John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri thanks the Chair. The first thing the second-degree amendment which I have offered will do is restore the Coverdell IRA language which has been stricken from the measure by the first-degree amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan. I think that debate has been pretty clearly conducted. I believe it is clear that the Coverdell amendment is a virtuous amendment. The suggestion that individuals in public schools don't get as much benefit in terms of the tax break here, it seems to me, overlooks one thing: That virtually the entirety, of the public school cost is already tax underwritten and funded by the Government. Those who are in private schools are not only paying that rate, but as taxpayers they are also seeking to provide education for their children on a secondary and alternative track. To suggest that we should ignore the fact that the totality of the educational experience, virtually the totality of it, has already been paid for governmentally in the public school system is, I think, failing to take into account a very important point. In addition to restoring the Coverdell language, which would provide a basis for an IRA for individuals who would save for their children's education, my second-degree amendment adds a permanent ban on Federal funding for national testing of students in our schools unless there is explicit congressional authority for such funding. Any movement toward the national control of education, I believe, savages educational principles that we as Americans hold dear. Parental authority and control, local control of schools, school board control, community control, teachers who are free to teach core subject matters, and school boards that are responsive to their communities, not held captive by distant bureaucrats, are a fundamental commitment of this Nation. When President Clinton proposed national testing for our children, it was an example of a Federal power grab. The President wants to move power out of the hands of parents and out of the hands of school boards and away from communities and begin, through national testing, to direct the way the schools are operated all across the Nation. It doesn't take an educational expert to know that when you dictate the test, you describe the curriculum. I visited lots of schools during my time as Governor, and I have since I have become a Senator. I asked a group of 5th graders not long ago when I was in their school, ``If I were to tell you that I was going to test you on the first 50 words in the dictionary this afternoon, what would you study this morning?'' It didn't take any of them any trouble to know that they would study the first 50 words in the dictionary. The test dictates the curriculum. Last fall, 36 other Senators joined with me to threaten a filibuster of the Labor-HHS and Education appropriations bill unless there was a ban during the fiscal year on Federal funding for the President's national testing proposal. We won an important victory when Congress and the administration agreed to provisions banning deployment of any tests or field testing activities during the year in which we are now operating. However, that 1-year ban is not enough. Congress must permanently ban Federal funding for national testing in order to protect parental involvement and local control of education. Why do I oppose national testing, this description of what has to be taught by what you are going to test? First of all, I think we should hold our children to the challenging academic standards that will lead them to greatness. However, any such standards should be set at State and local levels where parents, teachers and school boards are fundamental participants in making the critical decisions that will relate to the children's educational experience. Federalized tests mandated from Washington will hurt education in the Nation. First, because the No. 1 indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. Whenever we say to parents, ``We're going to decide what is tested, therefore we will decide what is taught, you're not going to be relevant anymore,'' we dislocate parents from the process. All the data indicate that the most important factor in student achievement is parental involvement. Study after study has proven this. I refer you to a 1980 study reported in Psychology in the Schools. It showed that family involvement improved Chicago elementary school children's performance in reading comprehension. Here is the conclusion: 1 year after initiating a Chicago citywide program aimed at helping parents create academic support conditions, students in grades 1 through 6, intensively exposed to the program, improved a half to six-tenths of a grade equivalent more in their Iowa test of basic skills over students less intensively involved in the program. Parental involvement boosts student achievement. We should not have a national program which disengages parents. We should not say to parents, ``parents need not apply.'' We should not be telling parents that we do not care what you think and that we in Washington know better what ought to be done. Let me just indicate that there are a number of other similar studies. I ask unanimous consent to have material about them printed in the Record, including the California and Maryland elementary schools studies. California and Maryland elementary schools achieved strong gains in student performance after implementing ``partnership'' programs, which emphasize parent involvement. A 1993 study describes how two elementary schools implemented a ``partnership'' program which emphasized two- way communication and mutual support between