John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, no one did more to bring peace and prosperity in our time than our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan's economic and foreign policies gave us the longest peacetime expansion in our history and, indeed, did fulfill an ambition of this country to make the world safe again for democracy. But more than that, Ronald Reagan called us to our highest and best; we never spoke with more certainty or sat taller in the saddle than when Ronald Reagan was riding point. In his second inaugural address, Reagan spoke of the danger of simple-minded appeasement, of accommodating countries at their lowest and least. ``History,'' said President Reagan, ``teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.'' Having seen the death and destruction of five wars in his lifetime, President Reagan's was a lesson learned at some expense. It was a lesson which he refused to repeat. And from his experience was borne the policy of peace through strength--a strategy that recognized that wishful thinking about our adversaries is a betrayal of our past and a squandering of our freedom. But today, the administration seems to have forgotten this costly lesson. It seems driven not by foreign policy so much as by foreign politics, willing to pursue that which sounds historic rather than adopting policies that are historically sound. Nowhere is this administration's failed thinking more apparent than in United States policy toward China. As I noted on the floor 2 weeks ago, Beijing has embarked on a military buildup that may soon threaten security interests in Asia, including our own. China already has the world's largest military at 2.9 million and is taking steps to enhance its force projection capabilities, including the acquisition of a blue water navy and a 21st century air force. China is not an enemy of the United States. I sincerely hope that Washington and Beijing can develop a forthright and an enduring relationship. For such a relationship to develop, however, security issues must be addressed and fundamental questions about those issues must be answered. What does it mean when China engages in a dramatic military buildup aimed at achieving superpower status? What does it mean when China proliferates technology for weapons of mass destruction and signs a $4.5 billion arms deal with the terrorist State of Iran? What does it mean when China fires missiles in the Taiwan Strait and seizes small islands in the South China Sea? For this belligerence suggests a China bent on regional domination. While China's official military budget is roughly $8 billion, Beijing effectively conceals military spending through off-budget funding and revenue. Reliable estimates place China's military spending from 4 to 10 times the official budget. Russia alone, has made over $7 billion in arm sales to China since 1990, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of underemployed Russian nuclear engineers have been hired by China in the last several years. Mr. President, the People's Liberation Army of China, has 20,000 companies, business enterprises, that funnel revenue into the military's coffers. These PLA companies are not the kind of competitors we want to welcome to the American market. Companies with ties to the PLA benefit from their special relationship with Beijing and have been involved in criminal activities ranging from smuggling assault weapons onto the streets of San Francisco to stealing defense-related technology. So what, then, has this explosion in military spending wrought? First, a missile program that will soon give China the capacity to build hundreds of highly accurate ballistic missiles. Second, short- to medium-range ballistic missiles that will provide Beijing with versatile nonnuclear weapons to target U.S. military personnel in a variety of contingencies if they so desire. And, as if this were not enough, China is modernizing its long-range nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles with mobile ICBM systems and advance reentry technology. Due to the potential of secret underground construction which is said to be available in China, China could have as many as 130 of such missiles with a range of 8,000 miles. China's missile modernization program is accompanied by the buildup of China's Air Force. By 2010, China could have over 100 SU-27 and SU-30 aircraft. The SU- 27 is comparable to, and may be more advanced in some areas than, the U.S. F-15C Eagle. Russia has been the primary provider of these aircraft and has signed a $2.2 billion coproduction agreement with China to help Beijing develop the domestic capacity to produce these planes. China's ultimate goal is to acquire an all-weather Air Force within 5 years. Attack aircraft, precision-guided munitions, airborne early warning and control systems [AWACS], and large transport aircraft are all items on Beijing's wish list. With the help of Russian arms suppliers, China is putting the pieces of this lethal puzzle in place. Beijing is also working to develop a blue water navy. Their ambitions are perhaps summed up best by the words of Admiral Liu Huaqing. ``The Chinese Navy,'' said Admiral Liu, ``should exert effective control of the seas within the first island chain. Offshore should not be interpreted as coastal as we used to know it. Offshore is a concept relative to the high seas. It means the vast sea waters within the second island chain.'' Mr. President, it just so happens that the first island chain China seeks to control encompasses Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and some of the most critical shipping lanes in the world. The South China Sea alone accommodates 25 percent of the world's maritime trade and 75 percent of Japan's oil shipments. To achieve Admiral Liu's objective, Beijing has purchased Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny-class missile destroyers from Russia. In addition, the United States Office of Naval Intelligence [ONI] cites a National People's Congress report that China is seeking to build two 48,000-ton aircraft carriers, each with 40 combat aircraft, by the year 2005. China's arms buildup would be less disturbing if Beijing were acting to resist aggression by an enemy power. But China faces no grave security threats, leaving us with troubling conclusions about Beijing's real intent. China has historically demonstrated a willingness to settle territorial disputes with force, and greater capacity can only increase the likelihood of belligerence in the future. Since WWII, a catalog of China's regional conflicts covers almost her entire periphery. China has invaded Tibet and Vietnam, entered the Korean war, ousted Vietnamese forces from several islands in the South China Sea, fought India twice and Russia once over boundary disputes, and--not to forget the most consistent aspect of China's military adventurism--threatened Taiwan with military exercises and outright invasion of Taiwanese islands close to China's shore. China currently has territorial disputes with India, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, and has vied with the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia for control of the resource-rich and strategically important South China Sea. To defend its claim, Beijing has already constructed five naval installations in the Paracel Islands and seven installations in the Spratly Island group. And what has been the Clinton administration's response to the rising Chinese military threat? Appeasement at every turn. China proliferates missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons technology to rogue regimes like Iran; in fact, China is identified by the CIA as the world's worst proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. And yet, the administration refuses to impose consistently sanctions authorized by U.S. law. The China Ocean Shipping Co., better known as COSCO, is implicated in weapons smuggling to the United States and missile transfers to Pakistan, and the President personally assists the city of Long Beach, CA, in leasing the local United States naval harbor to COSCO. The China National Nuclear Corp. orchestrates most of the nuclear technology transfers to Pakistan and Iran, and the administration responds by approving Export-Import Bank loans to help this Chinese company complete a nuclear reactor in China. These examples reveal an underlying laxity also clearly seen in President Clinton's dismantling of export controls for sensitive technology. President Reagan's formation of the Combat Command [COCOM] helped enforce an international embargo of sensitive technology exports to the Soviet Union and effectively expanded America's technological lead. Unfortunately, having confused short-term profits with long-term security, this administration has undermined our export control framework. For example, advanced U.S. aircraft engines have historically been a protected item on the munitions list of goods and services. Sales of Munitions List items are illegal to any country without formal approval from the State Department. In addition, sales of Munitions List items to China were prohibited after the Tiananmen Square crackdown and could only be permitted with a Presidential waiver. Instead of openly issuing a waiver for the sale of aircraft engines to China, the Clinton administration quietly took airplane engines off the Munitions List and shifted their control from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce. Licenses for the sale of aircraft engines were quickly issued by then-Secretary Brown, and they continue to this day. In addition to aircraft technology, export controls for supercomputers have also been relaxed. As Senator Cochran has argued so compellingly on the floor this week, supercomputers are not extra large versions of a Macintosh or an IBM, but advanced machines that can simulate warfare contingencies and model sophisticated weapons. The Bush administration defined supercomputers as machines that could perform 195 MTOPS--million theoretical operations per second. The Clinton administration relaxed export controls by changing this definition to 2,000 MTOPS, a tenfold increase in the capability of