John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Hatch introduced S. 10, the Violent and Repeat Offender Act of 1997. Senators Lott, Domenici, Sessions, and I worked with him in developing the bill. While not perfect, the bill does take the initial steps in dealing with the epidemic of violent juvenile crime sweeping the Nation. Mr. President, the face of crime in America is indeed changing. Throughout our history, one thing has been clear: government's first responsibility is to keep the citizenry safe. John Jay wrote in The Federalist, No. 3, ``Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be first.'' The murderers, robbers, rapists, and drug dealers of yesteryear were typically adults. Now they are typically juveniles. As the age of these criminal predators becomes younger and younger with each passing year, so does the age of their victims. Last Wednesday afternoon, 12-year-old Darryl Dayan Hall was abducted at gunpoint from the Southeast Washington area by three teenagers of a gang known as the Simple City Crew. This is the same gang that opened gunfire at a crowded community swimming pool in June 1993, wounding six children. This past Saturday, police found Darryl's frozen body. He had been shot once in the back of the head and at least once in the body. The three teenagers who are now charged with Darryl's murder have had numerous prior brushes with the law. One of Darryl's assailants was charged as a juvenile with possession of PCP in 1995 and then was released--as is too often the case--promising not to run afoul of the law again. Another of Darryl's assailants was, and is, on probation following his juvenile conviction last spring for possession of PCP with intent to distribute. Darryl's third assailant was charged as a juvenile just last month with carrying a deadly weapon. Mr. President, from 1984 to 1994, the number of juveniles murdered in this country increased 82 percent. In 1994, one of every five juveniles murdered was killed by another juvenile. The rate at which juveniles 14 to 17 years old were arrested for murder grew by 22 percent from 1990 to 1994 and the problem is going to get worse, much worse. Congress over the last three decades has established 131 separate Federal programs--administered by 16 different departments and agencies--to serve delinquent and at-risk youth, according to a report issued by GAO last March. Conservative estimates of Federal appropriations used for these at-risk and delinquent youth programs was more than $4 billion in fiscal year 1995. Despite this ongoing massive expenditure, the Federal Government has failed to meet its responsibility of providing public safety in this arena because it has not focused on holding juveniles accountable for their violent crimes. We now have a new category of offenders that requires a different, tougher approach. In short, we have criminals in our midst--young criminals--not juvenile pranksters and truants. The juvenile offenders of today will become the career criminals of tomorrow, if government continues to fail to recognize that America has an acute social illness that cannot be cured solely with money spent on social programs. This legislation introduced today takes a common sense approach in dealing with the current epidemic of juvenile violence. It would help States make urban, suburban, and rural communities safe once again. The bill would provide $2.5 billion over 5 years in new incentive grants for States to enact accountability-based reforms in their juvenile justice systems. This legislation would authorize funding for various programs, including efforts aimed at trying our most violent juveniles as adults; establishing the ability of States to collect juvenile criminal records, fingerprints, and photographs, and to share such criminal histories and information within a State, with other States, and with the Federal Government; and establishing Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]. Religious organizations would also be permitted to participate in the rehabilitative programs included in the bill. Mr. President, serious, violent, and repeat juvenile offenders must be held responsible for their crimes. Today we are living with a juvenile justice system that was created around the time of the silent film. We are living with a juvenile justice system that reprimands the crime victim for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and then turns around and hugs the juvenile terrorist, whispering ever so softly into his ear, ``Don't worry, the State will cure you.'' The juvenile justice system's primary goal today is to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile offender. Such a system can handle runaways, truants, and other status offenders; but it is ill-equipped to deal with those who commit serious and violent juvenile crimes repeatedly. The criminal justice system can emphasize to adult criminals that acts have real consequences. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish, that is, to hold defendants accountable. This legislation would provide financial assistance to States to help them reform their juvenile justice system to get the message to juveniles that their acts have real consequences to them as well. States will be eligible to receive Federal funds to help provide for the adult prosecution--as a matter of law or prosecutorial discretion-- of juveniles 14 or older who commit violent crimes such as murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon or offenses involving controlled substances or involving the possession of a firearm or a destructive device. Mr. President, punishing dangerous juveniles as adults is an effective tool in fighting violent juvenile crime. For example, in Jacksonville, FL, State Attorney Harry Shorstein instituted a program to prosecute and incarcerate such offenders in 1992. Two years later, the number of juveniles arrested in the city dropped from 7,184 to 5,475. While juvenile arrests increased for most of the Nation, Jacksonville's arrest rate actually decreased by 30 percent. Mr. President, States also need to create and maintain juvenile criminal records. Typically, State statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles, no matter how heinous, must be kept confidential from the rest of society. Our laws continue to view juveniles through the benevolent prism of basically good kids gone astray. The law should really view the juvenile predators of today as the criminals that they are. These young criminals know that they can commit crime after crime because their juvenile records are kept hidden under a ``veil of secrecy.'' They also know that when they reach their 18th birthday, they can begin a second career as adult criminals as if they had never committed a crime in their young lives. The argument is that we are protecting juveniles from the stigma of a record, but in reality we are coddling hardened criminals. We must separate rhetoric from reality by lifting the ``veil of secrecy.'' The law enforcement community needs to know if an individual has a prior juvenile criminal record in order to conduct criminal investigations and apprehend those responsible for crimes in their towns, cities, and counties. According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is also president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement is in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief says, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.'' Chief Walchak also notes that ``there are only 26 States that even allow law enforcement access to juvenile records * * * if we [law enforcement] don't know who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.'' Mr. President, it is that simple. As juvenile gangs spread from urban to suburban to rural areas, as they travel from State to State, the ``veil of secrecy'' draped over their criminal histories and records undermines the ability of law enforcement to protect the rest of society. In order to empower local law enforcement, the proposed bill would provide money to States to create and maintain juvenile criminal records, and to share those records with other federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Mr. President, school officials also need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in protecting the best interests and safety of all students. The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting innocent, law-abiding students. While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, MO, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. The student told the teacher, ``You don't know if I'm a murderer or a rapist and I ain't gonna tell you.'' That student was not only brutally honest, he was right. No one had any knowledge of what crime he had committed and, more importantly, they had no way of finding out. If schools knew the histories of violent juveniles, they could respond to any misbehavior by imposing stricter sanctions, assigning particular teachers, or having the student's locker near a teacher's doorway entrance so that the teacher can monitor his conduct during the changing of class periods. In short, this bill would allow school officials to take measures that could prevent violence against other children at school. Mr. President, for purposes of adult sentencing, adult courts need to know that convicted felons have a history of criminal behavior. According to the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, nearly 40 percent of prison inmates also had prior criminal records as juveniles. That is approximately 4 in 10 prison inmates. The proposed legislation would allow adult courts to have access to juvenile records so that criminals could no longer masquerade as neophytes before the adult criminal justice system. The bill also allows State and local governments to use Federal funds to implement the Serious Habitual Offenders Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]. SHOCAP is a multi-agency crime analysis and case management process for identifying and prosecuting violent and hard-core juvenile offenders in a community. SHOCAP targets such serious habitual offenders for intensive social supervisory interventions, intensive accountability in school attendance and discipline, and strenuous investigation and prosecution when they commit a new crime. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP] conducted five test pilots of SHOCAP. Oxnard, CA was one of the sites selected. When SHOCAP was implemented in Oxnard in 1983, officials found that less than 2 percent of all juveniles arrested in that community were responsible for over 35 percent of the felonies committed by juveniles. Four years later, Oxnard's juvenile violent crime dropped 38 percent. Illinois and Florida have also recently established statewide SHOCAP programs in an effort to reduce their juvenile crime rates. S. 10 would allow all jurisdictions to use Federal funds to help implement SHOCAP. Mr. President, reforms are also necessary at the Federal level as well. S. 10 would make it easier for Federal prosecutors to try juveniles as adults. Under the bill, U.S. attorneys would have discretion to decide whether to try as adults juveniles 14 years or older without having to go through the Attorney General's office in Washington. Federal juvenile court proceedings would be opened to the general public. When imposing a sentence, the district court would also be allowed to consider a juvenile's entire criminal record under the bill. In any case in which a juvenile is tried as an adult, access to the record of that offense would be made available to law enforcement authorities and others in the same manner that adult criminal records are publicly available. Mr. President, the government should also be able to mount a counter- attack on gang violence. This legislation targets violent youth gangs, like the notorious Simple City Crew in the District. There would be new Federal penalties for offenses committed by criminal street gangs. Gangs are no longer concentrated in the big cities, they are now in rural towns. The bill would also provide $100 million to hire assistant U.S. attorneys to prosecute juvenile criminal street gangs. We as a nation and a government must challenge this culture of violence and restore the culture of personal responsibility and accountability. It is high time to consider hard-headed and sensible juvenile justice policies. Where possible we must give second chances. Where necessary we must punish severely. This is a first step to restore justice to a nation that has grown weary of injustice. In sum, this legislation would send a clear, cogent, and convincing message to violent juveniles: ``Serious acts have serious consequences.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data is 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 Donna and Ralph Potter of Kansas City, MO, who on Sunday, January 5, 1997, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Donna and Ralph's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today is an exciting day as I introduce, along with Senators McCain, Coverdell, McConnell, and Abraham, S. 5, the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1977. Justice Holmes once wisely observed that a page of history is worth a volume of logic. With respect to the effort to enact product liability law, we have hundreds of pages of history and volumes of logic to support its enactment now. The effort of the Federal Government to address product liability goes back almost two decades when President Ford established the Federal Inter-Agency Task Force on Product Liability. Although administration changed, President Carter did not abandon the effort, but enhanced it with resulting research that supports what we do today. President Carter chartered the drafting of the Model Uniform Product Liability Act, which tentatively was offered as a vehicle for state action. Product liability legislation has been reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee seven times. Last Congress, legislation and a conference report containing many compromises and bipartisan agreements was voted upon favorably in each House. A bipartisan majority of the Senate approved the conference report on March 21, 1996. The bill that we introduce today is that conference report. I appreciate that today's bill reflects a bill one that was vetoed by President Clinton. But, we are not here today to simply repeat history. We are here to make history and provide Americans with fair product liability legislation. We are introducing the same bill as a ``place marker'' for discussions and a fair resolution of issues. The President's veto message suggested that he well may have been misinformed about the nature of the legislation passed by bipartisan majorities last year. Let us have discussions to clarify those matters so that the legislation is unequivocal in its meaning and purpose. We are resolved to work with the White House to obtain the President's support. I take the President at his word when he said in the Presidential debate on October 6, 1996, ``I signed a tort reform bill that dealt with civil aviation a couple of years ago. I proved that I will sign a reasonable tort reform.'' It is interesting that the President referred to the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, which he did sign on August 17, 1994. The aviation liability reform bill enacted a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. In 1994, proponents of the bill said that it would produce jobs. It has. To date, over 9,000 new jobs, good jobs, have been created. Single engine aircraft are being