parents and teachers, enhanced learning at both home and school, and joint decision making between parents and teachers. Students at Columbia Park School in Prince George's County, Maryland, ``who once lagged far behind national averages, now perform above the 90th percentile in math, and above the 50th percentile in reading,'' after implementing the partnership program. ``In its fourth year of the [partnership] program, the Daniel Webster School in Redwood City, California, shows significant gains in student achievement compared to other schools in the district. Webster students have increased their average California Test of Basic Skills math scores by 19 percentile points, with all grades performing above grade level. In language, most classes improved at least 10 percentile points.'' Source: Developing Home-School Partnerships: Form Concepts to Practice, Susan McAllister Swap. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1993.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have no objection.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield--well, reserving the right----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senators Gorton and Frist for what I believe to be a very important step forward in providing the basis for educational achievement by students. Sometimes I think in all the debate we have about education, we get worried about one group of individuals who might manage funds here and one group who might manage funds there, and whether or not this would be directed by this group or that group. The ultimate objective of our program in education is student achievement. We want students to develop, as a result of our educational efforts, the capacity to grapple with the issues of the next century. We ought to ask ourselves on a regular basis, How is that best done? How do we elevate the capacity and the performance of the students? What is it that gets that done best? Well, I think this particular effort on the part of the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Tennessee recognizes two or three important principles in student achievement. First, nothing is more directly correlated to student achievement than parental involvement. The more influence we give to parents, to community leaders, and to the role models who are right around those students in shaping the students' opportunities, the more likely those students are to achieve. Study after study shows that when parents are involved, when schoolteachers and community officials are involved, when the culture around the student is involved in decisionmaking and they get active in the schools, that is when achievement goes up. Now, this block grant approach is going to move toward the parents, toward the communities, toward the students, toward the cultural leaders who surround the students, and give the right to make and the opportunity to make decisions that they believe will best motivate and enhance the capacity of students to achieve. It is very, very important. Second, I believe that it is very difficult to make intelligent decisions for the whole country under the rubric of a single prescription. There are a lot of health problems in the United States. But if we were to say we were going to prescribe a single wonder drug, I think people would wonder about it. They know they would like to be able to go to their doctor to decide what is wrong with them, what their problems are, and to get a prescription that would really make a difference to them. I think when we give the capacity to deploy resources to State and local school agencies and we don't tell them what sort of prescription there has to be but we allow them to use the resources to best achieve what is needed in that area, we provide the basis for student achievement for actually delivering through the educational process what it is we need to deliver. I visited a school in southwest Missouri just this last year. Both State and local governments had so many strings on what they said money could be used for that they could not do what needed to be done. They needed to build new classrooms. They were laboring under a requirement that they had to spend so much of the money for teacher's salaries. They wanted to be able to do teacher's salaries. But they first needed classes. Because it was a high growth area, they were trapped between needing to get the classrooms first, for which they could not spend the money, and having to spend the money for teachers. They couldn't use the teachers until they had the classrooms. We really need to free the people who care the most about America's future--they are parents, community leaders, school leaders, teachers, and administrators at the local level. We need to free them to be able to deploy resources effectively. There is a myth in Washington; that is, that we can make something where one size fits all. The truth of the matter is one size fits none. These amendments are fundamentally beneficial amendments which will help Americans develop and shape better schools for their children in which students achieve. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Indiana.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I find it novel that individuals would allege that there are no tests to tell us how we are doing now, but then they can tell us how far behind we are. The truth of the matter is, there are lots of privately generated, academically appropriate tests. There are no politically proper tests that come from Government. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Stanford Inventories are there. That is the reason we know where we are and parents can find that out. The leadership is clear on this. I have talked to Senator Lott and his staff. He is going to be strong for this. Representative Goodling has led an overwhelming vote of 242-174 in this direction in the House of Representatives. Senator Coverdell, who is leading this matter on this bill is a part of this effort. It is an important effort. There are lots of national tests. It is said that this would be a voluntary test. Here is what President Clinton said about the voluntary nature of the test: ``I want to create a climate in which no one can say no.'' So much for Federal voluntary programs. ``. . . a climate in which no one can say no.'' Incidentally, that was made in remarks to a joint session of the Michigan Legislature in Lansing, MI, on March 10, 1997. We don't need politically imposed, politically correct things in education. We need academically appropriate, strong things that local communities trust and can mandate and enforce. We don't need direction from Washington, DC. I think we have a clear opportunity here to reinforce local control of schools, parental involvement in the education of their students. I am delighted that the occupant of the Chair has said we should take additional time here to make sure we don't do something that is inappropriate. I urge this body to vote in favor of this second-degree amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits Federal funding for national testing in our schools unless there is explicit congressional authority for such funding, so that no funding of the Federal Government could be used to supply or provide for national tests unless the Congress specifically authorized it. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel of Nebraska be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe the fundamental opportunity in education and the opportunity for achievement by children relates to the involvement of parents in education. Whenever we begin to dictate curriculum from Washington, with a national test which will ultimately define curriculum, we will have lost the genius of America's education system, which is local involvement in schools, parental involvement. For that reason, I believe this amendment should be adopted. I am pleased that Senator Lott has been in support of this amendment. I am pleased that a number of other individuals are supporting it strongly and am glad to have the cosponsorship of Senator Hagel. I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Coverdell, a very important piece of legislation. It is a tragedy that this legislation is necessary. However, following yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that this Administration supports giving clean needles to drug addicts, I believe that Congress must now act. Congress must act to ensure that federal funds are never used to support these programs. This decision by the Administration, to support clean needle programs--but to withhold federal funding--is an intolerable message that it's time to accept drug use as a way of life. Not surprisingly, the American people do not want their hard earned tax dollars spent to give illegal drug users the tool to continue their habit. We already take too much money from the American people. We should not use it to subsidize a lifestyle of which the people so fundamentally disagree. When we pass this bill we will send a message that giving free needles to drug addicts is not a policy that this nation should embrace. Federal policy should call Americans to their highest and best and not accommodate them at their lowest and least. That is exactly what needle exchange programs do. They tell drug addicts, ``we know that you are too weak to beat your addiction; therefore, we are going to make the lifestyle you have chosen easier.'' This approach is called ``harm reduction.'' The Harm Reduction Coalition states on their webpage that the organization ``accepts drug use as a way of life.'' Therefore, they support policies which make drugs as harmless as possible. There are many that are part of this harm reduction movement who believe that legalization of drugs is the appropriate policy. In fact, the logical conclusion to their belief that drug use is a way of life and that it should be made as harmless as possible is legalization. The harm reduction philosophy is the basis of needle exchange programs. They say that if we provide people with clean needles, there will be less risk involved in using drugs. I am here today to reject that view. Since 1988, the United States Congress has banned the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs. Recognizing that government subsidies for drug addicts is bad policy, this ban consistently has been supported by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the 1998 Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill included language to allow the Secretary of HHS to lift the ban after March 31, 1998. Yesterday, the Administration stated--wisely--that the federal funding ban should not be lifted. However, the Administration foolishly recommended that local communities fund these programs. This endorsement of needles on demand opens the door to a subsequent decision to fund needle exchanges with the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. Yesterday's endorsement of clean needle programs sends the intolerable message that the Administration accepts illegal drug use as a way of life. It says clearly that this Administration will give approval to taxpayer funding the moment it appears that the decision can be sneaked past Congress. That is why this legislation has become necessary. Mr. President, needle exchange programs are touted as a way of reducing HIV rates among intravenous drug users. First, there