John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3032.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would express the sense of the Senate that the Government should not invest the Social Security trust fund in the stock market. I believe there is a consensus on both sides that this is the case. Last year, we voted 99-0 to say we did not want the Government playing stockbroker for a day with the retirement security of the American people. I personally believe we could do this on a voice vote as a matter of saving the time and energy of this body. I suggest we do so. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to begin by praising Chairman Domenici for producing this responsible budget, which I intend to support. Chairman Domenici's budget will fully protect Social Security over 5 years. This represents a sea change in the way business is done in Washington. When I came to Washington, Congress routinely spent money out of the Social Security trust fund, something that Chairman Domenici's budget does not even consider. As a result of this hard-fought fiscal discipline, this budget will retire $1.1 trillion in publicly held debt over 5 years, and $177 billion next year. If we continue upon the path laid out by this budget, we will completely eliminate the publicly-held debt over the next 13 years. In addition to responsibly paying off our debt, this budget allows for $150 billion in tax cuts over 5 years, including $13 billion in FY 2001, and responsible increases in other discretionary accounts, including a 4.8% increase in national defense. I would like to commend Senator Domenici for crafting this budget, and emphasize what a pleasure it is to work with him. Last year, I worked with Senator Domenici on a rule in last year's budget that created a point of order against any budget that spends money out of the Social Security surplus. As a result of last year's budget rule, the CBO has stated that they FY 2000 budget will not spend a penny out of the Social Security surplus for the first time in 40 years. This year, the Senate Budget Committee estimates that the United States government will have an on- budget surplus of $8 billion. This on-budget surplus allows the government to protect the Social Security trust fund and to help reduce our publicly held debt by $300 billion by the end of this year. Early last year, I introduced the first legislation designed to lockbox the Social Security trust fund. This legislation formed the basis of the Ashcroft rule protecting Social Security included in last year's budget resolution. In addition, we spent much of last year working on the Abraham- Domenici-lockbox, which also would have protected all of the Social Security surpluses from new spending. Unfortunately, the Democrats saw fit to block this legislation, filibustering the lockbox 6 times. Despite this opposition, we have succeeded in creating in practice what we have not yet achieved in legislation. This year Senator Domenici included last year's Social Security rule in the FY 2001 budget, and Senator Abraham successfully offered a committee amendment to extend that point of order to 60 votes, which was my original intention. Protecting Social Security through the Social Security lockbox has been a giant step forward in the fight for responsible budgeting. Now it is time to take that fight one step further. Today I am offering an amendment that creates points of order in the Senate and the House against any budget resolution or subsequent bill that uses the Medicare or Social Security surpluses to finance on- budget deficits. We do not have that protection now. This new rule I am proposing expands the Social Security budget rule by adding Medicare part A to the Social Security lockbox, ensuring that Congress must balance the budget without using any money from the annual Social Security or Medicare part A surpluses. If Congress does dip into the Medicare part A surplus, my amendment calls for a sequester of discretionary spending in the amount of the violation. While protecting the Medicare surplus seemed to be an unattainable goal just a few short years ago, this goal is now within our reach. In addition to funding the government for fiscal year 2000 without spending a penny out of the Social Security trust fund, CBO projections demonstrate that we now have enough revenue available to protect the $22 billion part A Medicare surplus as well. It is imperative that we limit spending this year so that we do not dip into the Medicare surplus in FY 2001. Both Medicare and Social Security are funded out of payroll taxes specifically delineated for their respective purposes, and are supposed to be reserved for those purposes. If there are surpluses in these accounts, if these accounts take in more money than is necessary for their stated purposes in a specific year, then that money should not suddenly be available for general government spending. Any and all surpluses in those two accounts should be reserved for their stated purposes, or be used to help shore up those accounts. This legislation promotes honest accounting, and requires the government to use funds for their advertised purposes. In addition to protecting these essential funds, the Medicare lockbox rule will send the powerful message that protecting Medicare and Social Security is our highest priority. Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt by 2037. Medicare is projected to become insolvent even sooner, in 2023. We have made real progress on these two fronts since the beginning of the Republican Congress. Social Security's projected insolvency has been extended from 2029 to 2037, while Medicare's bankruptcy has been pushed back by a greater amount, from 2002 to 2023. Despite this progress, we still have more work to do. Lockboxing Social Security and Medicare surpluses is an essential first step in securing the long term financial solvency of Medicare and Social Security. It is vitally important that we ensure that the government not spend monies dedicated for the trust funds that sustain these essential programs. The Medicare lockbox rule will change the way business is done in Washington. We should pass the Medicare lockbox rule, so that protecting Social Security and Medicare will be part of the rules of the Senate. Passing this rule will be the next step on our journey to secure the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to permit Congress to prevent the desecration of our greatest national symbol: the American flag. I want to thank Chairman Hatch for his leadership on this important issue. Last year, Senator Hatch, on behalf of myself and many others, introduced S.J. Res. 14, a constitutional amendment to authorize Congress to protect the flag through appropriate legislation. Since 1998, the Judiciary Committee has held four hearings on this issue. I am pleased that this resolution now has 58 Senate sponsors. In addition, the House of Representatives has already passed an identical resolution, H.J. Res. 33, on June 24, 1999, by a vote of 305 to 124. Throughout our history, the flag has held a special place in the hearts and minds of Americans. Even as the appearance of the flag has changed with the addition of new stars to reflect our growing nation, its meaning to the American people has remained constant. The American flag symbolizes an ideal for Americans, and or all those who honor the great American experiment. It represents freedom, sacrifice, and unity. It is a symbol of patriotism, of loved ones lost, and of the American way of life. The flag stands in this Chamber, in our court rooms, and in front of our houses; it is draped over our honored dead; and it flies at half-mast to mourn our heroes. It is the subject of our national anthem, our national march and our Pledge of Allegiance. In short, the flag embodies America itself. I believe that our nation's symbol is a unique and important part of our heritage and culture, a symbol worthy of respect and protection. This is not a new perspective. The American flag has enjoyed a long history of protection from desecration. Chief Justice Harlan, upholding a 1903 Nebraska statute proscribing use of the Flag in advertisements states, [To] every true American the Flag is a symbol of the nation's power--the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense. It is not extravagant to say that to all lovers of the country it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed; liberty regulated by law; the protection of the weak against the strong; security against the exercise of arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 41 (1907). It is for these reasons that Americans overwhelmingly support preserving and protecting the American flag. During a hearing I chaired in March 1998, entitled ``The Tradition and Importance of Protecting the United States Flag,'' the witnesses noted that an unprecedented 80 percent of the American people supported a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. Recent polls show that support unchanged. In addition, the people's elected representatives reflected that vast public support by enacting flag protection statutes at both the State and Federal levels. In fact, 49 State legislatures have passed resolutions asking Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. Regrettably, the Supreme Court has chosen instead to impose the academic and elitist values of Washington, DC, on the people, instead of permitting and upholding the values that people attempted to demand of their government. In 1989, the Supreme Court ignored almost a century of history and thwarted the people's will in the case of Texas v. Johnson by holding that the American flag is just another piece of cloth for which no minimum of respect may be demanded. In response, the Congress swiftly attempted to protect the flag by means of a statue, the Flag Protection Act of 1989, only to have that statute also struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. Eichman. In 1989, 1990 and 1995 the Senate voted on proposed constitutional amendments to allow protection of the flag--and each time the proposal gained a majority of votes, but not the necessary two-thirds super-majority needed to send the amendment to the States for ratification. And so we are here today to try again. Critics of this measure urge that it will somehow weaken the rights protected by the first amendment. I would draw their attention to the long standing interpretation of the first amendment prior to Texas v. Johnson. At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, the tradition of protecting the flag was too firmly established to suggest that such laws are inconsistent with our constitutional traditions. Many of the state laws were based on the Uniform Flag Act of 1917. No one at that time, or for 70 years afterwards, felt that these laws ran afoul of the first amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself upheld a Nebraska statute preventing commercial use of the flag in 1907 in Halter v. Nebraska. As Chief Justice Rhenquist noted in his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, ``I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which make criminal the public burning of the flag.'' Mr. President, I also reject the notion that amending the Constitution to overrule the Supreme court's decisions in the specific context of desecration of the flag will somehow undermine the first amendment as it is applied in other contexts. This amendment does not create a slippery slope which will lead to the erosion of Americans' right to free speech. The flag is wholly unique. It has no rightful comparison. An amendment protecting the flag from desecration will provide no aid or comfort in any future campaigns to restrict speech. Moreover, an amendment banning the desecration of the flag does not limit the content of any true speech. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, ``[t]he concept of `desecration' does not turn on the substance of the message the actor intends to convey, but rather on whether those who view the act will take serious offense.'' Likewise, the act of desecrating the flag does not have any content in and of itself. The act takes meaning and expresses conduct only in the context of the true speech which accompanies the act. And that speech remains unregulated. As the Chief Justice noted, ``flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others.'' But what if we fail to act? What is the legacy we are leaving our children? At a time when our nation's virtues are too rarely extolled by our national leaders, and national pride is dismissed by many as arrogance, America needs, more than ever, something to celebrate. At a time when too many Americans have lost respect because of disrespectful actions of elected leaders, we need a national symbol that is beyond reproach. At a time when Hollywood, which once inspired Americans with Capra-esque tales of heroism, integrity, and national pride, now bestows its highest honors on works that glorify the dysfunctional, the miserable, the materialistic, and the amoral. America needs its flag untainted, representing more than some flawed agenda, but this extraordinary nation. The flag, and the freedom for which it stands, has a unique ability to unite us as Americans. In sum, there is no principal or fear that should stand as an obstacle to our protection of the flag. The American people are seeking a renewed sense of purpose and patriotism. They want to protect the uniquely American symbol of sacrifice, honor and freedom. The genius of our democracy is not that the values of Washington would be imposed on the people, but that the values of the people would be imposed on Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in letting the values of the American people affect the work we do here. It is my earnest hope that by amending the Constitution to prohibit its desecration, this body will protect the heritage, sacrifice, ideals, freedom, and honor that the flag uniquely represents.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, first, I commend the bipartisan efforts of the Agriculture Committee. In S. 2251 the committee has produced a bill which will deliver much needed expansion and improvement of the federal crop insurance program. Additionally, I appreciate Senators Roberts and Kerrey for accepting a proposal I put forward that will establish a commission to examine reform issues over the long term. Missouri farmers are hurting. Prices for cotton, soybeans, corn, rice, and almost all commodities dropped so low last year that University of Missouri economists predicted grain farmers could face prices almost as low as those seen in 1986. The Senate responded to the crisis strongly by supporting a disaster assistance package worth about $9 billion in 1999. The Senate now has the opportunity to assist farmers by helping them protect their losses that are due to bad weather and market fluctuations. Our farmers need more affordable crop insurance, to obtain higher levels of coverage and revenue protection. Missourians, like farmers in many other sates, are diversifying their agricultural production and increasingly focusing on specialty crops. S. 2251 also provides a realistic basis for expanding and improving insurance for specialty crops. As good as this bill is, I offered, and Senators Roberts and Kerrey graciously accepted, a provision that would establish a commission to review the effect of the changes made in traditional crop insurance and the addition of a pilot project for alternative risk programs. The Federal Crop Insurance Improvement Commission will report to Congress in 2 years with its findings. The Commission strengthens the public- private partnership that farmers rely on to deliver crop insurance by bringing together Government officials, economists, farm interests, and insurers to review various proposals. As we review farm policies down the road, I want to have the input of those that are actually out there ``in the field.'' Again I thank my Senate colleagues from Kansas and Nebraska for bringing this important issue to the Senate floor. I want farm families to be able to encourage their children to continue the traditions of family farming and agri-business. The crop insurance reform detailed in S. 2251 puts us one step closer to that goal.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the Senate recesses for the weekly party conference lunches from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. When the Senate reconvenes, it will begin consideration of H.R. 5, the Social Security earnings legislation. Under a previous agreement, there will be approximately 4 hours of debate with three amendments in order to the bill. Any necessary votes on those amendments will occur this afternoon with a vote on final passage to occur on Wednesday morning. For the remainder of the week, the Senate may begin consideration of the crop insurance legislation or any other legislative or Executive Calendar items available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as has been noted, we will be dealing today with the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. I think individuals on both sides of the aisle are eager to deal with this kind of legislation. What is the earnings limit? The earnings limit is simply a way of saying that if citizens between 65 and 69 years of age earn over a modest amount of money when they earn outside income by working, the Government deducts from their Social Security $1 for every $3 they earn; that is, for $1 over $17,000, the Government reduces the benefits $1 for every $3 of earnings. This makes it very difficult for a number of people who are between 65 and 70 years of age, who want to be able to sustain themselves, who want to be able to help their families, who want to be able to remain independent and not dependent on Government. Yet Government has this rather onerous discriminatory effect on their work habits. It says if you earn money, we are going to take money away from what you have previously earned as a Social Security benefit. The earnings test is a misguided and outdated relic of a time when jobs were scarce, unemployment was high, when people did not live as long and healthy lives as they do today. It is clearly a disincentive for seniors to work. By telling seniors if they work hard and earn money, we will just take it away from them or we will deduct it from their Social Security, we are saying: Seniors need not apply; seniors need not aspire to a better life; seniors need not expect to remain independent--all of which are the wrong statements for us to be making to our seniors. There are a great number of seniors who are working anyhow and paying a penalty for working. It seems strange that in a country that needs workers, we are asking people to pay a high penalty for working: 1.2 million working seniors are penalized now; 17,523 working seniors in Missouri suffer losses in their Social Security as a result of their industry, their willingness to work. But the actual number of seniors affected by this pernicious idea of discriminating against seniors in the workplace is much greater than this 1.2 million nationwide or 17,523 in the State of Missouri. There are millions of seniors who choose not to work or choose to work only a small amount because they don't want to work in such a way that it will erode, undercut, undermine, or diminish their Social Security income. Keeping seniors out of our workforce has a serious consequence. It is against our best interest to remove the kinds of things seniors bring to the workforce. They are great workers. They are skilled workers. They are workers of value and experience. The current unemployment rate of 4 percent indicates to us that we need skilled and experienced workers. Seniors are highly valuable members of the workforce. Their continuing contributions are crucial. The only limit to what they have to offer is the earnings limit. We should not limit what good people can offer to this country. I have spent quite a bit of time in my home State of Missouri talking with constituents. There are real life examples. Beverly Paxton from Belton, MO, who represents the Green Thumb organization, says hundreds of seniors would be eager to work without the earnings test. Furthermore, some don't try to work for fear that the Social Security Administration might take benefits away. Seniors don't want to have to visit a CPA to find out whether if they go to work they will lose benefits or be taxed at such a high rate that working will actually end up costing them money. Many more limit their hours to avoid the Social Security earnings test and its application which would result in the deduction of Social Security benefits. A manufacturer from Belton, MO, said to me: Seniors work until they reach the income limit. Then they tell the employer: I won't be here next week; I will see you next January. Well, what does this do to our situation where we want people to be able to work with continuity and our manufacturers and our enterprises to be able to provide service with continuity? Here we have an employer who is left in the lurch, having to absorb training costs or heavy overtime costs because we have said to seniors: You cannot work on a regular basis if that regular basis carries you over the income limit. These decisions of people working for quite a bit of time and then precipitously dropping off or being underemployed by not working very much throughout the entire year are based on the arbitrary earnings test limit of the Social Security Administration which says if you pass a certain limit, we will start deducting from your Social Security check. Even when seniors work around the test, they suffer unexpected costs. C.D. Clark from Florissant, MO, had earned $25,000 before trying to limit earnings to protect himself from the test. He had planned to work only 8 months so his Social Security benefits would not be cut; he would get himself down under the limit. The Social Security Administration, however, assumed he would earn