noncontrolled supercomputers within 2 years. Shortly thereafter, the Clinton administration raised the threshold to 7,000 MTOPS for export of supercomputers for civilian use. In the euphoria of the post-cold war world, the Clinton administration seems to have forgotten that civilian and military distinctions have little use in a Communist State like China where Government control of industry ensures that civilian technology is applied to military ends and where thousands of so-called businesses are literally owned by the military. Again, as Senator Cochran has noted, United States companies have used these relaxed regulations to sell 47 supercomputers to China. Dozens more have been indirectly shipped to China via Europe, the Persian Gulf, and East Asia. The Clinton administration cannot account for where many of these computers are located or how they are being used. As Stephen Bryan, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, writes: Thanks to * * * the Clinton administration, the Chinese can now conduct tests of nuclear weapons, conventional explosives, and chemical and biological weapons by simulating them on supercomputers. Not only can they now make better weapons of mass destruction, but they can do a lot of the work secretly, thus threatening us with an additional element of surprise. For too long we have heard the argument that if the United States does not sell technology to Beijing, China will simply acquire the products from other sources. This contention is as familiar as it is flawed. United States military and dual-use technology is often a generation ahead of its Russian and European counterparts. How can the United States call on other nations to stop transferring dangerous technology when America is giving China some of the most advanced technology in the world? A final thought. This week the Government Affairs Committee began investigating an ominous and startling facet of our national security-- the security of this Nation's democratic elections. Every American has an interest in investigating the alleged plot of the Beijing government to influence the election of our President and Members of this Congress. Trying to corrupt American elections is shocking, outrageous, and wrong. And, if true, it must be dealt with in a forthright and forceful fashion. In the end, it all comes down to leadership. That is what Ronald Reagan gave us throughout the 1980's, and that is what this country is looking for now. Leaders are willing to call this Nation--and nations around the world--to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Continued appeasement can only lead to further belligerence from Beijing. We must not let China slam shut the gate of freedom. We must show the quiet courage and common sense that have marked our foreign policy since America's first days. It is time for America to place restrictions on high-technology exports to Beijing by supporting the Cochran-Durbin amendment; time to impose consistently sanctions on China for proliferating weapons of mass destruction; time to restrict United States market access to PLA- front companies; and time to let Beijing know that American security interests in East Asia will not be compromised. So, that 1 day, the long tug of memory might look favorably upon us as we look approvingly on those who fought for freedom in decades passed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. 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. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Clarence and Rena Gibson of Independence, Missouri, who on August 7, 1997, will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Gibsons' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr President: I want to indicate my willingness to continue to work on this issue. As the majority leader well knows, I am privileged to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee where we will address this issue after the July recess. I pledge to work with members on that Committee and with other interested Senators and the leader to try to move a bill in that committee that will capture the essence of Burns substitute.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to add my comments on this important issue. For over 2 years, I have participated in Commerce Committee hearings to learn more about on encryption and the technology issues that it encompasses. Last week, I voted for Senator Burns' substitute and was disappointed when it was not approved by the committee. I am concerned about the tone of the discussion at last week's markup. It appeared to me that many on the committee are seeking ways to outlaw the Internet. We are all troubled by any type of child pornography or gambling on the Internet. These are not areas where any member of Congress, any software or hardware vendor, or any member of the general public I know, argues for anything less than the strictest legal provisions. These matters are distasteful and wrong, but even if we eliminated the Internet, we would not eliminate these offensive concerns. As I said during the markup, we all know that cameras are used in child pornography, but we don't talk of outlawing photography. And, we also know that rental vehicles are often used in terrorist activities, but we don't make it illegal to rent a car or truck. Mr. President, it appears to me that at the most fundamental level, this debate is about the relationship of our citizens to our Government. We all must take steps to insure that the rights of our citizens are not violated. Our citizens should be able to communicate privately, without the Government listening in--that is one of our most basic rights. We have to be careful to ensure our law enforcement can have just the necessary amount of access and then only in a manner consistent with our Constitution. I am persuaded that a number of the new provisions in the McCain- Kerrey bill are not necessary. I believe that many of the provisions will not even succeed at achieving the end they seek. For example, a false choice has been offered indicating that if the U.S. continues to enforce the export policy on encryption that is currently in place, 40 bit and with special permission up to 56-bit, then law enforcement could apprehend terrorists, stop illegal gamblers and arrest pornographers. However, this argument assumes that these criminals cannot find stronger encryption elsewhere than in the United States. As has been shown several times, this assumption is false. Robust encryption is available. Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom all have companies, such as Siemens, Nippon and Brokat, that have developed and promote 128 bit encryption. Last week even the supporters of the administration's approach, as expressed in the current legislation, admitted that criminals who want the robust encryption can find access and use strong encryption in their current dealings. This issue is a red herring. Moreover, the administration announced Wednesday that they will allow the export of 128-bit encryption for bank transaction use involving bank software in an apparent admission of the vulnerability of the 56- bit strength. Also, the administration has continued to tell us during the hearings on encryption and in private meetings with the FBI and NSA, that 128-bit use outside the United States would end in terrible consequences, and now 128-bit use outside the U.S. is being advocated. We should remember that the Burns compromise only wanted to export 128- bit with key recovery for trusted parties. The administration now advocates 128-bit length encryption without any key recovery device, a position that goes beyond the Burn's compromise, which they opposed. My point, Mr. President is that this debate must change. We cannot continue to focus on the key length since these standards become obsolete on a daily basis. We need to focus on allowing trustworthy parties to use robust encryption, not necessarily to sell as encryption but to use in their transactions and in the development of software and hardware. No nationwide key recovery system, or a new licensing requirement for certificate authorities should be brought to the floor without thorough examination, analysis and understanding. We must further study the impact of these provisions well before this bill is brought to the Senate floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. 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. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Dorothy and Roy Zinzer of Affton, Missouri, who on June 19, 1997, celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Zinzers' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, freedom is, and always has been, the great moving force of American history. It was freedom that inspired patriots to give their lives at Concord and Lexington. Freedom that compelled American Rangers to scale the cliffs at Normandy. And freedom that filled Ronald Reagan's heart in Berlin as he exhorted Mr. Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall.'' Freedom. The essential ingredient of what Reagan called ``the American purpose.'' At our highest and best, we Americans are believers in the ``blessings of liberty,'' the idea that ``all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' And these rights are not America's alone, but extend to all those who would seek to know freedom's warm embrace. So today, from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, the Iron Curtain has lifted, and a wave of democracy has descended on the globe. The ``simple, vivid, peaceable world'' of which John Cheever wrote is more a reality today than at any time in our history. But evil knows no resting place. The cold war is over. And still how many have yet to taste the fruit of freedom? For there is a regime in the world today that runs against the tide of history; that denies liberty and human dignity to its people; a regime whose brutal repression at home betrays its intentions abroad; a regime that aspires to superpower status. I am speaking of Communist China. And I rise today to say, ``No more.'' No more should we watch as China uses its illegitimate gains to purchase military hardware and weapons of mass destruction. No more should we ignore Beijing's mercantilist trade policies that block U.S. products and destroy American jobs. No more should we accept a playing field for our products that is not level. No more, Mr. President. No more unconditional most-favored-nation status for Communist China. My decision to oppose most-favored-nation status was not an easy one. It was reached after countless meetings with foreign policy experts, economists, and the CEO's of major corporations. To the businessmen whose passion for the status quo was surprising, I posed many questions. Has China embraced the rule of law, put their regulations and laws in writing, stopped subjecting them to differential application? No. Are her people more free? Well, not really. Is America more secure with China selling weaponry to rogue nations and extending its own influence far beyond appropriate levels into the South China Sea? Tragically, those I questioned could only plead for more time. But time alone cannot heal these wounds. We must say: No more. The truth is, America has dedicated over two decades to the policies of engagement, and the results have been far from compelling or convincing. Less than 2 percent of United States exports went to China last year. America sold more goods and services individually to Belgium, Brazil, and Singapore than to the People's Republic of China. Meanwhile, the United States took more than 30 percent of China's exports creating a $39.5 billion merchandise trade deficit. This represents a threefold increase since 1990. A 200-percent increase in just 6 years! On Friday, more bad news. The Commerce Department reported that our trade gap is widening--fully 41 percent higher in the first 4 months of this year than in 1996. This led the Wall Street Journal to speculate that China will soon have the largest deficit of any United States trading partner, surpassing even Japan. If our growing trade deficit has been the source of great attention, the causal factors behind the inequity have gone all but ignored. At their core, they are twofold. The first element is the anti-American, predatory trade practices of the Chinese Government. The second is a United States-China policy that has been an abject failure, a case study in what not to do. A United States policy that has, in truth and reality, made Communist China America's most favored nation. American access to the other Asian market is growing every day. The Mongolian Government has aggressively sought United States investment, and soon will allow foreign ``stakes in infrastructure'' and the purchase of ``shares in privatized companies.'' In Taiwan, AT&T and GTE have won stakes in cellular telephone licenses that will allow both to provide telecommunications services to the Taiwanese. China is the exception, erecting barriers to entry surpassed only by the Great Wall itself. This begs the question: if United States products are good enough for Mongolia, Taiwan, and the other Asian democracies, developing and developed, why are they not good enough for Communist China? And when will we have the courage to say, ``No more''? Consider China's treatment of information technologies. The United States tariff on cellular phones from China is 1.6 percent. China's tariff? Seven times as high. Chinese telephone answering machines: 1.6 percent. The tariff on United States firms? A whopping 50 percent, over 25 times as high. Chinese-made computers: 2.7 percent. The import tax on Silicon Valley? Almost six times as high. And the list goes on and on and on. In March, 39 countries, including Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea, signed the Information Technology Agreement which will phase out all tariffs on such products as semiconductors, computer hardware, and electronic components by century end. China's concession was nowhere to be found. And yet, we rewarded China's belligerence by providing the same access to our market as we do to those Asian countries that have agreed to welcome our goods. Now the administration and the ivory tower academicians like to whine about how misleading the ``most-favored-nation'' designation is. ``If we could only change the name,'' they wail, ``our China troubles would be over.'' But if ever there were a country that deserved the label ``most favored nation,'' it is Communist China. It is time for America to say, ``No more.'' Unfortunately, rather than sound a clarion trumpet for American goods, the administration has hoisted the flag of defeat. Today, the United States allows China to slap punitively high tariffs on our goods while other countries are trying to treat us equitably. Australia, for instance, has tariffs on United States goods that are roughly equal to America's 4-percent rate. And yet, Australia's access to the United States market is no better than China's. In fact, the People's Republic of China is deriving more benefits from United States trade than even our closest trading partners. Mexico places tariff rates on American goods that are only 2 percent higher than comparable United States rates. China's tariffs, however, are 19 percent higher. But again, Mexico and China enjoy virtually identical access to the United States market. We are literally inviting China to be involved in our market while China is slamming the door in the face of American business. China is truly ``America's most-favored-nation.'' This stems at least in part from the willingness of the United States to trade with China under a bilateral agreement that was signed in 1979--a time when Jimmy Carter still called the White House home. The agreement predates the commercial availability of information technologies such as cellular phones and portable computers. Madam President, this bilateral agreement is the first of a two-tier test that all nonmarket economies must meet if they are to be extended most-favored-nation status. The second deals with the emigration provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. There are currently 15 nonmarket economies, including China, that have technically complied with this two-tier test in order to get MFN status. All of the other 14 designees, however, have bilateral agreements that were developed in the 1990's. In fact, every United States trading partner save China has trade agreements that were negotiated in the last 7 years. Only China operates with a favorable status of not having to comply with a modern bilateral agreement. Only China enjoys this most favored among most-favored-nations position. It is this decades-old agreement that is failing to safeguard our capacity to deal on a level playing field with the Chinese. It is this agreement that is failing to allow for free and unfettered trade. Last Wednesday, Madam President, I asked Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, Stuart Eizenstat, to tell me why the administration has failed to hold the Chinese to the same standards as other most-favored-nation designees by requiring a modern bilateral trade agreement. ``This is,'' Eizenstat said, ``one of the things we are now negotiating.'' Madam President, ``now negotiating?'' A bilateral trade agreement is a precursor to the extension of MFN. It was one of the basis upon which MFN is extended. It is a core requirement. Why is Congress being asked to renew most-favored-nation status before a modern bilateral trade agreement is in place? Why in the world is Congress being pushed to embrace an agreement that disadvantages U.S. products and ensures a trade imbalance into the foreseeable future? China's preferential status coupled with her discriminatory conduct has improperly made the PRC a nation favored above all others, the most-favored among most- favored nations. Perhaps China's past and current transgressions could be overlooked if Beijing's ambitions were more humane. Instead, the hard currency created by China's trade surplus is being used to pursue a massive military modernization program, nothing less than a blue-water navy, long-range aircraft, and precision-guided munitions and missiles. The Russians alone have sold billions of dollars of military technology to the Chinese. And, as Prof. Arthur Waldron notes, this includes ``cruise missiles capable of defeating the anti-missile defenses of the U.S. Navy.'' These force-projection technologies are not about ``providing for the common defense.'' They are about providing an uncommon capacity to project power--power all across Asia. They will threaten not just the Asian democracies, but also the sailors of the 7th Fleet who call the waters of the South China Sea home. I intend to address the emerging threat posed by Beijing's military build-up in the days and weeks ahead. I also plan to speak about an administration policy that fails to defend what Thomas Paine called the rights of man, all but ignoring Beijing's cruel campaign of persecution and repression aimed at crushing internal dissent. We will never tame the Chinese dragon--no more than we subdued the Soviet bear--with the policies of appeasement. The way to bring China into the community of nations is to talk truthfully and forcefully about the evils found there; challenge China to open her doors to the commerce of the Western world; and maintain an American military superiority that makes peace not only possible but probable. And to those who say this debate cannot be won, that the forces amassed against us are too great, I take issue. ``Any spot is tenable,'' said John Kennedy, ``if men--brave men--will make it so.'' It is time to turn retreat to advance; to fight for a new China policy steeped in the principles of our old American Republic. Because truly free trade can only exist between free peoples. And the Chinese who watched treachery take hold in Tiananmen Square are most certainly not free. It is time for America to say, ``No more.'' In 1946, Winston Churchill came to America to warn of the Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe. At the request of President Truman, he chose small Westminster College in Fulton, MO as the site where Britain would pass the baton of Western leadership to ``the American democracy.'' In this most Churchillian of Churchill speeches--made famous by its ``iron curtain'' coinage--he called America