manufactured in America again, and an endangered industry has been revitalized. President Clinton was right to support that bill. What did opponents say in 1994 aviation bill? They said that no new jobs would be produced. And, they said that if planes were produced, they would be unsafe and, in hyperbole, suggested that they might be made of balsa wood. What actually happened? I already mentioned that 9,000 new jobs have been created. You should also know that the aircraft being made by American workers are the safest single engine aircraft produced in the history of this country. Let us bring the results of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 to the broad segments of our country and industries. We introduce this bill to stimulate job growth. We introduce this bill to remove the chilling effects that prevent the introduction of good and useful products. We introduce this bill to encourage new product development. On the other hand, it is our goal to assure that anyone that makes dangerous and defective products is appropriately sanctioned by our tort law. From the perspective of many, this bill is a very modest one. From their perspective, there is a need to have liability reform in other crucial areas, such as: general punitive reform, medical liability reform, and volunteers' liability reform. The principles contained in this bill are a good starting point to make the product liability laws in this nation fair for consumers who purchase defective products while placing the burden on those responsible for placing these products in the stream of commerce. It also ensures that those who misuse products, or use them while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not collect a windfall which becomes a burden for American consumers in the form of increased costs for products--useful products that are no longer available in the market, and the loss of jobs and greater opportunities. This bill in no way limits compensatory damages. This bill would not affect the ability of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers or sellers of medical implants. It would, however, allow raw material suppliers to be dismissed from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterial supplier is not classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the implant. Strong product liability reform is good for America. It ensures that consumers, injured by a product, will be fairly compensated. It will enhance American innovation, which is the best in the world, by treating responsible entrepreneurs fairly while treating the bad actors harshly and to the full extent of the law. As chairman of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee I am committed and look forward to working with this administration toward ending the 20- year study and painstaking endeavor to provide our Nation with sound and fair Federal product liability law. It took the European community about 6 years to accomplish this goal and create the European product liability directive. Japan enacted its first product liability reform law almost 2 years ago. Our Nation, this Congress, and this administration should pull together and meet the challenge of our foreign competitors and enact fair and balanced product liability law. In that spirit and for that purpose, we introduce S. 5.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me quickly encapsulate this important piece of legislation for the American people. Last year, in a bipartisan effort, we succeeded, and this year this bill is sponsored by a group of individuals including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Coverdell, Senator McConnell, Senator Abraham, and Senator Gramm, and I believe that we will again this year have a bipartisan approach. I have already spoken with a number of the people who were active in this measure--Senator Gorton, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Dodd--about last year's approach. We again have introduced a similar bill. This is a step on the road of reforming the legal system to provide reason and rationality where the legal system, the tort system has been out of control. Three years ago, for general aviation, the private airplane business, the small plane business, we passed a law which provided a framework of responsibility which put that part of the tort system back under control. People pooh-poohed the idea. They said, ``It won't help; it won't work to pass such a law.'' But we are now again building such airplanes in the United States. There are 9,000 new jobs in that industry alone because we made that decision, and the quality of the airplanes is better than it has ever been before. We have not deprived anyone of the capacity to receive compensatory damages as a result of inferior products or defects in products, and we want to extend the tort reform effort which began with general aviation a step further. The second step we took last year, in 1996, when we enacted securities law tort reform. And that law went into effect this last year. So it is now time for us, having done the general aviation portion of legal reform and tort reform and having moved from that to the securities law, to move to manufacturing generally in the product liability area. It is not an attempt to curtail compensatory damages. People who are injured should be compensated for their injuries. But it is an attempt to bring sanity and reason to an out-of-control tort system which is hurting the quality of our products, stifling innovation and making it very difficult for some industries to survive here. I need not tell most folks that they have already made these kinds of adjustments in the European Economic Community and, of course, by our competition in the Pacific Rim. This is another step forward in tort reform, and I commend those who have agreed to help us in this respect. I look forward to working with Senators on the other side of the aisle. The President of the United States has repeatedly reiterated his desire to sign a good bill in this respect and we will be fashioning a bill this year. The bill which we have signed is the conference report from last year's effort which passed both Houses of the Congress, and it will provide a place holder as we assemble good legislation this year which we can send to the President and urge him to sign. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to introduce these two measures, S. 4 and S. 5. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her sensitivity on this issue and for her commitment to it. I know she is dedicated to helping resolve this. There is simply no reason why the Government of the United States should put a barrier between the employers and employees of America who want to resolve stresses and strengths. We should have laws that allow people to reach these judgments about flexibly and allocating time, with adequate protection which are enforcement mechanisms through the Department of Labor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to file, in conjunction with Senators Hutchison, Lott, Nickles, Craig, Collins, Enzi, Grassley, Coats, Warner, Helms, B. Smith, and Gramm, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. This is an important piece of legislation, which should free our families from inflexible work schedules in order to meet the competing demands of the workplace and their families. This demand for our time, which stresses us and stretches us, has been recognized by people on both sides of the political aisle. As a matter of fact, the Clinton administration's Labor Department developed a report to the Nation and to the President called ``Working Women Count.'' In order to do so, they surveyed hundreds of thousands of working women. And the conclusion of the report is as follows: The number one issue women want