is no sound scientific evidence to support that assertion. Second, even if there were, there are other public health and moral reasons to oppose needle exchange programs. Experts agree that the only scientifically sound method of making an affirmative showing that NEPs reduce the rate of HIV is to withhold clean needles from one group of drug users while providing clean needles to another. Since there are obvious problems in conducting such a study, it has not been done. In fact, there are studies which find just the opposite--that there are significant increases in HIV among clean needle program participants. Participants in the Montreal needle exchange program were two times more likely to become infected than those who did not participate in the program. Vancouver has the largest needle exchange program in North America which was started in 1988. In 1987, the estimated HIV prevalence among IV drug users was 1-2 percent, in 1997, it was 23 percent. Even the so-called ``California'' study which is heavily relied upon by needle exchange proponents, merely found that it is ``likely'' that NEPs decrease the rate of new HIV infection in intravenous drug users. The nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey agrees that studies have not yet scientifically substantiated the claims embraced by Secretary Shalala in her announcement. In an April 17, 1998, letter to my office outlining the concerns of General McCaffrey, the Office of National Drug Control policy states that ``science [on needle exchange programs] is uncertain.'' The letter states further that ``[s]upporters of needle exchange frequently gloss over gaping holes in the data--holes which leave significant doubt regarding whether needle exchanges exacerbate drug use and whether they uniformly lead to decreases in HIV transmission.'' A significant concern of those of us who oppose federal funding of needle exchange programs--and I oppose all needle exchange programs, whether federally funded or not--is that they will increase drug use. That is the precise reason that the Secretary was required to show that NEPs do not increase drug use before lifting the ban. There is absolutely no data to support the Secretary's finding that NEPs do not increase drug use. While the California study found ``no evidence'' of increased drug use, the conclusion was based on interviews with drug users--illegal drug users. In Vancouver, deaths from drug overdoses have increased more than 5 times since 1988--the year the needle exchange program started. Since their needle exchange program began, hospital admissions for heroin have increased 66 percent in San Francisco. In fact, the researcher who founded the San Francisco program and the founder of the New York program have both died of heroin overdoses during the last two years. I think the letter outlining General McCaffrey's concerns says it best. ``The bottom line is that General McCaffrey believes that we need a better understanding of how needle exchange programs will impact our nation's fight against drugs before we consider altering the current policy.'' I believe that needle exchange programs send the wrong message to the youth of America. To say on the one hand, that drug use is wrong, and then on the other hand--to provide the tools necessary to safely use illegal drugs--undoubtedly will confuse the nation's youth. When their parents are paying taxes to the federal government that ultimately will be used to inject heroin into an addict's arm--how do you tell them that the government thinks drug use is wrong? According to the drug czar's office, each day over 8,000 young people will try an illegal drug for the first time. While perhaps eight persons contract HIV directly or indirectly from dirty needles, 352 people start using heroin each day. More than 4,000 people die each year from heroin/morphine related causes. General McCaffrey, who has been entrusted by this administration to advise the President on drug policy agrees. He says: ``The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. . . . The focus should be on bringing help to this suffering population--not give them more effective means to continue their addiction. One does not want to facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind.'' Secretary Shalala also said that NEPs are effective when supported by the communities. I think she would be hard pressed to find a community that embraces the needle exchange program in their neighborhood. I wonder if the Secretary would like a clean needle program in her neighborhood. As the name suggests, needle exchange programs are supposed to get a dirty needle back from an addict for every needle they hand out. The idea is that these dirty needles will not be used again or left on the streets. However, according to needle exchange workers, an ``exchange'' usually does not take place. According to the Associated Press, in Willimantic, Connecticut, ``more than 350 discarded hypodermic needles were collected from the city's streets, lots, and alleys in a single week.'' These were found after a two year old girl found and accidentally pricked herself with a dirty needle. One needle exchange worker, who said they got approximately one-third to one-half of the needles back, handed out 950 needles in just one night. That means that about 475 dirty needles are either being used again--defeating the stated objective of these programs--or they are lying on our cities' streets, parks and playgrounds. In response to low number of needles they get back, the worker casually said that ``one- for-one exchange does not fit the reality of how injection drug users live.'' Needle exchanges also turn into one-stop