to her highest and best in defense of freedom and the rights of man. And if I might beg the Chair's indulgence, I would like to read a portion of the words he offered that warm and windy Tuesday a half century ago in Fulton, MO, my home State. Winston Churchill challenged the United States: ``The United States,'' said Churchill, ``stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with this primacy in power is joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. As you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done, but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining * * * To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring us all the long reproaches of the aftertime.'' Madam President, Churchill's words are America's words. For ours is a passionate belief in human possibility, an abiding devotion to freedom. ``Opportunity is here now, clear and shining.'' Let us not trade liberty for the false idol of foreign commerce. Let us not allow freedom's song to die on our lips. ``For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: `It might have been.' '' I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 20 minutes from the majority time for purposes of making remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to point out a remarkable program that exists in America today--a program that infuses our young people with a sense of purpose, values, principles, and the capacity to get things done. This program, called the Leadership Training Institute for Youth, is doing its good work at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, MO, this week. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to this organization and its dedicated staffers and participants. It is Missouri's distinct honor to host such an excellent opportunity for our young people. The Leadership Training Institute for Youth is a model initiative that, with the help of Scripture and sound guidance, teaches young people the tenets of good leadership and good citizenship. Of course, the core training for tomorrow's leaders begins at home, and this organization and its committed staffers build on the lessons that parents teach. The Leadership Training Institute for Youth provides young people across the country with opportunity, inspiration, and advantage in our culture. It calls future leaders to their highest and best in the name of a higher power. It offers direction in what is too often a rudderless world. The institute demonstrates through lessons and example the value of priorities such as love for God, family, and country. It motivates youth to esteem virtues of honor, morality, compassion, faithfulness, integrity, discipline, and respect for the sanctity of life. Therefore, I rise today to express my sincere appreciation to the Leadership Training Institute for Youth. Without such entities, our children might be left to the mercies of today's malls, movies, and televisions. Our national heritage and our country's future are too important to be left to today's suspect environments that typically attract our young people. The Leadership Training Institute for Youth is a commitment to our young people--a commitment to the future leaders of this great Nation. We need more programs like it.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Alabama. I, too, am eager to express my appreciation for the reminder and the sobering thoughts expressed by the Senator from Kentucky. Each of us has a sense of loss whenever any of us suffers in our families the kind of challenge that comes when a father is deceased. I remember very well my father coming to this Chamber to witness my swearing in as a Senator some 2\1/2\ years ago. My father was on his ``last legs,'' and he died before he made it home. But he had the sense of knowing that I had come here to do and to support things in which both he and I believed. I think that meant a lot to my father. I know that at this time, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, is very proud of his father and grateful for his father. I think he can have some sense of assurance that his father was grateful for him and appreciated a son who would devote himself in the national interest to doing what was, in his judgment, best for his country. It is in that sense that each of us has the profound privilege of shaping public policy. Perhaps that is as great a privilege as any of us enjoys from the Creator, that He allows us literally to participate in creating the world in which we will live. We are all destined to live in some tomorrows, and our children are destined to live in some tomorrows, and we have a chance to shape those tomorrows. I believe that is what the process of developing plans involves; it is the process of developing legislation to try to build a framework in which our community respects the ability of individuals to reach the potential that God has placed within each of us. So it is with that in mind that I think we are compelled to address a significant problem, which is a challenge to America and a threat to our future: The growing problem of violent juvenile crime. It is not that we say that although there is a problem, there is nothing we can do about it. We believe that we can remediate this situation. We believe that we can address this challenge, and we believe that we can be successful. We believe, however, that to do so we are going to have to change some things, because the things that we have been doing in the past were designed to address a different category of circumstances, a different character of culture. What we have done in the past is not working today. As a matter of fact, what we do will be instructive to the next generation. The way in which we view violent juvenile crime signals to the next generation how we respect life, what we intend in terms of order and responsibility. If we take crime lightly, they will take order lightly, because an infraction of order by way of criminal activity is something we don't care much about. If we take crime seriously and we impose serious consequences and we demand responsibility, the next generation will say order is something to be valued, because when it is interrupted, that order is restored as a matter of serious concern. The truth of the matter is, perhaps more important than anything we do in any singular sense is the way in which we transmit values from one generation to the next. More important than any other responsibility of a culture is the transmission of values from one generation to the next. I think that as we have assembled our policy relating to juvenile crime, we have been transmitting the wrong values, we have been saying the wrong things, we have been doing the wrong things, unfortunately, because we tended to say juvenile crime is the equivalent of acts of mischief, that it is to be disregarded like shooting paper wads or spitballs in the hall. You remember the Charlie Brown rock-and-roll song of the fifties, always doing those kinds of mischief things. We are not talking about mischief in juvenile crime; we are talking about assault and murder, armed robbery and rape. These are the parts of the criminal composite that are escalating; they are not declining. At the same time that we have been effective in helping to curb a growth rate in violent adult crime, we are equally alarmed by the evidence that we are not succeeding in reducing juvenile crime. One of the reasons is that our approach to juveniles hasn't been an approach to them as criminals. It has been an approach based on some less-than- accurate understanding of what has really happened. We have thought of it as delinquency; we have thought of it as something less than crime. If your wife is raped or if you are assaulted or if your child is murdered, you get a sense that this is not delinquency, it is not mischief. It is crime. I think as we try to send the right signal, as we try to make a commitment for the right kind of posture for our culture in the next generation, we need to say that violent crime committed by juveniles will be taken seriously. That is one of the very important things that Senator Sessions has been able to make sure persists as a unifying thread of character through this S. 10 legislation--that violent crime is serious crime and it is not to be taken lightly because someone is less than 16 or less than 17 or less than 18 years of age. A murder is a murder. It involves a death. It involves a tragedy. A rape is the same. And this thread of seriousness is important. So when we learn that violent crime arrests among juveniles in 1995 were 12 percent higher than they were in 1991, we know that we have not won the battle. And when we learn that they were 67 percent higher than they were in 1986, we know that the challenge remains for us to do something. When you see the raw data, when you see the statistics and the carnage that happens to real families stacking up, you know that you cannot sit idly by. Although the most recent data may reflect some improvement, the problem is really destined only to get worse given the demographics. Those who tell us about the future say, given that the children who were born during the baby boom of the eighties will start to reach the potential ages for the commission of crimes, that we are in for real problems if we don't adjust the way we approach this problem. One of the areas that I think needs our attention most radically is the area of juvenile crime records. Because we have thought of juvenile criminal activity as being mischief or inconsequential, we have decided to keep any records of juvenile activities very, very closely guarded. And we have an anomalous situation where we have juveniles who are not treated as criminals even though they have committed crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, armed assault. They are sent into our classrooms, and yet the teacher in the classroom has no capacity of knowing what the student has done. As a matter of fact, frequently, with the mobility that exists in the American culture now, people move from one State to another and they take their children with them, or the children move from one State to another, and their record exists only in one State. They