to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of balancing work and family obligations. The Family Friendly Workplace Act is a way of helping people do just that--meet their responsibilities to their employers and meet their responsibilities to their families. Frankly, it is a way of doing it without taking a pay cut. Now, some have suggested that the way to do this is to have a family leave policy that allows workers to simply take time off work without pay. Well, that really exacerbates some of the tension in most of our families, because we have financial tension as well as this social tension that stretches us between the workplace and the home place. And so, really, what we have in the Family Friendly Workplace Act is the ability to have flexible working schedules at the option of the employee and at the request of the employee, when the employer will agree, that allows a person, for instance, to take time off on Friday afternoon and to make it up on Monday. Most Americans don't realize it, but it is against the law for an employer to agree with his employee that the employee can take time off on Friday afternoon to see his daughter get an award at the local high school and to make up that same time on Monday. The strict laws about hours and overtime make it difficult for that to happen, make it impossible, make it illegal. Those laws were developed in the 1930's. They put a lot of stress on American families. In the 1930's, we didn't have so many working mothers. One out of every 6 mothers of school-aged children worked in the 1930's, and well over 70 percent of them work in the 1990's. As we move to the next century, it is time for us to revamp our approach and to welcome the next century by accommodating these competing demands. Flexible work arrangements have been available to Federal Government workers since 1978--in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, Government workers have had a special privilege. The Federal program has been so successful that the President of the United States, by Executive order in 1993 extended it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had the benefits of that program. It is high time that the workers in the private sector of this country enjoy the same benefits of agreeing with their employers on flexible working arrangements at the option of the worker, never to be imposed by the employer, which would allow the worker to accommodate the competing needs and demands of family and the workplace. Allowing workplace flexibility is a tremendous step forward. It has been asked for by the women of America as reflected in the Clinton administration document. It has been written about, like this Time Magazine article featuring the difficulties of Lori Lucas, a single mother, working full-time in Shrewsbury, Missouri. The President of the United States has talked about flextime and the need to have it, and it is time for us to deliver it to the American people--albeit 15 or more years after we delivered it to the workers in the Federal Government. I believe that working women know what they need. Working Women Magazine and Working Mother magazines have endorsed it, and is time to have those flexible working arrangements. Working Women Magazine said in its support of this legislation, that it is time for Congress to give women what they want, and not what you Congress thinks they need. Similarly, when parents spend time at work, they can never replace that time with their families no matter how much overtime they may bring home. Sometimes people would like, instead of being paid time and a half for overtime, to take time and a half off sometime later in order to spend time with their families. That is another part of this bill-- to allow people to take as compensation for overtime--compensatory time instead of money. While it would allow a worker to ask for the money, the worker would have a complete, unchallenged and unfettered right to be paid money for the overtime. This bill is really designed to give workers choices and the opportunity to choose to be with their families instead of being forced to take their overtime in money. For some workers, there comes a point when no matter how much money they have, they simply want and need to be able to spend some time with their families. I am delighted that I have been joined in this particular endeavor in developing this legislation by one of the individuals who is most careful regarding the rights, options and choices of individuals not only in the workplace but as American citizens. I would like to yield to the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, who is the primary cosponsor of this legislation, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, and to call upon her for remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce 1996 Citizen of the Year, William H. Weber. On January 24, 1996, Bill Weber will gather with friends, family, and colleagues to celebrate his distinguished contributions to his community. Bill is a lifelong resident of Missouri and St. Charles. His volunteer career has touched innumerable oragnizations with his leadership, commitment, and unselfish hard work. Bill has been the driving force behind such significant projects as fund raising to build both the St. Peters Rec-Plex and the YMCA of St. Charles County. After a volcano destroyed the city of Armero, Colombia, South America, he worked tirelessly to build a YMCA facility to provide basic needs and housing for the children of that disaster. Closer to home, he has served on the boards of directors for Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, the Regional Commerce and Growth Association, St. Louis Sports Commission, St. Charles Public Schools, St. Charles Police and Fire Board, Crimestoppers, Mid America Theater, St. Charles County Horse Racing Commission, Daniel Boone District Chairman, Boy Scouts of America and the Eagle Board of Review, YMCA and United Services Blue Ribbon Committee. He received the Boy Scouts' highest honor, the Silver Beaver Award in 1989, Channel 5's [KSDK] Volunteer Board of Governors Jefferson Award in 1993, the YMCA's highest leadership award and Youth in Need honored him as its first recipient of their Youth Leadership Award. For this lifetime of service, I rise today to recognize and salute William H. Weber, St. Charles Chamber of Commerce 1996 Citizen of the Year. His volunteer work has been a shining example to me as well as all Missourians.

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 Ed and Marty Munson of Marshfield, MO, who, on November 11, 1996, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Ed and Marty's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lawrence Smithson of Chilhowee, Missouri who celebrated his 100th birthday on Wednesday, October 16, 1996. Lawrence is a truly remarkable individual. He has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of his life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the last 100 years. Lawrence's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join Lawrence's many friends and relatives in wishing him health and happiness in the future.

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 Andrew and Dorothy Johnson of Kansas City, MO, who on Wednesday, October 2, 1996, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Andrew and Dorothy's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Frank Pytel of Kansas City, MO, who celebrated his 100th birthday on Friday, October 4, 1996. Frank is a truly remarkable individual. He has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of his life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the last 100 years. Frank's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join Frank's many friends and relatives in wishing him health and happiness in the future.

