The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them''--of the parties, of the member nations--``in Europe or North America, shall be considered an attack against them all * * *'' Collective defense was meant to respond to an attack on the United States or another NATO ally. This was an attack on the member nations in Europe within their borders. The allies would then take such action, according to article V, as each ``deems necessary'' to restore the peace for those member nations. The geographic scope of the article V commitment was defined explicitly in article VI to make sure there was not any confusion. In article VI, we made it clear. It said the United States would defend the territory--territory of NATO members--not the interests, not the commercial transactions, but the territory of the NATO members. The geographical scope of Article 6 included the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. Article V says if you are attacked, you are to respond to the attack. Article VI has the sort of precision of a real estate transaction, specifically stating where the territory was and how it was to be defended. Article IV of the treaty is seen by some now as an escape hatch for expansion of NATO's mission. Article IV of the treaty states: ``The parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.'' Terms like ``territorial integrity'' and ``political independence'' and ``security'' flow from and reinforce NATO's collective defense mission. As I will argue in more detail, undergirding NATO's collective defense mission was the purpose of article IV. Article IV was not a loophole for any military operation the North Atlantic Council could dream up. One of the things I think the Senate should consider carefully is the expansion of NATO, not just by membership but by mission--from the defense of territory to the defense of interests, which is the direction in which things are pointed. If we go from defending territory to defending interests and following those interests, as Secretary Perry indicated and Secretary Albright has indicated, to remote locations on the globe, that threatens some of the very essential purposes of NATO. If you squander defense resources or if your forces are so thinly deployed, it can be very damaging and undermining to the capacity to respond to a real security threat. It would be terrible to think that we would have our forces so far- flung that we could not respond to a real security threat. I have to say this: Right now the administration is so willing to deploy U.S. troops and so unwilling to provide resources for the military that we are stretching our resources very thin. If we want to put ourselves in real jeopardy by stretching them thinner, we should change the mission of NATO so that we become an international policing organization effectively answering 911 calls anywhere around the world. Secretary Perry says anywhere around the globe. Secretary Albright says in the Middle East and throughout central Africa. The United States is extending defense commitments to these three new potential NATO countries while slashing its defense resources--a 27- percent cut in defense spending over the last 8 years. We need to be very careful. If your defense spending is falling and your defense deployments are rising, you have very low resources to meet high commitments, placing yourself in serious jeopardy. Most Americans have agreed we have to have an ability to fight at least in two regions. If we cannot fight in two regions, and if we get into any kind of a struggle somewhere, it is an invitation for an aggressor somewhere else to start something. I mean, after all, if we were involved in the Middle East and we only had a capacity to defend one area, that would be the only area we could defend. It would invite rogue regimes, dictators, to be involved somewhere else pretty quickly. North Korea might decide to send its people over the border en masse. So the United States has to sustain the capacity to fight in two regions. John Hillen writes in the National Review that we are losing that kind of capacity. In 1998, almost all the active Army's heavy-tank and armored-cavalry units outside of Korea and Bosnia would have to go to the Persian Gulf in order to equal the fighting power of America's VII Corps in 1991. And the VII Corps was only one of three American corps engaged in Desert Storm. In other words, it would take all the fighting materiel we have to make up one of the three corps that were fighting in Desert Storm. Given the fact that we have the commitments we have in both Korea and Bosnia, we have to be careful we don't hollow out the force. And expanding the mission, broadening the range of deployments, expanding NATO from the defense of territory to the defense of interests could further hollow out our armed forces. Here's how NATO expansion will increase U.S. security commitments. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic comprise 301,000 square miles of new NATO territory and 2,612 miles of new NATO frontier to which the collective defense commitment is extended. Total national defense spending fell by 27 percent over the last 8 years. If we are going to be a part of defending this new territory, I wonder about whether we can do it with a plummeting rate of investment in national defense. Outside normal training and alliance commitments, the Army conducted 10 ``operational events'' between 1960-91, and 26 since 1991. There you have it. We are sending our troops all over the world, and you wonder if we can do that without hollowing out the force when we have a 27 percent drop in our funding. The Marine Corps conducted 15 ``contingency operations'' between '82 and '89, and 62 since the fall of the Berlin Wall. We are sending our people all over the place and we are not funding them the way we really should. According to the Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer, the Army reduced manpower by 36 percent