go into a school room, they go into a community, and the law enforcement community does not know about the heritage of criminal activity, the history of the individual, the threatening nature, the violent proclivities of an individual. They do not have such information because the juvenile records have not been available. Juvenile records have been sealed, and law enforcement officials and school officials simply have not had access. In the few States where they have had some access, that access is limited to students who committed the criminal activity within the State. We all know about the interstate mobility of people in our culture. As a matter of fact, those individuals who get in trouble frequently are the same individuals who are most active in crossing State lines. Our law enforcement officials need better access to juvenile records. Our school officials need access. I talked to a teacher who said that individuals were assigned to her classroom who were wearing electronic shackles. You know, that is the new technology where you put a bracelet around someone's foot. It is very durable plastic and cannot be cut off easily. It has a transmitter so law enforcement officials can know the whereabouts of the person wearing the electronic shackle. The teacher says that the students are capable of coming into the room and the teacher cannot know what they have done. I would be very, very reluctant as a teacher to see a student with an electronic shackle on his or her ankle reflecting the likelihood that some kind of very serious offense had taken place and still not have any ability to know what that student had done. The student comes from another State and has been assigned to a juvenile facility in your State but the record is sealed. You are supposed to turn your back on such a student and write on the board, not knowing whether the student is a rapist or a murderer. I find that to be a very serious challenge to the kind of atmosphere we need in the classrooms. At least I think school officials have a special need. I talked to a judge one time who was sentencing an individual for a very, very serious crime and did not have access to the records of this individual, who had lived in another State previous to the crime, and later learned that the individual had been involved in previous homicides. I think judges, when they are issuing penalties, need to know what the history of an individual is, what kind of criminal activity has filled the past of that individual--not just the things that have happened since the person turned 18--because some of these individuals, given the violent criminal nature that pervades some components of the juvenile community, have a rap sheet that would extend from here to Cincinnati in terms of detailing violent activity that ought to be before the sentencing authority. Juvenile records simply do not survive the juvenile's 18th birthday, and in many situations people start out with a clean slate. I think it is great to allow people to start over again in life. I think that is the marvelous part of what America has meant through the years. We let people get new starts in this country. But I think we have to protect ourselves. We should not say to anybody, ``You can do anything you want up to the time you are 18, and then you get to wipe it all clean and you'll be considered to be an Eagle Scout until your first offense, and then, even then, the judge won't be able to find what's happened to you.'' I really believe that inadequate records hamper law enforcement authorities. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is the immediate past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement is in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief said: Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across [State lines], and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders. It seems to me that if we are going to try to work with young people to have them change what they have done, allowing the juvenile justice system to hide what they have done is not really a way for us to confront the past and to change it. We cannot be clouding it and concealing it if we want to change it. I think to make real change you have to confront what has happened and move forward. Chief Walchak also notes: If we in [law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene. Part of our ability to prevent criminal behavior by the individuals is to have the ability to identify people who have had problems in the past. He has put it very clearly. Here is a police chief who wants to do what is right. That is not just to punish crime, but to prevent it, to try to intervene to make sure we do not have these challenges over and over again. We have his hands tied because we have an outdated approach to juvenile records. Well, Senate bill 10, which the Senator from Alabama has so appropriately noticed as a bill of monumental change and reconstruction in terms of our capacity to address these challenges, makes some serious reforms that will help us solve these problems. The bill would provide incentive grants for States to fingerprint and photograph juveniles who are arrested for or charged with violent crimes and to send those fingerprints and photographs to the FBI and to create and maintain records of juvenile convictions and to share those with criminal courts, law enforcement agencies, and school officials. If we really want our schools to do well, we cannot have them operating in the dark as to who is populating the classroom. For States to qualify for these funds, States would have to maintain juvenile records that are equivalent to adult records and to make those records available to the FBI, to law enforcement officers of any jurisdiction, to school officials, and to courts for use in sentencing. It is the kind of thing that I suppose the average American says, ``That's common sense. I wonder why we haven't been doing that.'' We ought to do it for people who are committing acts which are felonious in nature and which, if committed by an adult, would result in long- term incarceration. At a minimum, we ought to allow schoolteachers to know if individuals in their classrooms have been involved in that kind of activity. The bill will also make records available across State lines. Given the mobility of the American population, it does not make sense to think we can compartmentalize our approach to individuals who are not going to be compartmentalized and should not be. Senate bill 10 mandates that States send records to the FBI. It will enable State and Federal authorities to make assessments based on the juvenile's entire record. That is not only in the best interest of the culture and the best interest of the society, but, frankly, it is in the best interest of an accused juvenile. It does not serve anyone's interest to have a judgment rendered on the basis of inadequate data. We do not make good decisions when we do not have the facts. And courts cannot make good decisions when they do not have the facts. And schools cannot make good decisions when they do not have the facts. The truth is, all we are asking is that the records be made available to individuals so that they make better decisions, and we can do a better job of curtailing a problem that threatens us sorely. This bill would help get that done. A Federal solution is critical. Only if all States participate can we ensure that critical law enforcement and judicial decisions are based on the entire record. This is a concept which has been agreed to for centuries in America. In law enforcement, crime records have been shared because of the responsibility for public safety. They are clearly matters that are of interest to every State, and they are indeed matters which have long and traditionally been understood as matters in which the States need to cooperate and coordinate. The bill ensures that juvenile records do not disappear when juveniles turn 18. The truth of the matter is, law enforcement and other officials need to make sure that that information is still available. The bill ensures that juvenile records are made available to those who need them. Courts will be able to sentence criminals based on their entire record, not just what has happened since their 18th birthday. Law enforcement officials will be able to monitor the behavior of individuals in their community who are known to be violent and to have criminal predilections. Teachers and other school officials will know who they have in their classrooms. To think that we have to do that to address this problem is a little bit of a shock to me. I would be much more at ease to say to schoolteachers, ``We're going to let you find out and know about the individuals that populate your classrooms.'' I cannot imagine that they would not want that. Records sharing. This whole concept of helping us have an orderly culture where we send a clear message about the nature of criminal activity and the fact that it is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it. It is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that compels all of us to unite, to send the right message to the young people of America that we take crime seriously because we view their personal integrity and safety as a serious matter and that we will not treat them lightly if they are involved in rape, murder, armed robbery, armed assault, major drug trafficking, or other felonious activity, because we care about their future and care about the future of the country in which they live. I look forward to the debate on this measure, to continuing with this measure in committee to make sure that we shape the bill properly as it comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I look forward to a time when the President of the United States will sign into law this kind of bill, which would help us send a message about the kind of tomorrow that we have the privilege and prerogative of shaping by developing public policy that respects not only the future of juveniles but also the present of individuals who have been victimized as a result of juvenile crime and violence, which is far too prevalent in our society. I commend the Senator from Alabama for his excellent work in this respect. I look forward to working with him and welcoming him to the State of Missouri this weekend where we will be conducting hearings regarding the serious challenges with youth violence which we all face. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the African nation of Sudan is a cradle and safe haven for the world's most vicious and violent terrorists. It is a country internationally renowned as a training base for terrorist groups. The Armed Islamic Group, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Group, all practice car bombing and hostage taking on the sands of Sudan's deserts. Sudan also harbors and protects elements of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's Jihad network, the terrorist organization that was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center. Furthermore, Sudanese diplomats at the United Nations conspired with Jihad terrorists to bomb the U.N. complex. Sudan also reportedly provided false papers and weapons for assassins who attacked Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. There is no doubt that Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the State Department is right to classify it as such. Along with this classification, the State Department should also enforce strict sanctions on financial transactions with Sudan, as it does with other officially recognized state sponsors of terrorism. Unfortunately, the State Department has taken steps to relax sanctions on financial transactions with Sudan. Congress passed legislation last year, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, designed to prohibit all U.S. financial transactions with governments that support international terrorism. Unfortunately, the manner in which the State Department implemented the law exempted at least two terrorist states, Sudan and Syria, from this ban. The State Department reads this seemingly clear legislation to prohibit only the financial transactions which might further terrorism in the United States. Transactions which furthered terrorism outside of the United States would be perfectly legal. The bureaucrats at the State Department evidently believe that transactions which further terrorism against citizens of foreign countries or terrorism against Americans abroad--such as the Pan Am 103 flight which exploded over Scotland killing 270 people--should not be prohibited In our debate over foreign policy and foreign affairs reform, we need to clearly define a consistent antiterrorism policy. The United States should not allow financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism, regardless of whether those financial transactions enhance terrorism in the United States or abroad. Congress clearly intended to outlaw all financial transactions with these rogue nations. Yet for reasons that have never been clearly explained, the administration has chosen to allow U.S. companies to continue to do business with regimes that are intent on killing Americans and terrorizing people around the globe. For example, only mounting public concern and increasing congressional pressure prevented this administration from allowing an American petroleum company to participate in a $930 million oil deal with the Sudanese Government. This oil deal would have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to this state sponsor of terrorism, money which could easily have funded attacks on U.S. citizens. The State Department's implementation of last year's antiterrorism law leaves a loophole large enough to drive a truck bomb through, a truck bomb similar to the one that killed 19 American military personnel and injured approximately 500 more in Saudi Arabia last year. One would expect the State Department to use every tool available to them to curtail and smother terrorism, especially since lives are at stake. The terrorist groups that operate out of Sudan are responsible for hundreds of attacks around the world and the deaths of thousands of people, and yet our State Department refuses to use the full scope of the law to aggressively isolate this criminal regime. Abu Nidal alone has been responsible for 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. As I mentioned earlier, this terrorist organization uses Sudan as a base of operations. I have introduced legislation, Senate bill 873, to close the administration's loophole allowing most financial transactions with terrorist states to proceed. This legislation has been included in section 1605 of the foreign affairs reform bill we are debating today and specifically prohibits all U.S. financial transactions with regimes classified as state sponsors of terrorism, regardless of whether or not the terrorist attack might occur in the United States or abroad. There are some exceptions in the provision which allow certain financial transactions to proceed: transactions for humanitarian assistance; traveling journalists; and a national security waiver for classes of financial transactions that are vital to the security interests of the United States. As I mentioned earlier, this is unfortunately the second time the Senate has had to consider legislation to prohibit financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. If the Clinton administration had chosen to implement this law correctly the first time, all transactions between U.S. citizens and state sponsors of terrorism would already be illegal. International terrorism is going to be a topic of discussion at the upcoming G-7 summit this weekend in Denver. The financial resources available to international terrorists will be one area of discussion for G-7 leaders. President Clinton will probably speak very forcibly on this issue. I sincerely hope that he will also direct the State Department to implement the provisions in this legislation which undermine the financial resources of terrorist states. I hope the President interprets this legislation in accordance with congressional intent and limits the ability of American firms to provide financial resources to state sponsors of terrorism. State sponsors of terrorism provide critical refuge and support to nefarious organizations committed to killing Americans and citizens of other countries. Business as usual should not proceed with such regimes, and President Clinton should not have to be coaxed into aggressively enforcing U.S. antiterrorism laws to isolate these countries. This provision will diminish the financial resources available to terrorist states for their campaign of violence and hatred, and I urge the President's firm support for this anti-terrorism weapon contained in the foreign affairs reform legislation before the Senate today. I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of any time I might have. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to defer for 2 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to introduce The Prohibition on Financial Transactions with Countries Supporting Terrorism Act of 1997. This legislation will further isolate state sponsors of international terrorism from the community of responsible nations. By prohibiting financial transactions between U.S. persons and such criminal regimes, this bill will also reduce the financial resources available to terrorist states. Unfortunately, this is the second time the Senate has had to consider legislation to prohibit financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on April 24, 1996, contained a similar provision--section 321--which prohibited financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. Unfortunately, the manner in which the State Department implemented section 321 effectively exempted at least two terrorist States, Sudan and Syria, from the ban on financial transactions with United States citizens. The Clinton administration seemingly misinterpreted the clear language of section 321 which states that: . . . whoever, being a United States person, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated . . . as a country supporting international terrorism, engages in a financial transaction with the government of that country, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. Somehow, our Government read such plain language to permit--not prohibit--almost all financial transactions with terrorist states. The only transactions the lawyers down at Foggy Bottom saw fit to prohibit were financial transactions which might further terrorism within the United States. The bureaucrats at the State Department evidently feel that transactions which further terrorism against citizens of foreign countries or Americans abroad--such as Pan Am flight 103--should not be targeted by this law. Mr. President, the Congress of the United States has worked extensively in a bipartisan manner to provide the legislative tools needed to defend America and our allies against the rising threat of international terrorism, and I am sorry that the Senate must now revisit this antiterrorism legislation to correct the misguided efforts of this administration to confront and isolate terrorist-supporting nations in an effective manner. We no longer live in a cold war world where the threats to our national security are easily identifiable. The fluid and complex international environment we face today demands the highest national security vigilance, the kind of vigilance that appears to be lacking in the Clinton administration. The administration's abysmal performance in enforcing United States laws against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China is now mirrored by the administration's evisceration of Congress' antiterrorism sanctions. This administration finds no inconsistency between President Clinton's claim in an August 1996 speech at George Washington University that America ``cannot do business with * * * terrorists who kill * * * innocent civilians,'' and the State Department issuing regulations for the Anti-terrorism Act that same month that permit most business transactions with terrorist states to continue. Mr. President, terrorism is no longer a far away phenomenon that American only risk when traveling abroad. Terrorist violence that primarily targeted U.S. citizens overseas is now finding its way to