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 Sherlie and Beulah Lawrence of Maplewood, MO, who, on November 9, 1996, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I took forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Sherlie and Beulah's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

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 Bill and Alice Wynkoop of Aldrich, Missouri who on Saturday, October 26, 1996 will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Bill and Alice's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to make it clear that I have no objections to proceeding, and I regret that objection has been heard on this matter. I have released all holds that I had on legislation and regret that this matter cannot move forward. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate his efforts to follow through on this matter and I look forward to voting in favor of the conference report before us.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I wish to congratulate Senator Pressler on his efforts and those of the other Senate conferees to work out a beneficial aviation bill in conference. The conference report before us covers airport grants for the fiscal year beginning yesterday, as well as a continuation of FAA programs, new aviation security measures, and other matters. The bill also establishes a process by which Congress can get recommendations from outside experts on how much funding FAA will need in future years for FAA programs, including airport grants, and who should be paying greater or lesser user taxes or fees. In this respect, I had hoped the conference report would have made clear that this blue ribbon commission should look at the issue of user taxes or charges from the viewpoint of the metropolitan areas where they are generated as well as indicating which user groups provided them. I believe that this blue ribbon commission should generate information as to the annual amount of Federal aviation user taxes that are collected or attributable to aviation activity within each metropolitan area in the United States and to compare these metropolitan area totals to the annual amounts of Federal airport grants that are annually received within each of these metropolitan areas. This data would be highly useful to airport sponsors and metropolitan planning organizations for assessing the probable impacts of any recommended changes to the existing aviation user tax structure. The data which I wish to have developed would be for the latest year for which the information is available, and could involve estimates when actual data about the geographic source of specific aviation user taxes can't be determined precisely. When the next FAA authorization bill is presented to us, this information would be useful in helping us make important judgments as to the equity of user taxes or fees in comparison to the airport grants our metropolitan areas have received.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to come to the floor today to talk about something that I consider to be a very serious responsibility which we in Government are failing to carry forward. I come to the floor today to point out a dismal failure in our culture, a failure that President Clinton has helped to disguise, and perhaps, has even compounded the problem with his own behavior. Last February, Antoyne Preston White, 17, was arrested in Washington along with several fellow members of a juvenile car theft ring. White pleaded guilty, and was released several days later. In April, he was arrested again, this time for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty a second time. Sentencing in this case was pending when White allegedly shot and killed Mun Hon Kim, a mailman eating his lunch in his truck, on June 11th. In total, White has been arrested 10 times in the last 3 years. Antoyne White's history is, unfortunately, typical of today's juvenile justice system. Teens with multiple arrests for felonies, sexual assaults, or violent crimes are returned to the streets and repeatedly taught by our system that they can evade and avoid punishment. In theory, our laws are protecting kids from the stigma of a permanent record. But, in reality, our laws are coddling stone-cold killers who hide behind the fact that they are teenagers. Juveniles now account for almost 20 percent of all the violent crime arrests and over one-third--one out of every three--property crime arrests. Yet, we continue to treat the majority of these criminals as if they were just good kids gone wrong. Criminologists predict that the baby boom of the 1980's will bring an explosion of young street criminals as we move into the next century. To deflect this onslaught of violent teens, the President has recommended what he calls a--these are his words --``gentle combination'' of laws and prevention programs. This ``gentle combination,'' in the words of the President, includes more proposals for midnight basketball, school uniforms, and curfews--more mandates from Washington, DC, for social programs that really would be best instituted at the instigation and creation at the local level. I have to say that I believe this administration's ``gentle combination''--to use the words of the President--will not penetrate the hardened criminal mentality of these criminal prodigies such as Antoyne White. But today's conscienceless, young, violent predators are immune to these ``gentle combinations.'' They are accustomed to them. They have taken advantage of them. They thrive on them. So they are immune to these so-called ``gentle combinations,'' which are designed to teach right and wrong but simply have been distorted to provide authority and license for individuals to conduct very violent, heinous crimes. President Clinton has done a good job of posing with the police and bragging about misleading statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing criminal about President Clinton's treatment of juvenile delinquents is his record in treating juvenile delinquents. This administration is not even enforcing the laws that are on the books--laws that this administration demanded and called for--laws that this administration came to the Congress and asked for in the 1994 crime bill. Those laws which would be available and could be effective to stop the wave of violent predatory juvenile crime are being ignored by this administration. This administration suggests that if we just have more social programming it can continue to ignore the laws which it asked for, not enforce those laws, and somehow, if we stick our head in the sand of these social programs, that the problem of predatory, juvenile, violent, vicious, random crime will go away. For example, under the 1994 crime bill, it is a Federal offense for a juvenile to possess a handgun. What have we done about the thousands and thousands and thousands of juveniles committing crimes with handguns in violation of this Federal law that the President called for? The record is not good. Here is what the record show: We know that handguns were used in the greatest proportion of homicides committed by juveniles from 1976 to 1991. The data is clear. Why isn't President Clinton's Department of Justice prosecuting these Federal offenses associated with these possessions of handguns by juveniles? Over the last 5 years, only 14--over the last 5 years, only 14-- juveniles have been prosecuted as adults for Federal firearms violations. Meanwhile, in 1994 alone, 63,400 juveniles were arrested for weapons violations nationwide. If you have 60,000 plus per year and over the last 5 years we have only had 14 prosecuted as adults for weapons violations, we have a clear failure on the part of this administration to carry forward seriously against the epidemic wave of juvenile crime that has terrorized citizens across America not only in our urban centers but in our rural areas as well. In fact, the Clinton administration has prosecuted only 233 juveniles as adults since January 1993. At an average of 63,000 weapons offenses a year over the last 4 years, that would be over a quarter million offenses, and you have 233 prosecutions. We say we need more social programs, and we say we need more laws, and we have a law