while increasing the number of deployed operations by 300 percent. Can you forever shrink your resource base and increase your deployment? President Reagan's Deputy Undersecretary of Defense states: Like Gulliver's enfeeblement by the Lilliputians, [the U.S.] will be tied down in so many parts of the world for so long that it will be hard-pressed to respond to the major threats against which only overwhelming force would prove effective. I think the point I want to make here is we have to be very careful in expanding the mission, changing the mission of NATO from a defense- of-territory to a defense-of-interest mission, projecting deployments in central Africa and a wide variety of other places, as Secretary Perry indicated, around the globe. Are we making sure we have the necessary defense resources in the event there is a real security challenge? If we are stamping out brushfires on the other side of the world, can we defend ourselves against a firefight in our own backyard? These are the kinds of things that I think are important. I don't think this administration has made very serious strategic assessments about NATO expansion. ``We must pledge that the first new members will not be the last,'' according to Secretary Albright, ``and that no European democracy will be excluded because of where it sits on the map.'' In other words, come one, come all. We are not going to make strategic judgments. In the real world, real soldiers die defending real borders. I intend to ask the Senate to make a clear statement on the mission of NATO, a mission that is a defense of territory, not just a defense of interests. I know that Senator Roberts of Kansas and Senator Warner of Virginia have expressed their interest in this respect. We need to pass an amendment that will make sure that the Senate will not be endorsing what I call ``treaty creep,'' where we just allow a creeping mission to get us to the place where we are no longer able to sustain those things which ought to be sustained. It is with that in mind that I will be offering an amendment which would be added to the resolution of ratification. I hope that Members of the Senate will take into account the importance of understanding that we cannot dilute the capacity of the United States to defend its own freedom and to fulfill its collective defense commitment in NATO by making the breadth of this treaty so broad that it becomes a second United Nations, except this time with a standing army. NATO should not become an organization whose forces can be deployed and put at risk inappropriately and unduly in a wide variety of settings not defined by the territory of the members of the North Atlantic area. It is with that in mind that I look forward to submitting the amendment and defending the opportunity to place in the resolution of ratification clear language which will define and reassert the only valid definition of NATO, its original purpose, which was the defense of territory, political independence, and security of member states in that particular organization. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a tremendous individual who exemplifies citizenship, character, and service to humanity, Missouri State Representative Bonnie Sue Cooper. On December 5, 1997, Missouri State Representative Bonnie Sue Cooper finished her tenure as the National Chairwoman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Representative Cooper accomplished a great deal during her tenure as Chairwoman of ALEC. She succeeded in strengthening ALEC's policy-making operations. She also heightened ALEC's profile among both legislators and the private sector. ALEC thanked Representative Cooper for her hard work by choosing her as the 1997 recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award. The gratitude bestowed on Representative Cooper for her excellent service and commitment to principle is reflected in the award. Previous recipients of this prestigious award include former President Ronald Reagan. While Representative Cooper's tenure as Chairwoman of ALEC has ended, her legacy to this important organization of State Legislators lives on. It is an honor to commend Representative Cooper for her service to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Children's Mental Health Week which will be held the week of May 4-10. ``Putting Our Voices Together For Children'' is the theme of 1998's Children's Mental Health Week. The Missouri Department of Mental Health and the Missouri Statewide Parent Advisory Network will serve as co-sponsors of the week; these organizations were instrumental in the establishment of the first ever Children's Mental Health Week in 1992. Children throughout the United States have been diagnosed with emotional and behavioral disorders. And yet, some estimate that only one third of the children are able to receive proper treatment and care. The reason for Children's Mental Health Week is to provide our communities with additional information and understanding of these disorders. The week serves to help spread valuable information that will ultimately aid our children and our future. During Children's Mental Health Week, green ribbons will be circulated throughout cities to spread the message of support for our children. Numerous events will be hosted to honor Children's Mental Health Week, as well as a two day conference for the spread of further information on children with mental health problems. The week will conclude with an awards ceremony to thank those who make a difference in working for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. I would like to thank all the diligent workers who have dedicated their time and energy to help the children who suffer from mental disorders. My best wishes of support and gratitude are extended to the organizers of Children's Mental Health Week.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have no objection.

Mr. ASHCROFT. How much time do I have remaining?