American shores, and the most stringent U.S. antiterrorism policy will be essential to protect our citizens. State sponsors of terrorism possess a hatred of global dimensions, and America is one of their primary targets. Our policies must reflect this understanding. Mr. President, in the Africa Subcommittee, I have followed closely the global efforts of one particular country on the list of terrorist nations. Since democracy was overthrown by a radical Islamic military coup in 1989, Sudan has quickly joined Iran as the worst of the world's state sponsors of terrorism. Sudan's Government harbors elements of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world: Jihad, the Armed Islamic Group, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Group all run terrorist training camps in Sudan. Those groups are responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world that have killed thousands of innocent people. Abu Nidal alone has been responsible for 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries which have killed or injured almost 900 people. Jihad is responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Jihad's leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, is the ideological ringleader of the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb the United Nations in New York. Another terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, regularly targets westerners in Egypt for attack and claims responsibility for the failed assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during his visit to Ethiopia in 1995. In addition to harboring such terrorist organizations, Sudan has also given refuge to some of the most notorious individual terrorists in the world, including Imad Moughniyeh who is believed to be responsible for the 1983 bombing of the United States Marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American soldiers. Sudan is not simply a favorite training camp for terrorists, Mr. President. The Sudanese Government actively supports this terrorist activity. For instance, Sudan reportedly provided the weapons and travel documentation for the assassins who attacked President Mubarak during his Ethiopia visit. Two Sudanese diplomats at the United Nations in New York conspired to help Jihad terrorists gain access to the U.N. complex in order to bomb the building. The conspiracy to bomb the United Nations was just one in a series of terrorist plots to bomb numerous locations around New York, including the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and various U.S. military installations. Five of the twelve defendants convicted in this series of terrorist plots were Sudanese nationals. Thankfully, law enforcement authorities thwarted most of these tragedies before they occurred, but the earlier terrorist attack against the World Trade Center was carried out by the same broader terrorism network in New York and killed six people. Those who bombed the World Trade Center only expressed regret that the twin towers were not toppled as they had planned, a catastrophe that in an instant could have resulted in more American casualties than the entire Vietnam war. Sudan's involvement in the conspiracy to wage an urban war of terrorism in New York makes it patently clear why our Government has justifiably designated some nations as state sponsors of terrorism and has imposed upon them the most severe penalties and sanctions provided by United States law. I am grateful that America has been relatively isolated from most of the world's terrorist violence, but just as terrorists have targeted Americans abroad in the past, they are now targeting Americans here at home. International terrorism is one of the great threats to our national security, but unfortunately yet another example of a national security threat this administration is failing to forcefully address. By cutting off the flow of financial resources to these rogue regimes, it will become more difficult for them to seed the globe with their acts of violent cowardice. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today will effectively prohibit financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism--regardless of whether the terrorist attack occurs within the United States or abroad. This prohibition is one step in the fight against international terrorism the administration is evidently unwilling to take. An analysis of Sudan's involvement in international terrorism gives us an idea of the global designs of terrorist states. Business as usual should not proceed with such regimes, and President Clinton should not have to be coaxed into aggressively enforcing U.S. antiterrorism law to isolate these countries. This legislation will diminish the financial resources available to terrorist states for their campaign of violence and hatred, and I urge the Senate's prompt consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to introduce The Prohibition on Financial Transactions with Countries Supporting Terrorism Act of 1997. This legislation will further isolate state sponsors of international terrorism from the community of responsible nations. By prohibiting financial transactions between U.S. persons and such criminal regimes, this bill will also reduce the financial resources available to terrorist states. Unfortunately, this is the second time the Senate has had to consider legislation to prohibit financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on April 24, 1996, contained a similar provision--section 321--which prohibited financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. Unfortunately, the manner in which the State Department implemented section 321 effectively exempted at least two terrorist States, Sudan and Syria, from the ban on financial transactions with United States citizens. The Clinton administration seemingly misinterpreted the clear language of section 321 which states that: . . . whoever, being a United States person, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated . . . as a country supporting international terrorism, engages in a financial transaction with the government of that country, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. Somehow, our Government read such plain language to permit--not prohibit--almost all financial transactions with terrorist states. The only transactions the lawyers down at Foggy Bottom saw fit to prohibit were financial transactions which might further terrorism within the United States. The bureaucrats at the State Department evidently feel that transactions which further terrorism against citizens of foreign countries or Americans abroad--such as Pan Am flight 103--should not be targeted by this law. Mr. President, the Congress of the United States has worked extensively in a bipartisan manner to provide the legislative tools needed to defend America and our allies against the rising threat of international terrorism, and I am sorry that the Senate must now revisit this antiterrorism legislation to correct the misguided efforts of this administration to confront and isolate terrorist-supporting nations in an effective manner. We no longer live in a cold war world where the threats to our national security are easily identifiable. The fluid and complex international environment we face today demands the highest national security vigilance, the kind of vigilance that appears to be lacking in the Clinton administration. The administration's abysmal performance in enforcing United States laws against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China is now mirrored by the administration's evisceration of Congress' antiterrorism sanctions. This administration finds no inconsistency between President Clinton's claim in an August 1996 speech at George Washington University that America ``cannot do business with * * * terrorists who kill * * * innocent civilians,'' and the State Department issuing regulations for the Anti-terrorism Act that same month that permit most business transactions with terrorist states to continue. Mr. President, terrorism is no longer a far away phenomenon that American only risk when traveling abroad. Terrorist violence that primarily targeted U.S. citizens overseas is now finding its way to American shores, and the most stringent U.S. antiterrorism policy will be essential to protect our citizens. State sponsors of terrorism possess a hatred of global dimensions, and America is one of their primary targets. Our policies must reflect this understanding. Mr. President, in the Africa Subcommittee, I have followed closely the global efforts of one particular country on the list of terrorist nations. Since democracy was overthrown by a radical Islamic military coup in 1989, Sudan has quickly joined Iran as the worst of the world's state sponsors of terrorism. Sudan's Government harbors elements of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world: Jihad, the Armed Islamic Group, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Group all run terrorist training camps in Sudan. Those groups are responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world that have killed thousands of innocent people. Abu Nidal alone has been responsible for 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries which have killed or injured almost 900 people. Jihad is responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Jihad's leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, is the ideological ringleader of the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb the United Nations in New York. Another terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, regularly targets westerners in Egypt for attack and claims responsibility for the failed assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during his visit to Ethiopia in 1995. In addition to harboring such terrorist organizations, Sudan has also given refuge to some of the most notorious individual terrorists in the world, including Imad Moughniyeh who is believed to be responsible for the 1983 bombing of the United States Marine barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American soldiers. Sudan is not simply a favorite training camp for terrorists, Mr. President. The