the same amount, the $25,000 he had earned previously, and withheld his Social Security checks from January through March of this year. When Mr. Clark complained to the Social Security Administration that he had not reached the income limit of $17,000, he was told: We like to get our money up front--as if Social Security was their money, as if it were not a benefit for which Mr. Clark had paid years and years of taxes. Not only do we find people harmed financially, but seniors express to me over and over again that their physical and mental well-being is pinned upon their ability to keep working. In St. Joseph, MO, working is a mental health issue. Seniors who don't work often lose their sense of self-worth. This point was not only made to me in my visit to St. Joseph but across the State. In Joplin, for example, I was given the same information. To the extent that the earnings test keeps as many as 200,000 Missouri seniors from working, it harms the mental well-being of those 200,000 Missouri seniors who would like to be active. Over and over again, this was a refrain I heard from seniors: We want to work; we want to be active; we need to be. The earnings test can threaten lives in other ways as well. Lois Murphy of St. Louis is 65 and works part-time as a registered nurse in the operating room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center. The hospital suffers from a labor shortage and needs help from women like Mrs. Murphy who are experienced, willing, and dedicated to work. She limits her hours because of the earnings limit. This takes a skilled, experienced, and needed worker out of the hospital, out of the capacity of caring for other individuals. Mrs. Murphy wrote to me: The $17,000 limit a person could earn plus the small Social Security check is not enough to live comfortably and enjoy your senior years. Mrs. Murphy neatly summarized this issue in one simple sentence: I think if a senior citizen at age 65 is willing to work, they should be able to earn a lot more or not have a limit. Well, I believe Mrs. Murphy is right. Seniors should have the freedom to earn if they choose. The problem is that they don't have that choice. We must send the earnings test into retirement. We should retire the earnings test, not force the retirement of our senior citizens. One of the business owners and operators I talked to put it this way: Seniors are able to work pretty aggressively through most of the year until they get up to the brink of the Christmas season when they really are needed. Then when they are intensely needed, the test kicks in and they have to check out. Many seniors who want to work don't work because of the costs imposed by the earnings test. Take, for example, a senior in the 28-percent tax bracket. The earnings test kicks in. One out of every $3 is taken away from Social Security. That turns out to be another tax of roughly 33 percent. Then if you add the 7.65-percent Social Security tax on the people, and a State income tax of, say, 6 percent, you get up to a 74- to 80- percent combined tax load on a working senior citizen. If they have any expenses of going to and from work, or wardrobe expenses associated with work, it could well be that the senior citizen actually loses money. The Government is so aggressive in reducing their ability to earn. The earnings test is pernicious and discriminatory toward seniors. This is something we ought to address. I am delighted that the House has done so and that the President has signaled his agreement with what the House has done. I have been working on this since I came to the Senate in 1995. I voted to substantially increase the limit in 1997. I called for the elimination of the test and cosponsored legislation that would get rid of the test. This year, I have introduced legislation that would eliminate the test. My bipartisan legislation has 43 cosponsors, including the entire majority leadership. There are a number of others, organizations and all, who have endorsed this concept, including Green Thumb, 60+, the Seniors Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Air Force Sergeants Association, Americans for Tax Reform, CapitolWatch, National Tax Limitation Committee, United Seniors Association, United Seniors Health Cooperative, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The point is, the House of Representatives recognized the value of this concept and unanimously voted to eliminate the earnings limit. The President has indicated he would sign clean legislation, unencumbered by extraneous amendments. I believe we should follow the lead of the House and do what the President is asking us to do--to deliver this measure which would eliminate the earnings test. It is something I have been working on now for years. It is a counterproductive, unfair penalty. I believe that, because the President is prepared to sign it, the Senate now needs to move forward and eliminate this out-of-date and costly impediment, this discrimination, this very serious problem for our seniors, which prohibits our culture from having the benefit and value of the best effort of many of our very best workers. With that in mind, I look forward to the debate later today. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this morning I spoke in morning business on the repeal of the Social Security Earnings Limit, an onerous tax burden on seniors who want to continue working. This afternoon, while we are discussing the bill, I would like to re-emphasize my support for repealing this unfair test. Earnings test is a misguided and outdated relic of the Great Depression--when jobs were scarce, unemployment high, and people did not live as long and healthy lives as they do today. By limiting the amount a person 65-69 can earn, it provides a disincentive for seniors to work. For every dollar a senior aged 65-69 earns over $17,000, the government reduces benefits by $1 for each $3 of earnings. This test penalizes 1.2 million working seniors nationwide, and 17,523 working seniors in Missouri suffer. The actual number of seniors affected is far greater, though, as millions of seniors choose not to work, or limit their earnings because of the penalty. The effect of this test is to keep seniors out of the workforce, and it has serious consequences. More workers create more jobs, not fewer jobs. With our current unemployment rate of 4 percent--we need skilled and experienced workers. Unfortunately, the earnings limit keeps too many qualified, experienced seniors out of the workforce. Seniors have the skills, integrity, work ethic, and experience that make them highly valuable members of the workforce. Their continuing contributions are crucial. The only limit to what they have to offer is the earnings limit. Recently, I spent some time with constituents in Missouri, and found many seniors in my home State of Missouri are harmed by the earnings test. Beverly Paxton from Belton, who works with ``Green Thumb'' to find jobs for seniors, told me that hundreds of seniors would be eager to work without the earnings test. Furthermore, some don't try to work for fear that the Social Security Administration might take their benefits away. Seniors don't want to visit a CPA to find out if they will lose benefits. In addition, many more seniors limit their hours to avoid the test. A manufacturer in Belton told me that some seniors work until they reach eligibility, then tell the employer: ``I won't be here next week, I'll see you next January.'' This leaves employers in the lurch, having to absorb training costs or heavy overtime costs. These decisions based on the earnings test impose productivity costs on the economy. Even when seniors work around the test, they suffer unexpected costs. C.D. Clark, from Florissant, Missouri, and who has since moved to Kentucky, had earned $25,000 before trying to limit earnings to protect himself from the test. This year, he planned to only work 8 months so that his Social Security benefits would not be cut. The Social Security Administration, however, assumed he would earn the same amount, and withheld his Social Security checks from January through March of this year. When Mr. Clark complained to the SSA that he had not yet earned $17,000, he was told, ``We like to get our money up front.'' I recently received a letter from Lois Murphy of St. Louis, who is 65, and works part time as an RN in the operating room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center. The hospital suffers from a labor shortage, and needs help from women like Mrs. Murphy, who are experienced and willing to work. But she limits her hours because of the earnings limit, taking a skilled, experienced--and needed--worker out of the hospital. In her letter, Mrs. Murphy wrote: ``The $17,000 limit a person could earn plus the small Social Security check is not enough to live comfortably and enjoy your senior years.'' Mrs. Murphy neatly summarized this issue in one simple sentence: ``I think if a senior citizen at age 65 is willing to work, they should be able to earn a lot more or not have a limit.'' I believe that Mrs. Murphy is right. Seniors should have the freedom to earn if they choose. But the problem is that they don't have that choice. We must send the earnings test into retirement. I have been working on this since I came to the Senate. In 1995, I voted to substantially increase the limit. In 1997, I called for the elimination of the test and cosponsored legislation that would get rid of it. This year, I have introduced legislation that would eliminate the test. My bipartisan legislation has 43 cosponsors, including the entire majority leadership. Organizations that support me on this include: Green Thumb, 60+, the Seniors Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Air Force Sergeants Association, CapitolWatch, Americans for Tax Reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and the United Seniors Association. It is time to eliminate this counterproductive and unfair penalty. The House has already acted. The President is prepared to sign this. Thanks to the hard work of Chairman Roth, who is managing this bill, the Senate is now ready to pass the earnings test repeal as well. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this measure, and grant seniors the opportunity to earn freely in their golden years.