shopping for drug addicts. Even the needle exchange proponents recognize this and talk about it as though it were a virtue of the program. From Harm Reduction Communication--``A user might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs in the half hour he spends at a street-based needle exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken half a day.'' There are many tragic examples all over the nation. However, one article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette best explains what this does to America's neighborhoods. ``Our community has worked hard to battle the drug problem that plagues our neighborhoods at many levels. But the needle exchange program gives dealer and users one more reason to stay here. In addition, drug users from outside our community now find reasons to frequent our neighborhood. Drug addiction is not a victimless crime. Not only does it kill the addict, but also, in the process, the addict preys on those around him. Prostitution, burglary, and now violence are an increasing problem in our community. So while the needle exchange people try to help addicts, they do so at the expense of our neighborhoods.'' This legislation is simple. It says that federal funds cannot be used to support directly, or indirectly, needle exchange programs. The Nation's drug policy should be one of zero tolerance. It should not be a policy of accommodation. Drugs are turning our once vibrant cities into the centers of despair and hopelessness. We need an Administration who has no tolerance for the drug culture. An Administration who says that America can be called to a higher standard rather then accommodated in a culture of consuming drugs. This Administration has shown that it is willing to ignore the record, ignore sound drug policy, and ignore the will of the American people. This is just another example of Washington, D.C. attacking, through policy, American values. Giving bulletproof vests to bank robbers would make bank robbery safer and simpler, and send the message that we accept bank robbery. A free needle policy is no different. What advocates of free needles on demand would clothe in rhetoric of `harm reduction' and `public health' is, instead a decision to subsidize, tolerate, and facilitate the use of illegal drugs.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Coverdell, a very important piece of legislation. It is a tragedy that this legislation is necessary. However, following yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that this Administration supports giving clean needles to drug addicts, I believe that Congress must now act. Congress must act to ensure that federal funds are never used to support these programs. This decision by the Administration, to support clean needle programs--but to withhold federal funding--is an intolerable message that it's time to accept drug use as a way of life. Not surprisingly, the American people do not want their hard earned tax dollars spent to give illegal drug users the tool to continue their habit. We already take too much money from the American people. We should not use it to subsidize a lifestyle of which the people so fundamentally disagree. When we pass this bill we will send a message that giving free needles to drug addicts is not a policy that this nation should embrace. Federal policy should call Americans to their highest and best and not accommodate them at their lowest and least. That is exactly what needle exchange programs do. They tell drug addicts, ``we know that you are too weak to beat your addiction; therefore, we are going to make the lifestyle you have chosen easier.'' This approach is called ``harm reduction.'' The Harm Reduction Coalition states on their webpage that the organization ``accepts drug use as a way of life.'' Therefore, they support policies which make drugs as harmless as possible. There are many that are part of this harm reduction movement who believe that legalization of drugs is the appropriate policy. In fact, the logical conclusion to their belief that drug use is a way of life and that it should be made as harmless as possible is legalization. The harm reduction philosophy is the basis of needle exchange programs. They say that if we provide people with clean needles, there will be less risk involved in using drugs. I am here today to reject that view. Since 1988, the United States Congress has banned the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs. Recognizing that government subsidies for drug addicts is bad policy, this ban consistently has been supported by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the 1998 Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill included language to allow the Secretary of HHS to lift the ban after March 31, 1998. Yesterday, the Administration stated--wisely--that the federal funding ban should not be lifted. However, the Administration foolishly recommended that local communities fund these programs. This endorsement of needles on demand opens the door to a subsequent decision to fund needle exchanges with the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. Yesterday's endorsement of clean needle programs sends the intolerable message that the Administration accepts illegal drug use as a way of life. It says clearly that this Administration will give approval to taxpayer funding the moment it appears that the decision can be sneaked past Congress. That is why this legislation has become necessary. Mr. President, needle exchange programs are touted as a way of reducing HIV rates among intravenous drug users. First, there is no sound scientific evidence to support that assertion. Second, even if there were, there