Sudanese Government actively supports this terrorist activity. For instance, Sudan reportedly provided the weapons and travel documentation for the assassins who attacked President Mubarak during his Ethiopia visit. Two Sudanese diplomats at the United Nations in New York conspired to help Jihad terrorists gain access to the U.N. complex in order to bomb the building. The conspiracy to bomb the United Nations was just one in a series of terrorist plots to bomb numerous locations around New York, including the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and various U.S. military installations. Five of the twelve defendants convicted in this series of terrorist plots were Sudanese nationals. Thankfully, law enforcement authorities thwarted most of these tragedies before they occurred, but the earlier terrorist attack against the World Trade Center was carried out by the same broader terrorism network in New York and killed six people. Those who bombed the World Trade Center only expressed regret that the twin towers were not toppled as they had planned, a catastrophe that in an instant could have resulted in more American casualties than the entire Vietnam war. Sudan's involvement in the conspiracy to wage an urban war of terrorism in New York makes it patently clear why our Government has justifiably designated some nations as state sponsors of terrorism and has imposed upon them the most severe penalties and sanctions provided by United States law. I am grateful that America has been relatively isolated from most of the world's terrorist violence, but just as terrorists have targeted Americans abroad in the past, they are now targeting Americans here at home. International terrorism is one of the great threats to our national security, but unfortunately yet another example of a national security threat this administration is failing to forcefully address. By cutting off the flow of financial resources to these rogue regimes, it will become more difficult for them to seed the globe with their acts of violent cowardice. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today will effectively prohibit financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism--regardless of whether the terrorist attack occurs within the United States or abroad. This prohibition is one step in the fight against international terrorism the administration is evidently unwilling to take. An analysis of Sudan's involvement in international terrorism gives us an idea of the global designs of terrorist states. Business as usual should not proceed with such regimes, and President Clinton should not have to be coaxed into aggressively enforcing U.S. antiterrorism law to isolate these countries. This legislation will diminish the financial resources available to terrorist states for their campaign of violence and hatred, and I urge the Senate's prompt consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. By previous consent, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., the Senate will be in recess to allow the weekly policy luncheons to meet. Following the luncheons, the Senate may begin consideration of S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate. As always, Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to any legislation cleared for action. I thank Members for their attention.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from the hours of 12:30 until 2:15 on Tuesday for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 10. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; Senator Harkin, 30 minutes; Senator Biden, 30 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 908 has arrived from the House, and I ask for its first reading on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 1000 has arrived from the House, and I would ask for its first reading.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me take this moment to express my appreciation and give my thanks to the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Wyoming, and others who have spoken eloquently in behalf of American workers. It is easy to say, Well, we are talking about a bill here, a bill before the U.S. Senate. But the truth of the matter is that we are talking about people. We are taking about people and families. We are talking about the fact that people in single-parent homes--obviously 100 percent of the parents--have to be at work. And in multiple-parent homes, two-parent families, the cost of doing business and taxes have really literally driven the second parent into the workplace, and they need to have time. People feel the financial stress, and they feel the family stress. All that we really have offered by the administration is that we would give people family and medical leave, which is a way to say that you can have time off without pay if you need to spend time with your family. If you give people time off without pay, that increases the financial stress that they went to work to resolve. I have found in my own family that every time I had to take a kid to the doctor that was not when I needed less pay. That was when I needed my full paycheck, because when you had those emergencies there is all of the little dollar costs of those emergencies. So I really believe that this opportunity we present to let people sort of develop a bank of time off so that they can take time off with pay later on is very important. The comptime part of this bill--which is to say that, if you are asked to work overtime, you can say instead of having time-and-a-half- time overtime pay I would like to have an hour and a half with pay off later on for each hour that I work in overtime. Time off with pay instead of just taking pay as time for the overtime is a way for people to meet these needs. It only though goes to people who normally get overtime. What you really find out is that of about close to 60 million workers who work by the hour in America only about a third of them ever get any overtime at all. Most companies say, ``Well, we just can't afford to be paying 150 percent of our labor costs. So we don't provide for any overtime.'' So, if all we did was to address the comptime parts of the labor force, which is the way you can get time and a half off for working an hour of overtime, time and a half off with pay, we would find ourselves limited from a quarter to a third of the work force that we were helping. The last time I checked, whether or not your company does overtime, or whether or not you normally get overtime, your kid still gets sick, your kids still get awards, your kids still go to soccer games, and they still need their parents. But, if we just deal with the narrow quadrant of the culture that gets overtime, we are going to ignore two- thirds to three-quarters of the culture, and we really need to do more than that. It is important for us to then have what we provided for every Federal employee, and that is the option for flextime. Flextime is the way to schedule work in advance, to work an extra hour in one period so you can take an hour off with pay in another period, or the most popular program for Federal workers. This started in the 1970's. So there is not a big problem to work 45 hours 1 week in return for only having worked 35 hours in the next week, and that really results in people taking every other Friday off. Since Friday is a working day, you can do the motor vehicle license stuff, or you can go to the doctors. It is the ability for people to spend time with their families. One other point needs to be mentioned, especially in light of the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico about serving working women. Overtime work in this country is concentrated among men. Hourly workers are just about split evenly between women and men. But overtime work is 2-to-1 in favor of men. So for every woman that gets an overtime hour men get two overtime hours. So, if we are really going to try to relieve pressure on working women, we do less for women in this bill if we just do the comptime, and if we do not get to the flextime part of the bill. I think it couldn't be said more clearly than in USA Today, the lead editorial, ``Harried workers need comptime flexibility but unions blocking flexible work rules are favored by employees and employers alike.'' That is the black letterhead line sort of stuff. I already submitted this for the Record. It says those who stand in the way deserve a permanent vacation. I don't know that we want to put them on vacation but send them home. The point is we really need to find ways to help workers. This is the way to help people have more time with their families without taking a pay cut and to help people plan. The more pressing the responsibilities are the more valuable planning is. It is against the law right now to plan with your employer to work an extra hour this week and take that hour off with pay next week. We shouldn't make it against the law for people to do reasonable things like that. It is against the law right now for your employer to say, ``Instead of paying you time and a half time off, I am giving you time and a half off with pay down the road.'' It is against the law. The Government shouldn't be about the business of making reasonable agreements like that against the law. The editors of USA Today have made it clear that they agree that this is something that needs to happen, and that labor unions and their lobbyists here in Washington shouldn't stand between the American people in this capacity to serve their families. It is with that in mind that we should continue to work toward the enactment of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be pleased to yield. I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today editorial entitled ``Harried Workers Need Comp Time's Flexibility'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I asked the Senator to yield for a question, which is, some who are opposed to this have indicated that this is a pay cut. Is it your understanding that when a person takes time and a half off with pay later instead of overtime pay, that that represents a pay cut? Or is that a way to have some time off the next week without taking a pay cut?