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to give honor to Ingvald Bernard Jacobsen, Uncle Barney, who will be celebrating his 90th birthday on March 25th. He is the first born of Gina Brathen Fyhrie Jacobsen and Peder Jacobsen. Although Mr. Jacobsen was born in Racine, Wisconsin, due to the death of his grandmother, he and his family moved to Norway. While a young boy in Norway, Ingvald learned the value system he has maintained for the past 90 years through a strong belief in the Bible by which his mother and grandfather lived. He became a Christian at his mother's knee before starting school and has been a walking example of what it is to be Christian all his life: never the preacher, always the doer of kind deeds for others, expecting nothing in return for those kind acts. Mr. Jacobsen's early years were lean on material things and long on the hard work of a farm and a life on the seas helping to earn the family living. He attended school three days a week and completed his education by age 14. He was confirmed in the small Lutheran church on a Norwegian island, and still uses the New Testament he was presented with that day in 1924. After returning to the United States in 1928, Mr. Jacobsen's first job was landscaping the new golf course in Forest Hills, New Jersey, where he worked with his father. When that job was completed, he moved to Chicago. Thereafter, he had many jobs that led to a position at Northwestern University lasting 25 years. In 1935, Mr. Jacobsen joined a fraternal order called Sons of Norway, a group of Norwegian immigrants that got together for fellowship. This fellowship grew by leaps and bounds all around the world and has become a vehicle for keeping the old traditions of Norway alive, as well as the language. He has held every office possible in his local lodge and district and served as an international director for eight years, a great honor for him. Because of his faithfulness and hard work throughout the Norwegian community in the Midwest, King Olav V awarded him the King Olav medal in 1973. Throughout his years in the Chicago area, Mr. Jacobsen gave of himself above and beyond the call of duty. At Trinity Lutheran Church, he sang in the choir, greeted people at the door with a warm welcome, and was in charge of the coffee hour and Easter breakfast for years. He picked up countless children for Sunday School and led the Boy Scout troop in the church. Every year near Christmas time, he saw to it that the residents of the Norwegian home for the elderly in Chicago had a traditional cod-fish dinner. He chose the fish, picked it up, peeled the potatoes, and than poached the fish and saw that it was served to every person. His reward came in the form of tins of fresh, Norwegian homemade cookies baked by the ladies auxiliaries of these homes. Mr. Jacobsen was asked to serve on the Tall Ship committee when in 1976 the Norwegian Tall Ship Christian Radich came to Chicago to celebrate the 200-year anniversary of our country's birth. He was also a member of the select few who greeted King Olav V in Chicago in 1975, when the 150th anniversary of a sailing vessel finally made it to Chicago from Norway. He was honored by traveling the city with King Olav V, spending many days and hours in his company including a large dinner attended by dignitaries from around the world. After the death of his wife, Bernie Lars, Mr. Jacobsen sold his home and built a beautiful addition to his daughter's home. Since 1997, following a successful battle with cancer, he has resided with his granddaughter, Solveig, in Illinois part of the year and with his oldest daughter, Carolyn, and her husband in the mountains of North Carolina during the remainder of the year. Mr. Jacobsen will be celebrating his 90th birthday with countless friends and relatives, including five who will come from Norway. Grateful people filled with joy and happy memories of this gentle giant--he still stands tall at 6 feet 3 inches--will gather to honor and thank him. I join those many friends and relatives in wishing him a joyous and rich celebration.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and honor Silex Assembly of God in Silex, Missouri. On March 26th, they will be dedicating their new church building. This dedication and celebration is a tribute to God's faithfulness to the congregation, which began gathering together in 1942. It is also a tribute to their labor of love and personal generosity, led by Pastor and Mrs. John Pool. Pastor Pool, who retired in 1985, agreed to step up to the pulpit again when the Silex church called upon him to lead them. Now, at age 81, he and the congregation have built their new church themselves, with volunteer labor and sacrificial contributions of time and money. Mrs. Pool has helped feed the volunteer groups day after day. Their devotion to Christ brings honor to the name of the Lord. I join those gathered for this wonderful occasion, including the Pool's five children and most of their grandchildren, in bringing best wishes for a memorable celebration as Silex Assembly of God renews its commitment to the redemptive mission of Christ. May God bless this ministry with many more years of celebration.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute to 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 seriously the commitment of ``till death us do part'', 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 Ramah and Herbert Robinson of Lee's Summit, Missouri, who on April 9, 2000, will celebrate their 70th wedding anniversary. Many things have changed in the 70 years this couple has been married, but the values, principles, and commitment this marriage demonstrates are timeless. As the Robinsons celebrate their 70th year together with family and friends, it will be apparent that the lasting legacy of this marriage will be the time, energy, and resources invested in their children, church, and community. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Robinsons' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I support the objective of the Senator from California that the Senate should do all it can to implement policies ``that will reduce the threat of gun violence in schools.'' I would like, however, to note that the amendment contains an erroneous factual finding. This amendment states that ``Every day in America, on average, between 12 and 13 children under the age of 18 die of gunshots from homicides, accidental shootings and suicides.'' That is incorrect. According to the 1997 statistics collected by the National Center for Health Statistics there were 4,205 firearms-related deaths of persons aged 0 to 19, 85 percent of whom were between the ages of 15 and 19. Thus, the daily average stated in this amendment is young adults and children under the age of 20, not under 18 as this amendment says. Of course, this number is far too high regardless of whether it is young adults and children under 18 or under 20. It is a national tragedy either way, and the Senate should do all it can to reduce that number. I just want to make the record clear, consistent with my belief that the Senate has an obligation when it makes findings of fact to be accurate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I strongly support and urge Congress to pass and President Clinton to sign the Affordable Education Act now pending before the Senate. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Children presently are 25 percent of our population and 100 percent of the future. It is my fundamental belief that Congress should invest in the future by improving educational opportunities for students. This bill is part of a comprehensive strategy to give parents and local schools the resources needed to make the 21st century, the era in which educational excellence for all students is achieved. For the past three years, Congress has passed legislation that provides tax incentives to help parents pay for the education of their children. But President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation that provided these incentives. Parents across America hope and trust that this time these tax incentives will be enacted into law. A major feature of this bill is that it creates Educational Savings Accounts for K through 12 expenses. These ESAs allow parents to contribute up to $2,000 annually to an Educational Savings Account. The build-up of earnings within the account is tax-free if used for educational expenses, such as tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs services, books, computers, etc. The premise behind ESAs is that parents should have greater control over the education of their children. After all, who is in a better position to know what each child needs--a bureaucratic Washington government or the parents and teachers who see that child every day? This bill does more than just create Educational Savings Accounts. Included in this bill are other provisions that I have either supported or co-sponsored that: Provide tax incentives to help pay for college tuition; Provide tax exclusions for education assistance programs provided by employers; Revise the tax treatment of qualified state tuition programs to exclude from gross income any distributions used for higher education expenses; Allow a tax deduction of up to $2,500 per year of interest on education loans; Allow a limited tax credit for the donation of computers to schools, and extends from two to three years the age of computers that may be donated to schools; and Reduce the complexity of the arbitrage rules that currently govern the issuance of school bonds. This bill provides more than $4.3 billion of education tax incentives for the next five years, and it gives more educational control to parents. Parents will be able to save more for the future education of their children. This bill is just one part of an overall strategy to increase educational resources. Over the past five years Congress has increased overall educational spending by 40 percent, and Congress last year approved a budget that projects yet another 36 percent increase over the next four years. In the next few weeks Congress will take up legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will be offering amendments to that bill that will: Channel federal aid in failing school districts to teaching the academic basics in order to raise student achievement levels; Provide funds for failing school districts to use in attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers; and Double the amount of federal aid for college costs for high achieving students in failing school districts. For now, however, Congress should take the first step in expressing its commitment to improving education by passing the pending Affordable Education Act. I urge Senators to support this legislation.