are other public health and moral reasons to oppose needle exchange programs. Experts agree that the only scientifically sound method of making an affirmative showing that NEPs reduce the rate of HIV is to withhold clean needles from one group of drug users while providing clean needles to another. Since there are obvious problems in conducting such a study, it has not been done. In fact, there are studies which find just the opposite--that there are significant increases in HIV among clean needle program participants. Participants in the Montreal needle exchange program were two times more likely to become infected than those who did not participate in the program. Vancouver has the largest needle exchange program in North America which was started in 1988. In 1987, the estimated HIV prevalence among IV drug users was 1-2 percent, in 1997, it was 23 percent. Even the so-called ``California'' study which is heavily relied upon by needle exchange proponents, merely found that it is ``likely'' that NEPs decrease the rate of new HIV infection in intravenous drug users. The nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey agrees that studies have not yet scientifically substantiated the claims embraced by Secretary Shalala in her announcement. In an April 17, 1998, letter to my office outlining the concerns of General McCaffrey, the Office of National Drug Control policy states that ``science [on needle exchange programs] is uncertain.'' The letter states further that ``[s]upporters of needle exchange frequently gloss over gaping holes in the data--holes which leave significant doubt regarding whether needle exchanges exacerbate drug use and whether they uniformly lead to decreases in HIV transmission.'' A significant concern of those of us who oppose federal funding of needle exchange programs--and I oppose all needle exchange programs, whether federally funded or not--is that they will increase drug use. That is the precise reason that the Secretary was required to show that NEPs do not increase drug use before lifting the ban. There is absolutely no data to support the Secretary's finding that NEPs do not increase drug use. While the California study found ``no evidence'' of increased drug use, the conclusion was based on interviews with drug users--illegal drug users. In Vancouver, deaths from drug overdoses have increased more than 5 times since 1988--the year the needle exchange program started. Since their needle exchange program began, hospital admissions for heroin have increased 66 percent in San Francisco. In fact, the researcher who founded the San Francisco program and the founder of the New York program have both died of heroin overdoses during the last two years. I think the letter outlining General McCaffrey's concerns says it best. ``The bottom line is that General McCaffrey believes that we need a better understanding of how needle exchange programs will impact our nation's fight against drugs before we consider altering the current policy.'' I believe that needle exchange programs send the wrong message to the youth of America. To say on the one hand, that drug use is wrong, and then on the other hand--to provide the tools necessary to safely use illegal drugs--undoubtedly will confuse the nation's youth. When their parents are paying taxes to the federal government that ultimately will be used to inject heroin into an addict's arm--how do you tell them that the government thinks drug use is wrong? According to the drug czar's office, each day over 8,000 young people will try an illegal drug for the first time. While perhaps eight persons contract HIV directly or indirectly from dirty needles, 352 people start using heroin each day. More than 4,000 people die each year from heroin/morphine related causes. General McCaffrey, who has been entrusted by this administration to advise the President on drug policy agrees. He says: ``The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. . . . The focus should be on bringing help to this suffering population--not give them more effective means to continue their addiction. One does not want to facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind.'' Secretary Shalala also said that NEPs are effective when supported by the communities. I think she would be hard pressed to find a community that embraces the needle exchange program in their neighborhood. I wonder if the Secretary would like a clean needle program in her neighborhood. As the name suggests, needle exchange programs are supposed to get a dirty needle back from an addict for every needle they hand out. The idea is that these dirty needles will not be used again or left on the streets. However, according to needle exchange workers, an ``exchange'' usually does not take place. According to the Associated Press, in Willimantic, Connecticut, ``more than 350 discarded hypodermic needles were collected from the city's streets, lots, and alleys in a single week.'' These were found after a two year old girl found and accidentally pricked herself with a dirty needle. One needle exchange worker, who said they got approximately one-third to one-half of the needles back, handed out 950 needles in just one night. That means that about 475 dirty needles are either being used again--defeating the stated objective of these programs--or they are lying on our cities' streets, parks and playgrounds. In response to low number of needles they get back, the worker casually said that ``one- for-one exchange does not fit the reality of how injection drug users live.'' Needle exchanges also turn into one-stop shopping for drug addicts. Even the needle exchange proponents recognize this and talk about