that makes it a crime for a juvenile to possess a handgun. The vast majority of these crimes are committed with handguns, and we walk away blandly to the next political rally and talk about the need for more laws and talk about the need for more gentle combinations and social programs into which we can thrust our head like the ostrich in the sand, but we do not do what is possible. We do not do what the Congress has authorized in terms of addressing this problem constructively. We must begin to treat criminals as criminals. The idea that somehow you can have fewer than two prosecutions per State per year when we are overrun with juveniles using handguns in the commission of crimes clearly in offense against the Federal law enacted by the Congress in 1994, and this Justice Department turns its head, I do not understand. I do not understand how the President can go before the public and say, well, we have good data and we are moving in the right direction. We are not moving in the right direction. This is not something that I raise as part of the political campaign. I addressed the National Association of Sheriffs several months ago in the presence of the Attorney General of the United States, with whom I was honored to share the podium, and I shared these same statistics at that time. I called upon the administration to begin to be serious about this epidemic which affects the safety, health, the quality of life, the existence, the capacity for life of so many people. Certainly, we cannot settle for the administration's record of two prosecutions per year per State. I think we have to send an unmistakably clear signal. We have to say to young people who are criminals, ``You are going to be held accountable.'' We cannot say that you are going to be treated as if you did not do what you did because you have been smart enough to realize that you are young enough to get away with it. We have provided a shield so that they could be assaulting others and deflect any return fire. It is time for us to say you cannot use your age as a shield or as part of the weaponry you use for an assault on society. Especially when this Congress has provided that juveniles in possession of handguns are in violation of the law, it is time for us to prosecute them for these violations, tens of thousands, twenties of thousands-- 63,000 in 1 year, a typical year. The rate is going up, and we ignore it. We have 14 Federal firearms prosecutions over 5 years. There is more crime than street crime. Sometimes there is the unanswerable question about why we do not enforce the law we have and why we continue to ask for the promulgation of additional programs. In this Congress, we have made efforts to hold violent juvenile predators such as Antoyne White accountable. We have offered commonsense proposals, proposals that would take the purveyors of random violence and death off our streets. Frankly, in each of the proposals I have made and the modifications that we have tried to make to accommodate those who objected--the Democrats--have blocked us at every avenue, coming up with new objections. They have come up with new reasons to say we want to just persist with the gentle combination of social programming and the like. We Republicans have proposed making the records of violent and vicious juveniles more available to police, to judges and to school officials. Can you imagine being a schoolteacher and the juvenile records of a student are unavailable from another State, not part of the FBI system? A kid walks into the classroom wearing an electronic shackle, one of these radio transmitter bracelets so the authorities can keep track of him, but the juvenile laws and records are such that you cannot find out what this person did. As you start to go write on the blackboard, the student says, ``You don't know whether I murdered someone or raped someone, do you, Mrs. Jones?''. And Mrs. Jones says, ``No, I don't.'' He says, ``Well, you can't find out. I am protected as a juvenile.'' I have had teachers talk to me about situations just like that, and it is time we address those situations. But when we tried to, when we tried to provide that the records of violent and vicious juveniles be made more available to police, to judges and to school officials, we were blocked. A State trooper should know to be cautious with a 15- year-old repeat carjacker from a city across the country; the idea that kids just grow up in a single neighborhood now and the constable or the sheriff would know who the kids are in the area no longer holds true. I talked to a sheriff from the middle of the State of Missouri, from a town called California, Moniteau County. I asked him what his biggest problem was. He said it was a couple of teenagers who had moved in from Cleveland and were developing the dope traffic there. I said, ``What is problematic about that?'' He says, ``I can't get any records. I can't get any information about them.'' It is high time that people who are involved as criminals be labeled as criminals, understood as criminals and treated as criminals. Yet, when we have wanted to do just a fundamental thing like make their records available, we have been stopped. The administration has been silent and congressional Democrats have dismissed this approach. We have also proposed increasing funds available to States that try more juveniles as adults. Once again, the Democrats impeded this proposal. They said it was not a gentle combination, it was not gentle enough. We have also intended that Federal Government would begin to carry its fair share of the load in juvenile crime fighting. As I mentioned a moment ago, it is baffling to me that we have a situation with this administration where the Department of Justice is not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. As this session of Congress closes, the Clinton administration has failed to help us with laws relating to juvenile predators and to reform juvenile justice laws, and it is a shame. The President can pose with police, but this administration's failures surrenders our streets to juvenile predators. I think it is time for us to work together on that. Gentle combinations simply will not get the job done. These teen predators deal drugs, threaten lives, they maim and kill, and in the very near future, all of the experts agree--even President Clinton has conceded in his remarks-- that there will be a veritable explosion of teen predators on the streets. It comes down to this. We have to ask ourselves in Congress and in our culture, and we need to ask this of the President, do we uphold the principles of law and order or do we cling to the discredited notion that 16-year-old gangsters who shoot their victims over $5 act out of youthful folly? I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

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 Jack and Irene Peters of Joplin, MO, who on October 12, 1996, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Jack and Irene's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been doing an outstanding job helping us to have an opportunity to express our views on the partial-birth abortion override measure which is before us. It is pretty important for us to understand this isn't a pro-choice or pro-life measure. This is not an argument against abortions generally. It is not even an argument against late-term abortions. It is merely an argument against the brutality which takes place in a specific type of abortion, which has been described adequately here on the floor of the Senate. But it is one of those things which, obviously, is uncomfortable for people to talk about. It is a brutality that results when a child which is all but born is being killed in the process of birth. And there has been the side issue raised here, that somehow this has to do with the health of the mother, and that if we didn't kill the child at this point, the mother's health would be impaired. This has been contradicted by the best medical experts--not the least of which is C. Everett Koop, the former Surgeon General of the United States, who basically says medical necessity does not come into these cases. Since the child is already born, really, we are talking about what happens to the child--virtually