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address a serious and specific crisis that has occurred in my home state of Missouri. In October of 1999, the Missouri State Board of Education canceled accreditation for Kansas City's schools, effective May 1, 2000, and gave St. Louis a court-required probationary period in lieu of accreditation withdrawal. Today, 80,000 young people are trapped in these failing urban school districts. It is hard for students to be successful in these types of settings. Both of these school districts receive substantial financial resources from the federal government, yet we are not seeing positive results on our investment. It is time for taxpayers to have accountability so that they know their tax dollars are spent in classrooms to boost academic achievement. This is especially true since Congress is continuing to increase its financial commitment to education. Federal education funding has increased by 40% since 1994. And most recently, last year Congress approved a budget that proposes to increase federal resources for education by an additional 40% over the next five years. The final budget bill passed by Congress for FY2000--and that I supported--pays the first installment by increasing these resources by 6%, or $2 billion, $35 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. In light of this increase in federal education resources, I want to encourage better, smarter use of federal funds where the need is greatest--in failing schools--so that the children languishing in these schools will have a real opportunity to achieve academic excellence and create a brighter future for themselves. Therefore, today I am introducing the Excellent Schools for All Our Children Act, a three-part program to help students trapped in failing urban schools in St. Louis, Kansas City, and other U.S. cities. This bill was developed in response to my state's challenge to the accreditation of Missouri's two largest school districts. This new legislation would channel federal aid in failing schools to teaching the academic basics, in order to raise student achievement levels; would provide funds for failing schools to use in recruiting, retaining, and rewarding highly qualified teachers; and would double the amount of federal aid for college costs for high-achieving students in failing schools. While focusing on an overall plan to streamline and simplify federal education programs for all schools, my plan incorporates a two-tiered ``flexibility when merited and accountability when warranted'' approach to the use of federal education resources. First, this legislation proposes a major reduction in paperwork and ``red tape'' for all schools, by consolidating a number of federal education programs so that funds may be sent directly to local schools. Schools will be free to use the funds in ways they believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement. The programs included in this consolidation are: Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Class Size Reduction (the ``100,000 Teachers'' funding); Title III, Technology for Education; Comprehensive School Reform under Title I; Title VI block grant; Immigrant Education under Title VII C; the Fund for Improvement of Education under Title X, Part A; and the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. This provision is modeled after the Bond-Ashcroft ``Direct Check for Education'' legislation introduced in 1999. For school districts that fail to meet their state's performance- based accreditation standards and, are thus failing their students, these ``direct check'' funds may be spent only for purposes relating directly to improving academic performance. This will include focusing on ``the basics;'' funding mentoring programs to help students who can't read, write or do arithmetic; and using proven methods of instruction, such as phonics. These federal funds can also be used to recruit, retain, and reward high quality teachers. Districts in trouble need help in finding and keeping the very best teachers, and my legislation provides resources for this purpose. These school districts will be asked to report on how they have spent their federal resources and on their students' academic performance using state and local measurements. Parents and others in the community need to see how their federal tax dollars have been spent on educating their children. When these school districts attain state accreditation for two consecutive years, they will gain the authority to use federal resources under new standards for expanded local control created by this legislation for non-failing schools. These school districts regaining accreditation will also have access to $10 million annually in new federal funding to reward teachers and principals for improved student performance, and for professional development opportunities. Finally, the Excellent Schools for All Our Children Act encourages students in failing school districts to be high achievers. As an incentive to their studies, I am proposing special college aid awards that would at a minimum double the amount of federal aid now available for students' college costs. Students who rank in the top ten percent of their high school class and have an ACT or SAT score that is at or above the national average would be eligible for these ``Good Student Scholarships,'' which would be equal to the maximum appropriated Pell Grant award, presently $3,300 per year. Thus, a high-achieving student eligible for a Pell Grant of $1,500 would also receive a Good Student Scholarship of $3,300, for a total federal aid package of $4,800. Mr. President, as a parent and public servant, I want to help thousands of young Missourians who are trapped in failing urban schools. It is clear to me that federal resources should be doing more to benefit these children. My plan to target resources to fund programs that will encourage and elevate student achievement will provide our students in failing school districts with the opportunity to succeed. We cannot risk losing an entire generation to the snares of education mediocrity. The federal government can--and should--be a critical partner in providing education funding in a manner that will help all our school children attain academic excellence. I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and congratulate Mr. and Mrs. David Herbst, on receiving the National Young Farmer Award from the American Farm Bureau Federation. From their farm near Chaffee, Missouri, David and Leslie Herbst have set an example to our nation's agricultural industry about productive farming, land management, and environmental conservation. The National Young Farmer Award is the highest award given for outstanding achievements, and it is given only to one farmer each year. David and Leslie Herbst were selected from a field of nominees submitted by state Farm Bureaus across the nation. It is an honor for Missouri to have such prominent examples of excellence in farming. This prestigious award, presented to David and Leslie, is accompanied by some impressive prizes, including a 2000 Dodge Ram 4x4 truck and an Arctic Cat all terrain vehicle. They also won registration to conferences that will give them an opportunity to share their successes and perspectives on farming with other young farmers and ranchers. David and Leslie are continuing the tradition of family farming in southeast Missouri. They are the fourth generation of Herbsts to farm in the region, and they have been particularly successful with a unique approach to environmental protection that will preserve their land and keep it fertile for future generations. When I look to Missouri, I do not see a state defined only by its geography--spanning from the Missouri River to the Mississippi River. Nor do I simply define Missouri by its economic diversity--a state leading in farming and industry. I see the definition of Missouri as a place where Missourians, like the Herbsts, can work together to give the next generation more opportunity than we have today. It is a state of ascending opportunity. Because of David and Leslie's careful stewardship of their land, prudent planning, and perseverance through the market crises of recent years, they will be able to advise the next generation of Missourians to continue the traditions of family farming and agri-business. The Herbsts can truly say ``the best is yet to come.'' It is my honor to wish David and Leslie continued success in agriculture. They have set an inspiring example for farmers across the nation, and indeed in Missouri.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of repealing the Social Security earnings test, the onerous tax burden the United States government places on seniors who wish to continue working. In order to ease this unfair burden, I am hereby introducing the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000. The earnings test limits the amount a person older than 65 and younger than 70 can earn without having his or her Social Security benefits reduced. Currently, benefits are reduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings over $17,000. This test provides a disincentive for seniors to work by reducing seniors' Social Security benefits according to the amount of income they earn. It is time to repeal that limit. Right now, Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2034. One of the reasons for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security is the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries, which worsens as our elderly population continues to grow much faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. In 1960 the ratio was 5:1, today it is a little more than 3:1, and in thirty years it is expected to be only 2:1. This decreasing number of workers paying for retirees benefits is making it increasingly difficult to make the Social Security books balance. Instead of helping to fix this problem, the earnings test exacerbates this situation. By providing a disincentive to work, the earnings test keeps seniors at home instead of at work and paying the payroll taxes that keep the Social Security system solvent. The earnings test is based on a misconception of the U.S. economy. The Social Security Earnings Test is a relic of the Great Depression, designed to move older people out of the workforce and create employment for younger individuals. The idea behind the earnings test is that if seniors were penalized for working, they would stay home and open up employment opportunities for younger workers. Not only was this view wrong in earlier times, but it is counterproductive in today's economy. Today, we do not have a labor surplus, but a labor shortage. Unemployment is at a long-time low of 4.0%, one-and-a-half points lower than the so-called ``full employment'' mark of 5.5%. Low unemployment is a great development, but it contributes to a labor shortage that will worsen when the ``baby boom'' generation ages. Employers will have to develop new sources of labor to fill this shortage, and seniors represent the most experienced, most skilled workers. Many senior citizens can make a significant contribution, and often their knowledge and experience complements or exceeds that of younger employees. 