it as though it were a virtue of the program. From Harm Reduction Communication--``A user might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs in the half hour he spends at a street-based needle exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken half a day.'' There are many tragic examples all over the nation. However, one article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette best explains what this does to America's neighborhoods. ``Our community has worked hard to battle the drug problem that plagues our neighborhoods at many levels. But the needle exchange program gives dealer and users one more reason to stay here. In addition, drug users from outside our community now find reasons to frequent our neighborhood. Drug addiction is not a victimless crime. Not only does it kill the addict, but also, in the process, the addict preys on those around him. Prostitution, burglary, and now violence are an increasing problem in our community. So while the needle exchange people try to help addicts, they do so at the expense of our neighborhoods.'' This legislation is simple. It says that federal funds cannot be used to support directly, or indirectly, needle exchange programs. The Nation's drug policy should be one of zero tolerance. It should not be a policy of accommodation. Drugs are turning our once vibrant cities into the centers of despair and hopelessness. We need an Administration who has no tolerance for the drug culture. An Administration who says that America can be called to a higher standard rather then accommodated in a culture of consuming drugs. This Administration has shown that it is willing to ignore the record, ignore sound drug policy, and ignore the will of the American people. This is just another example of Washington, D.C. attacking, through policy, American values. Giving bulletproof vests to bank robbers would make bank robbery safer and simpler, and send the message that we accept bank robbery. A free needle policy is no different. What advocates of free needles on demand would clothe in rhetoric of `harm reduction' and `public health' is, instead a decision to subsidize, tolerate, and facilitate the use of illegal drugs.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. On rollcall vote 85, I voted no. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to have a change of my vote reflected in the Record. It in no way changes the outcome of the vote. I did not note it was a motion to table rather than the substance of the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. Pastor and Mrs. Gillming's dedication to one another has spilled over into the lives of many. For forty years, they have served together at the Cherry Street Baptist Church in Springfield, Missouri. Norma and Ken have led their congregation by example through their commitment to one another, as well as their commitment to the community. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Norma and Ken Gillming of Springfield, Missouri, who on May 21, 1998, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Gillming's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I certainly share those concerns. The impact to our national security is clear and under the current Administration policy the United States is sending some of our greatest talent and products to foreign shores, enabling foreign competitors, both to industry and to our national security, to gain a strong foothold. In just the past few weeks, Network Associates, our largest independent maker of computer security software, decided to allow its Dutch subsidiary to begin selling strong encryption that does not provide a back door for law enforcement surveillance. This move by Network Associates was necessitated by our current wrong-headed export provisions. We have to re-examine these policies. Simply put, strong encryption means a strong economy. Mandatory access, by contrast, means weaker encryption and a less secure, and therefore less valuable, network. This recent example of the export of a manufacturing enterprise and the accompanying intellectual capital is only one example of a bad policy weakening our economy.

Mr. ASHCROFT. As the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, you can be assured that the subcommittee will stand ready to provide oversight to ensure that no constitutional right of any American is compromised. Several very important rights were addressed by the witnesses during the hearing, and the constitutional concerns of law-abiding citizens must be respected. Importantly, in the ongoing dialogue between industry and federal law enforcement we must make sure that the interests of the citizens of the U.S. are represented and their constitutional rights respected. We must ensure that everyone in the negotiations--including the administration--views the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens as non-negotiable absolutes, not as bargaining chits.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I do. The testimony presented at the hearing made clear that how we resolve the law enforcement issues at the heart of the encryption debate may affect the exercise and protections of important First, Fourth and Fifth amendment rights. While we must ensure law enforcement the appropriate amount of access we cannot do so at the expense of important constitutional liberties. As I mentioned at the hearing, the FBI has argued that a system of mandatory access to private communications--or a system in which the federal government strongly ``persuades'' individuals to hand over their rights to the FBI--would make it easier for law enforcement to do its job. Of course it would, but it would also make things easier on law enforcement if we simply repealed the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I believe it is critical for us to address this issue and soon. I also believe that we should work together to produce a piece of legislation that demonstrates our position on encryption policy.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I agree with these goals and will look to these same items as a reference point for the drafting, introducing and passage of encryption reform legislation.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, The World Trade Organization (WTO) decision this year against the United States' photographic film and paper industry sounded an alarm for U.S. companies participating in the global arena. Rubber stamping Japanese-style protectionism, the WTO left American companies at a troubling disadvantage in Japan and other Asian countries that replicate the ``successful'' Japanese model. It is troubling that many ailing Asian economies, after being bailed out by U.S. tax dollars, are still pursuing protectionist trade practices against the very taxpayers that paid their bill. In the film case, the WTO found that the Japanese market is open to the Eastman Kodak Co., despite the fact that Japan admits that its system of trade barriers was designed as a ``defensive measure for the substantial advances of Eastman Kodak after import liberalization'' under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This decision flies in the face of the U.S. film industry. Equally intolerable is the fact that this Japanese-style protectionism is being used to block an array of critical U.S. exports. Even though Japan has the second largest flat glass market in the world, it has systematically excluded foreign imports through an exclusive distribution system in violation of its 1995 Flat Glass Agreement with the United States. The U.S. also has a ``market opening'' agreement with Japan on automobiles, but the Administration reported just recently that Japan has failed to keep the agreement's ``key objectives'' and has reversed progress made last year under the accord. I am deeply alarmed at the danger that the WTO's misconceived ruling in this case will have. Japan now has a license from the WTO to shelter its domestic film and paper producers from competition. Under the WTO ruling, our Asian trading partners will be encouraged to follow in Japan's protectionist footsteps by taking two steps back for every one step forward in trade liberalization. For instance, China recently announced reductions in overall tariff levels from 23 to 17 percent, but China has been implementing an automobile industrial policy much like Japan's to undercut the gains achieved from tariff reductions. It is time to stand up and say, ``No more.'' No more will we ignore mercantilist trade policies that block U.S. products and destroy American jobs. No more will we allow foreign companies to use their illegitimate gains from their closed market to subsidize exports to our open market. No more will we accept a playing field for our products that is not level. No more, Mr. President. As the world's second largest economy, Japan must guarantee the same free and open access to its market as Japanese companies enjoy in the U.S. market. Without that guarantee, U.S. businesses are put at an immediate competitive disadvantage when entering the international arena. Therefore, Senators D'Amato, Moynihan, Bingaman, and I rise today to submit a Sense of the Senate that the U.S. should use all available tools against Japan's toleration of a systematic anticompetitive market that impedes U.S. exports. We need to be able to reassure American companies and the many U.S. workers they employ that we are tough on countries that break the rules of free trade. We also request the Clinton Administration take swift and aggressive action to open Japan's market, not just for film, but also for the U.S. industries that repeatedly struggle to address the intricate web of Japanese protectionism. The Administration must confront Japan's trade barriers forcefully, or the competitiveness of U.S. companies in that market will be continually undermined. In 1996, the U.S. Trade Representative made a finding under Section 301 that Japan's restrictions on Kodak film were a burden to U.S. commerce and an impediment to U.S. film exports. However, the USTR office stated that using Section 301 to address such trade barriers is too aggressive a policy. I strongly disagree. When the United States makes trade agreements, the American people expect them to be honored. If trade agreements can be violated without sanction by the WTO, then our rights must be secured through the use of our own law. The only alternative is to accept a new wave of protectionism in Japan and other nations. I supported the Senate proposal on ``fast track'' authority for the President, but if this Administration is unable to ensure that our trading partners live up to their promises under agreements already negotiated, I see little reason to think that Congress will give fast track authority to pursue a new round of agreements. The Administration claims to have negotiated 30 separate free trade agreements with Japan, but U.S. exporters clearly are being denied the benefits they had expected from these agreements. Congress and the American people rightfully expect the Administration to ensure a level playing field for U.S. companies. The WTO's intolerable ruling in the Kodak film case requires you and your colleagues in the Administration to take a more activist and aggressive approach to opening Japanese markets across the board, before protectionism proliferates throughout Asia.