35 million Americans are over the age of 65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work experience. It is both counterproductive and harmful to our growing economy to keep willing, diligent workers out of the American economy. In addition to the negative consequences for the economy as a whole, the Social Security Earnings Test is also bad for seniors. The earnings test punishes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for their attempts to remain productive after retirement. This is particularly problematic for low income seniors, many who exist on fixed incomes, and are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When combined with federal, state and other Social Security taxes, taxes on the elderly can total nearly 55 or 65 percent. An individual who is struggling to make ends meet should not be faced with an effective marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent. While the earnings test harms lower-income people, it only affects seniors who must work and depend on their earned income for survival. Wealthy seniors are not affected by the earnings limit. Their supplemental, ``unearned'' sources of income are safe and not subject to the earnings threshold. At the same time, many of the older Americans penalized by the Earnings Test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses: health care, housing and food. Many seniors do not have significant savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are particularly hard-hit by the Earnings Test. In addition to all of the policy reasons for elimination of the Earnings Test, the most important reason to eliminate the Test is that it is fundamentally unfair. The earnings test discriminates against seniors. Nobody, regardless of creed, color, gender, or age should be penalized for working or discouraged from engaging in work. Furthermore, the Earnings Test takes money from seniors that is rightfully theirs. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are losing due to the Earnings Test penalty are benefits they have rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years before retiring. These are benefits which they should not be losing because they are trying to survive by supplementing their Social Security income. Mr. President, it is time to eliminate this counterproductive and unfair penalty. With the Social Security and Medicare Trusts Funds facing long-term insolvency, it is now more important than ever to encourage work. More people working means more people paying into the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this unfair burden placed on elderly Americans. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of repealing the Social Security earnings test, the onerous tax burden the United States government places on seniors who wish to continue working. In order to ease this unfair burden, I am hereby introducing the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000. The earnings test limits the amount a person older than 65 and younger than 70 can earn without having his or her Social Security benefits reduced. Currently, benefits are reduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings over $17,000. This test provides a disincentive for seniors to work by reducing seniors' Social Security benefits according to the amount of income they earn. It is time to repeal that limit. Right now, Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2034. One of the reasons for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security is the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries, which worsens as our elderly population continues to grow much faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. In 1960 the ratio was 5:1, today it is a little more than 3:1, and in thirty years it is expected to be only 2:1. This decreasing number of workers paying for retirees benefits is making it increasingly difficult to make the Social Security books balance. Instead of helping to fix this problem, the earnings test exacerbates this situation. By providing a disincentive to work, the earnings test keeps seniors at home instead of at work and paying the payroll taxes that keep the Social Security system solvent. The earnings test is based on a misconception of the U.S. economy. The Social Security Earnings Test is a relic of the Great Depression, designed to move older people out of the workforce and create employment for younger individuals. The idea behind the earnings test is that if seniors were penalized for working, they would stay home and open up employment opportunities for younger workers. Not only was this view wrong in earlier times, but it is counterproductive in today's economy. Today, we do not have a labor surplus, but a labor shortage. Unemployment is at a long-time low of 4.0%, one-and-a-half points lower than the so-called ``full employment'' mark of 5.5%. Low unemployment is a great development, but it contributes to a labor shortage that will worsen when the ``baby boom'' generation ages. Employers will have to develop new sources of labor to fill this shortage, and seniors represent the most experienced, most skilled workers. Many senior citizens can make a significant contribution, and often their knowledge and experience complements or exceeds that of younger employees. 35 million Americans are over the age of 65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work experience. It is both counterproductive and harmful to our growing economy to keep willing, diligent workers out of the American economy. In addition to the negative consequences for the economy as a whole, the Social Security Earnings Test is also bad for seniors. The earnings test punishes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for their attempts to remain productive after retirement. This is particularly problematic for low income seniors, many who exist on fixed incomes, and are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When combined with federal, state and other Social Security taxes, taxes on the elderly can total nearly 55 or 65 percent. An individual who is struggling to make ends meet should not be faced with an effective marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent. While the earnings test harms lower-income people, it only affects seniors who must work and depend on their earned income for survival. Wealthy seniors are not affected by the earnings limit. Their supplemental, ``unearned'' sources of income are safe and not subject to the earnings threshold. At the same time, many of the older Americans penalized by the Earnings Test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses: health care, housing and food. Many seniors do not have significant savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are particularly hard-hit by the Earnings Test. In addition to all of the policy reasons for elimination of the Earnings Test, the most important reason to eliminate the Test is that it is fundamentally unfair. The earnings test discriminates against seniors. Nobody, regardless of creed, color, gender, or age should be penalized for working or discouraged from engaging in work. Furthermore, the Earnings Test takes money from seniors that is rightfully theirs. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are losing due to the Earnings Test penalty are benefits they have rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years before retiring. These are benefits which they should not be losing because they are trying to survive by supplementing their Social Security income. Mr. President, it is time to eliminate this counterproductive and unfair penalty. With the Social Security and Medicare Trusts Funds facing long-term insolvency, it is now more important than ever to encourage work. More people working means more people paying into the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this unfair burden placed on elderly Americans. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor today. Just a few days ago, on February 1, I came here to talk about a professional football achievement, congratulating the St. Louis Rams on their Super Bowl victory. It was a tremendous victory. Today, I come to the floor on what may seem to some to be another ``football story,'' albeit one that is much more tragic. I want to make remarks about my friend, Kansas City Chiefs' linebacker Derrick Thomas. I want to talk about more than just professional sports. I believe what is important in life is not what game you play but how you play the game to which you are called. I want to share my thoughts on a young man who was a true professional. Yesterday, the Kansas City Chiefs' great linebacker, Derrick Thomas, died of cardiorespiratory arrest, a complication from a tragic automobile accident of January 23. The accident occurred on a snow and ice-covered stretch of Interstate 435 in Clay County, MO, as Derrick and two of his friends were headed to the airport to fly to St. Louis for the NFC championship game between St. Louis Rams and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. To Derrick's many loyal fans, the news of his death is stunning and saddening--profoundly saddening. The life of Derrick Thomas, who lived but 33 years, should be celebrated. His accomplishments on the field and off the field were substantial. An All-American at the University of Alabama, he became an instant star with the Kansas City Chiefs after his selection in the first round of the 1989 draft. He was named as an All-Pro in each of his first nine seasons in the league. Derrick ranked ninth on the all- time list in career quarterback sacks. Chiefs fans will never forget the day in 1990 when No. 58 set the amazing single-game record of seven sacks in a game against the Seattle Seahawks on Veterans Day. What some people don't know is that Derrick dedicated his efforts on Veterans Day to his father, an Air Force pilot killed in Vietnam in Operation Linebacker II when Derrick was just five. The fighters from nearby Whiteman Air Force Base periodically do a fly-by during pre-game ceremonies. The planes, according to Derrick Thomas, reminded him of his father and provided inspiration for some of his greatest and most spectacular performances. I have been at Arrowhead Stadium before games for those pre-game ceremonies, when in the parking lot there was tailgating, with the smoke from the barbecue and the roar from the jets as they crossed the field in a fly-by. It is a moving experience, but it moved none of us as much as it moved Derrick Thomas, who set records based on the inspiration that reminded him of his dad. Derrick will, no doubt, enter the pantheon of Kansas City's great athletes--George Brett, Tom Watson, and Len Dawson, just to name a few. But Derrick's accomplishments off the field are worthy of note as well. He was that kind of special star who took all that he gained from his talents and gave back with generosity, energy, and joy to his community. Very early in his career as a Kansas City Chief, he began an inner-city reading program called the ``Third and Long Foundation.'' As part of it, he read to children at local libraries on Saturdays when he was home in Kansas City during the season. He was No. 832 among President George Bush's celebrated ``Thousand Points of Light.'' He was named the NFL's Man of the Year in 1993. Two years later, he received the Byron ``Whizzer" White Humanitarian Award from the NFL Players Association for his service to the community. In addition, he received the Genuine Heroes Award from Trinity College in Chicago. But more important than accolades from several foundations was the love and respect directed toward Derrick by the people of Kansas City. They understood that Derrick helped bring an invigorated sense of civic pride and community and togetherness to Kansas City, and the Chiefs fans were inspired by his sunny smile, his giving heart, and his winning ways. The arrival of Carl Peterson and Derrick Thomas to Kansas City marked the resurrection of Lamar Hunt's historic franchise. The people of Kansas City loved Derrick Thomas--as a Chief and as a person. Carl Peterson, at yesterday's news conference, clearly communicated his deep respect and profound joy in his association with Derrick. Others expressed themselves eloquently as Kansas City Chiefs fans who, visiting the Web site on the Sports Illustrated chat room, left remarks about this great football player. The first remark I would like to call to your attention is from a fan who calls himself ``Frank L.'' In a frank evaluation, perhaps, he put it this way: Thanks for everything, D.T. [Derrick Thomas]. You helped bring our city to life and gave us a common cause. While doing that you helped a lot of those less fortunate. Now you are with your father that you always talked about and never knew. Back here in the land of the free and the home of the Chiefs we will never forget you. God bless your soul. That line back there, ``in the land of the free and the home of the Chiefs,'' is the way they sing the anthem at the stadium. They didn't want to say the ``brave,'' so they said the ``Chiefs.'' Derrick knew that and enjoyed it. Listen to what a fan, called Big58, says. And, of course, we all know Derrick was No. 58. He wore that number on his jersey. A fan who identified himself as Big58 said: I can't believe that Derrick is gone. He was one of my heroes for more than a decade now. Derrick did so much for the Kansas City community and the people here. It wasn't loved in KC because he was such a great athlete. He was loved in KC because of the person he was. The time and money he gave to help the kids of the Kansas City community was enormous. And who can forget his Veterans Day performances dedicated to his father who was killed in Vietnam? They were always D.T. at his best. At least D.T. will have some great company along with our Lord in Heaven. I'll bet he's chasing around Walter Payton right now. And ya know what, Derrick will finally get to spend time with his Dad. We love you and will miss you Derrick. Rest in Peace. And finally, not only are Chiefs fans saddened, but others who recognized his talents as well. Listen to what Lance Reynolds had to say: I have been a Raider fan for over 20 years. Derrick Thomas single handedly ruined at least a dozen Sunday afternoons for me; destroying O-tackles, tight-ends and quarterbacks of the Silver & Black. The Raiders-Chiefs rivalry runs deep. Even though, I have found myself pacing the Chiefs sidelines the past couple of weeks avidly cheering for Derrick Thomas' quick recovery. Today I find myself amongst the millions mourning his death. Derrick Thomas, you wickedly ruthless foe, God Bless You! You are already missed! From time to time, we are compelled to pause and consider the real and lasting value of the things we hold dear. For Missouri football fans like me, today is a reminder that, as much as we love the game, it is just a game. To those to whom we look for examples, we extend our thanks, and we give our thanks to Derrick, for he was one who excelled not just on the field but inspired us by an example and called us to our highest and best. Friends such as Derrick Thomas are a rare and special gift to each of us. We will miss him. Our prayers are with his family his friends and each other as we, his fans, across the Nation and certainly across Missouri and Kansas City are saddened by this very substantial loss. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to commend the House for beginning to move through its process, specifically the House Ways and Means Committee, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of the year 2000. I am delighted that my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Brownback of Kansas and Senator Hutchison of Texas, have been so aggressive in talking about what this tax means to America. Almost all of us realize that if you tax something, you get less of it, and if you give something a subsidy, you get more of it. It occurs to me that we do not need less marriage, less family, and fewer intact households in America. We need strong, durable, lasting families that reflect the kind of commitments for which marriage really stands. It is possible for people to be committed to each other without the formal institution of marriage, but the data indicates that possibility does not find its way into reality very often. Marriage is not something that is against the interests of America. Marriage is something that is advancing the interests of America because it is in our homes and in our durable, lasting, persistent relationships, loving relationships, that we teach the fundamental values so important to this culture--values of responsibility, values of work and, yes, values of caring. We learn that we have responsibility and duty to each other. If someone in our family is in trouble, our first turn is not outside the family to get help; we first turn toward each other to help. One of the greatest values any culture can have is learning how to care one for another, and it happens in our families. I plan to talk for a few minutes today about a real problem we have in this country, and that is that our Tax Code is at war with some of the fundamental values and attributes and characteristics in our culture. I think it is wrong for our Government to be attacking the very institution in society which provides the best support for what we otherwise achieve governmentally. Someone far more wise than I said it first when they said the family is the best department of social services, the family is the best department of education, the family is the best department of health and welfare. One would think if the family were doing this job and doing it well and relieving Government of its backstopping responsibility in these places, we would want to encourage the family; we would want to support it; we would want to sustain it; we would want to provide incentives for it rather than a penalty. That is the thing that confounds us--that we are providing a penalty. Some great industrialist once said: Your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting, basically saying if you are not getting what you want, you should change your system. Senator Brownback eloquently cited the data. We are not getting what we want. We are getting fewer marriages instead of more marriages. We are getting less durability in these relationships instead of more. Look at the reason for the family breakups we have, and almost every sociological study says at the heart of it is the financial stress in the family. What is Government doing in regard to marriage and stress that financially threatens and sometimes disrupts those marriages? It is adding to the stress instead of relieving the stress. Forty-two percent of all married couples suffer a marriage penalty, meaning the Government taxes them more for being married than they would be paying if they were not married. We have already heard the data, and I do not think it is important to have the data, but it is there: About $1,400 per couple per year on average for the 21 million couples who suffer this $29 billion a year disadvantage imposed by Government against the very institution that should carry us into this next century. When the House Ways and Means Committee marked up the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, they were simply saying it is time for us to start peace negotiations; stop the war between Government and families; let's start having incentives for helping families. At least let us have a neutral environment so we do not have a situation where families are discriminated against by the Tax Code of the United States. In my home State of Missouri, there are 1 million potential marriage tax victims because of family standing. According to the Treasury Department, 42 percent--over 4 out of every 10 married couples--pay a penalty for being married. I find that to be a tragedy. According to the Tax Foundation, an American family spends more of its family budget on taxes than on health care, food, clothing, and shelter combined. When you say this is the kind of tax bite the American family is paying--it pays more for Government than health care, food, clothing, and shelter combined --Government is taking a big bite. It is taking a big bite from every citizen. Then add to that a Government penalty, a financial stigma imposed, saying we are going to tax you more because you are married than you would pay otherwise. This is wrong. It is simply that we have found a way, unfortunately, to get additional resources for Government at the expense of resources to the family. In some measure, this really calls upon us to ask ourselves where our faith is for the future of America. What do we believe will sustain America in the future? Is it going to be big Government or will it be strong families? Will it be a culture that teaches responsibility, duty, compassion, and caring, one for another, or will it be a massive Government? If we really believe families are irrelevant, we should take more and more of their money and pour it into the bureaucracy. But I do not believe bureaucracies are the hope of America or of the world tomorrow. Responsible citizenship, the kinds of values that are engendered in families, these are the elements of America's future. These are the bright lights that allow us to believe the best is yet to come, and we should stop eroding the funding for families by giving it all to Government. If our faith is in families, we should help families. How do we help families? The first thing we do is let them keep some of the money they earn. Penalizing families is the wrong way to go about that. Unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers announced on Tuesday that he will advise the President to oppose the House bill, less than 1 week after the President announced his support for marriage penalty tax relief. The marriage penalty may actually contribute to one of society's most serious and enduring problems. There are now twice as many single- parent households in America as there were when this penalty was first enacted. I cannot say it is a cause, but it is hard to believe it is not a contributor. In our Government policies, we should not be intensifying the problems; we should be eliminating the problems and mitigate the damages they cause. Our Government should uphold the basic values that give strength and vitality to our communities and to our culture. Sound families do that, and the science which supports that proposition is sound and complete and uncontradicted. Marriage and family are a cornerstone of who we are and what we stand for as a civilization, but the heavy hand of Government which imposes a penalty against marriage distorts the system and lacks the fairness we want in the tax system, and, frankly, it undermines our potential for the kind of future that good families, allowed to reserve some of their resources for their own use and development, could provide. It is with that in mind that I commend the House for its action, and I look forward to the day when we in the Senate can do what we almost got done last year. We did it in the Senate. We had a major tax relief for the American family through the abolition or mitigation of the marriage penalty tax, sponsored by Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and I was privileged to be a cosponsor. It went to the President and was vetoed in the overall tax package. This concept the President has endorsed, which I think America understands, to bring parity to families so they are not discriminated against, because they are a part of the enduring, lasting, persistent, valuable relationship of marriage, is a concept whose time has come. I am grateful for the action taken by the House and look forward to the opportunity of implementing, otherwise enhancing, that relief for American families in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, across America, buildings are named for great Americans and fallen heroes so that the living might memorialize the legacy of those who have died. Petty Officer 3rd Class Matthew E. Schlimme was just such an American. He was an extraordinary hero in service to his nation and fellow man. Raised on a farm in Southeast Missouri, Matthew knew the value of hard work, the necessity for respect and consideration of others, and the need to overcome obstacles. One such obstacle he had from an early age was a fear of the water. Not only did Matthew join the U.S. Coast Guard to overcome his fear, but in doing so he served his country and saved a life. On February 12, 1997, Officer Schlimme and two other Coast Guardsmen were thrown overboard in 24-foot seas while attempting to rescue a sailboat. Before going overboard, Schlimme was able to buckle in Seaman Apprentice Benjamin Wingo. Mr. Wingo was the sole survivor. Officer Schlimme lost his life, but gained the thanks of a nation. Mr. Schlimme's parents, Larry and Haroletta Schlimme, of Burfordville, Missouri, were present at the January 27, 2000, dedication of the Matthew E. Schlimme Industrial Facility in St. Louis. The building will provide a production site for navigation equipment and will house the St. Louis Electronic Support Detachment. Mr. and Mrs. Schlimme can be proud of their son's bravery and courage. His act of heroism has been remembered in the hearts of many Missourians. All of Missouri is deeply grateful to Officer Schlimme for his bravery and ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes, at the conclusion of which time I will propound a unanimous consent request regarding Senate Resolution 250 related to the Super Bowl champions, the St. Louis Rams.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to make a comment on an event which is very important to the State of Missouri, very important to the city of St. Louis, very important to this Senator. It happens that over the weekend, the St. Louis Rams encountered a very energetic and talented team, the Tennessee Titans, in Atlanta to settle the issue of who would be the Super Bowl NFL champions this year. In a very hard fought game that represented the highest of effort by both teams, the Rams prevailed. There are those who from time to time ask me if I was nervous at any time. I think they were hoping I would say I was never nervous. Well, I got pretty nervous toward the end of the game. But I was very pleased with the result because there is no team more worthy of having won this game than the St. Louis Rams. I will just say a few things about the St. Louis Rams, about that marvelous effort of a crew we call the ``go to work,'' ``gotta go to work'' crew in St. Louis. Different football teams are understood and known for different things. The St. Louis Rams have a slogan: Gotta go to work. I don't think there is a better slogan anywhere for a sports team than a sports team that elevates the idea of work. It is work that brings us to any goal, to the achievements we enjoy. It is work that gives us successful families. It is work that allows America to compete successfully around the world. It is that work ethic, expressed by the St. Louis Rams, that made them world champions. For me to have the opportunity to stand today and say a few words about the St. Louis Rams, the fact that they had the work ethic necessary to prevail in the Super Bowl over an excellent team from Tennessee, is something for which we are all grateful. I will talk a little bit about the kind of statistical year the Rams had. We had Kurt Warner, who is one of the great Horatio Alger stories of America. People talk about rags to riches. I don't know if he has gotten to riches yet. He was at the minimum wage in the National Football League before they decided to give him a bonus this year, and I don't know that he was in rags, but 5 years ago he was bagging groceries in Iowa because he hadn't quite gotten the opportunity to demonstrate his skills in football. Maybe this would be called from bags to riches. The truth is, it is a heroic story of an individual who has not only great football skills but whose inspirational life is the kind of leadership we need more of in this country. When asked about his own inspiration, he said he gets inspiration from his family and the handicapped member of the family who every day, when falling down, gets back up. For the most valuable player in the Super Bowl, the most valuable player in the National Football League, to understand that we can all learn from each other and we can learn from even those in their heroic efforts who have not the talents that we do but have the courage to get back up, that is a tremendous thing. It is with that in mind that I will talk a bit about the St. Louis Rams today, the Ram team, including Kurt Warner, and then Marshall Faulk, who set the all-time record for combined yardage this year. I thrill to the fact that there are youngsters in my State and across America who are saying: I want to be like Marshall Faulk; I want to be like Kurt Warner and this team of individuals who are such outstanding individuals; Isaac Bruce, who has been so productive as a football player and such an exemplary leader in our community. There are statistics about this team. They won the West divisional title with a 13 and 3 record. They posted an undefeated record at home. That is something special to me because that was in the TWA Dome. When I was Governor of the State of Missouri, it was my responsibility to be involved in the construction of that dome and to see to it that it came in under budget and on time and was a great facility. But no facility ever achieves greatness unless there are great things done there--to have the team come and be undefeated there this year and, of course, have other great things there. The Pope visited St. Louis and was at the TWA Dome, and Billy Graham came to St. Louis this year and was at the TWA Dome. There are some people who think it is important to invite the Pope and Billy Graham back next year so we can go undefeated another time. We would be pleased to have them come back because they bring the kind of presence to St. Louis that all of us cherish and want. To watch our quarterback, Kurt Warner, who enjoyed one of the best seasons ever by an NFL quarterback, becoming only the second player in history to throw more than 40 touchdown passes and to realize that he wasn't discovered as a starting quarterback until this year's circumstances thrust him into the position, it was an amazing thing: completing 66 percent of his passes; 10 300-yard games in the season; setting a new Super Bowl record for 414 yards in passing. The offense of the Rams team: 526 points, the third highest single-season record ever. Of course, Kurt Warner was named the NFL player of the year. He took his $30,000 award and gave it to Camp Barnabus, which is a camp for young people in southern Missouri. This wasn't a $30,000 donation by someone who is making the big salaries; this was a $30,000 donation by someone who is earning the minimum wage in the NFL. I could go on. The resolution that I will propound not only talks about Kurt Warner but extols the greatness of Marshall Faulk. These individuals are as great, or greater, off the field than they are on the field. That is what is so inspiring--their commitment to community. Isaac Bruce caught 77 passes for 1,165 yards and 12 touchdowns in the regular season and led the Rams to a Super Bowl victory with 6 receptions for 162 yards, including a game-winning 73-yard touchdown reception that, frankly, required him to make a very big effort to come back and get the ball and go get the score. What a tremendous inspiration it was. On defense, Todd Lyght led the Rams with a regular season career high of six interceptions, including a touchdown. He started in 97 straight games. Now, there is durability. Talk about having to go to work. That is the longest current streak with the team. Rams' linebacker Mike Jones ended the very spectacular and heroic effort of the Tennessee Titans on the 2-yard line with the game-winning tackle as the time ran out in the Super Bowl. I could also talk about wide receiver Terry Holt and about Coach Dick Vermeil, named NFL coach of the year, the oldest coach ever to win a Super Bowl. He, of course, retired from coaching, but he came back because he still had a burning capacity within him to motivate and help young people, and the football team reached the maximum of its potential. It is with that in mind I wanted to propound a resolution to congratulate not only the team, the St. Louis Rams, but, frankly, the fans of St. Louis. No group of fans that I know of is more intelligent, understanding of the game, and more supportive of a team than the fans in St. Louis. The fans came together with the team over and over again. They stuck with the team in previous years when we were the worst in the league and helped carry the team when we were first in the league. That is very important. I was at a tremendous celebration in St. Louis, and the individual who announces the team onto the field in each game, who is also a disc jockey at KSD FM, Smash, Asher Benrubi, was leading this rally. It became very apparent to me that the biggest contribution of the St. Louis Rams is the contribution of community, because the community has come together around this team in a special way that unites us all. Unity is the most important characteristic of any organization. When you can be unified and work together, that is something to behold. It struck me at the time that the last five letters of the word ``community'' are the word ``unity.'' Those things, those challenges in our lives, and those opportunities in our lives, those victories and, yes, even defeats bring us together and are valuable to us. It is with that in mind I thank Smash for his great leadership as the MC of that rally. I thank the fans of St. Louis.