already born--not what happens to the mother. But I would like to add something to the debate. I would like to a add a few questions that I think we ought to ask ourselves. One question is: What are we signaling? What are we telling the rest of the world when we say that we as a people are indifferent to this kind of brutality toward a child that is all but born, except for the last, say, 3 inches of its body? That since it has technically part of its body still in the mother, that it is subject to being killed? It is very difficult for me to understand what we are saying to the rest of the world when we are allowing this type of gruesome procedure to occur in this country. What do we say to China when we try to shape their human rights policy? We say that you ought to have a high regard for your citizens; that you should not be oppressive; that you should not abuse people; that you should not persist in practices which are against human dignity. How do we say that to China when we enshrine or institutionalize this procedure and decide that the brutalization of children in this way is still acceptable when there are clear alternatives? How can we question the practice of child slavery in other nations around the world when our own Nation's lawmakers cast cavalier votes that really result in brutality? Let me be clear. The signals we send as a world leader do not trouble me as much as the signals that we are sending to our young people. In our society, the biggest crime problem we have is violent crime among young people who seem to have no regard for the lives of victims, who seem to view dismemberment or brutality as a matter-of-fact thing. What are we telling our own youngsters? What values are we teaching them when we say that the difference between a partial-birth abortion and a homicide is merely whether the head is all the way out or just part of the way out? We have said that it is OK to be involved in a partial- birth abortion because the child isn't totally born, but if there were just another 3 or 4 seconds of process, the child would be born and then it would be homicide. I do not think we are sending the right signals to our young people about tomorrow. What values do we send the young people when we suggest that there is more concern to be shown for animals and our environment than there is for young people? For example, H.R. 3918 was introduced by a Member of this body when that Member was in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill protects animals from acute toxic tests in laboratories. What are we saying when we are concerned about protecting animals from toxic tests designed to save lives and we are not willing to protect children from a brutal procedure designed to end their life? What are we saying when another Member of this body introduces a measure which prescribes criminal penalties for the use of steel jaw leghold traps on animals, saying that it is brutal to catch an animal with a trap that clamps down on the leg of the animal? A sponsor of the bill stated in the Chamber, ``While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping.'' If we are willing to do that to protect animals from a kind of brutality and abuse, I have to ask myself, have we not missed something if we are unwilling to take a step to prohibit a kind of brutality against children that medical experts acknowledge is a brutality which is totally unnecessary? There seems to be a blind spot in the Senate's conscience when it comes to things that are abortion related, but we cannot let the debate over abortion generally obscure the fact that what we are trying to do here is just what the Senator from Rhode Island said he was trying to do with steel jaw traps. He was trying not to prohibit trapping but to prohibit a particularly savage method of trapping. This is not a bill to outlaw abortion, but it is a bill to curtail a practice of brutality committed against children under the guise of abortion, and abortions would still persist even if the bill were passed or if the override were to be undertaken. This takes me back to the beginning. The emotion and strife of the abortion debate are blinding and confusing some of us as Members. The choice for us is clear. This is not a choice of pro-life or pro-choice. This is a choice about whether or not we as a culture are willing to say that we will be against brutality of infants in the same measure we have been against brutality of animals for experimentation, that we will have a kind of culture which we can recommend around the world and to our own children. That we will have respect for life and that brutality, especially when it is unnecessary, we will not tolerate. I thank the Chair.

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 Ethel Taft of Springfield, MO, who on September 10, 1996, will celebrate their 65th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Clarence and Ethel's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

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 Bill and Mable Zoller of Billings, MO, who on September 22, 1996 celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Bill and Mable's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleague form North Dakota for his excellent remarks, and his clear explanation of this important concept that I believe the American people would have us do. And, after all, we come to this body as servants of the people. The people are overwhelmingly aware of this issue, and the vast majority of American citizens do not believe that tax dollars should be used in the conduct of medicine in such a way as to take lives rather than to save them. I thank my colleague from North Dakota and those who have joined us in cosponsoring this particular measure. Mr. President, President Jefferson wrote in words that are now inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial that the ``care and protection of human life, and not its destruction'' are the only legitimate objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our rights were God-given and that life was an inalienable right. In this spirit and understanding, I join today with Senator Dorgan in sponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. It is a modest and timely response to a challenge to our legal system and a challenge to the moral character of this country. What this bill says simply is that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote assisted suicide, or euthanasia. This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of the Founding Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs as they now exist and serve the elderly and seriously ill in America--programs which were intended to support life and to enhance human life, not to promote its destruction. Government's role in this culture should be to call us to our highest and best. I do not believe Government has a role in hastening Americans to their graves. Our court system is in the process now of litigating serious issues in this respect, and, as a result, we find ourselves with the need for this kind of clarifying legislation dramatized. This bill is intended to prevent the morally contemptible injustice of taking money from an American citizen and then using that money to kill another American citizen through assisted suicide. This is a bill which is very narrowly focused. It is clearly targeted. It only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing suicide--actions that are clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and also illegal in the vast majority of our States. Again, this bill simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist suicide. This bill is needed because, in March, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicted the positions of 49 States, when it found a ``Federal constitutional right'' to physician-assisted suicide in a case involving Washington State law. Similarly, the State of Oregon passed Measure 16, the first law in America to authorize the dispensing of drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in their suicide. Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down the law that Oregon had enacted, the case is being appealed to that same ninth circuit, which has already signaled that it believes in a right, a constitutional right, to assisted suicide. Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of Oregon's Health Services Commission have both said that whenever the ninth circuit allows the Oregon law to go into effect, that the federally funded Medicaid Program in Oregon will begin paying for assisted suicide with Federal taxpayers' funds. According to Oregon's authorities, the procedure would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque euphemism of ``comfort care.'' That is a rather startling, almost Orwellian label to put on assisted suicide. I would think if I were going over an insurance policy and someone said, ``Do you want to be covered for comfort care,'' I would say, ``Oh, yes, throw in the comfort care.'' But comfort care turns out to be a phrase that is destined to be used for assisted suicide, and I do not believe it is intended by this Congress or previous Congresses, or in the law of the United States, that tax dollars from Federal resources be used to support that kind of ``comfort care.'' The problem is greatly magnified when we consider that Oregon will be drawing down Federal taxpayers' funds to help pay for such assisted suicides. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare nor any other Federal health program has explicit language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to dispense lethal drugs for suicide, primarily because nobody in the history of these programs felt that we would be appropriating money or creating a program to provide for suicide. We felt we were providing for individuals, developing therapeutic approaches to health problems, not providing for something that the American Medical Association would say was unethical and inappropriate, and which would shock the conscience of most Americans. When Oregon's ninth circuit reinstates measure 16, Federal funds will be used for comfort care, a.k.a.--also known as--assisted suicide. As a result, I think it is important for us to step up and to define and to place into law the kinds of restrictions which I think we felt were implied in all of our activities prior to this time. We would be derelict in our duty if we were now to ignore this problem and allow a few officials, either in a Federal circuit or in a specific State, to decide that the taxpayers of all other States and jurisdictions would have to help subsidize a practice which they have never authorized and that millions find to be morally abhorrent. It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs with the sole intent to assist suicide. Recently, a Wirthlin Poll showed 83 percent of the public opposed such use of Federal funds. Even the voters of Oregon, who narrowly approved Measure 16 by a vote of 51 to 49 percent, did not consider the question of public funding. Voters of two other west coast States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar initiatives to legalize assisted suicide. Since November of 1994, when Oregon passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to legalize assisted suicide. Of course, the Federal funding question has never been placed before the people in a ballot initiative. I would like to say a few words about the way this legislation is crafted. It is very carefully limited, and it is very modest. It does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide. If a State like Oregon chooses to do so, the Federal Government does not choose to intrude under this bill, or even forbid the State to provide its own funds. If the State were to provide for assisted suicide and were to fund that with State dollars, in spite of the fact that is not my idea of good State government, it would be allowed under this bill. This bill simply would prevent Federal funds and Federal programs from being drawn into and providing support for and promoting assisted suicide. After the passage of this bill, States may choose to legalize or even fund assisted suicide. They simply could not choose to draw down Federal funds to promote or develop that program. The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue that is on its way to the Supreme Court, that issue being whether there is a right to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Nor would this legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court might do when it decides that issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent Federal funding of such a practice, even if the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to assisted suicide. It is also important to understand what this bill does not cover. As its rule of construction clearly provides, it does not affect abortion. It does not affect complex issues, such as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition and hydration. Nor does this bill affect the disbursing of large doses of morphine or other pain killers to ease the pain of individuals with terminal illnesses, even though the administration of such drugs does, in some cases, carry the risk of hastening death as a side effect. The administration of pain killers is a long-acknowledged, legally accepted practice in all 50 States--and is ethically accepted by the medical profession and even pro-life and religious organizations as well. What we are dealing with here is the Federal funding of actions whose direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing the suicide of a patient. I am pleased that in spite of the fact the Democrats and Republicans may disagree on how to reform Federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare, there are things on which we do agree. One thing we should be able to agree on is the measure in this bill. Of course, our agreement is reflected in the cosponsorship of this measure by individuals on both sides of the aisle. These Federal programs should provide a means to care for and to protect our citizens, not become vehicles for the destruction of our citizens, especially as a result of Federal funding. I would like to close by quoting the hallmark of Jeffersonian principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I therefore urge all my colleagues to support this bill, an effort to uphold congressional responsibility, to defend the foremost of our unalienable rights, the right that citizens have to life.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleague form North Dakota for his excellent remarks, and his clear explanation of this important concept that I believe the American people would have us do. And, after all, we come to this body as servants of the people. The people are overwhelmingly aware of this issue, and the vast majority of American citizens do not believe that tax dollars should be used in the conduct of medicine in such a way as to take lives rather than to save them. I thank my colleague from North Dakota and those who have joined us in cosponsoring this particular measure. Mr. President, President Jefferson wrote in words that are now inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial that the ``care and protection of human life, and not its destruction'' are the only legitimate objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our rights were God-given and that life was an inalienable right. In this spirit and understanding, I join today with Senator Dorgan in sponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. It is a modest and timely response to a challenge to our legal system and a challenge to the moral character of this country. What this bill says simply is that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote assisted suicide, or euthanasia. This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of the Founding Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs as they now exist and serve the elderly and seriously ill in America--programs which were intended to support life and to enhance human life, not to promote its destruction. Government's role in this culture should be to call us to our highest and best. I do not believe Government has a role in hastening Americans to their graves. Our court system is in the process now of litigating serious issues in this respect, and, as a result, we find ourselves with the need for this kind of clarifying legislation dramatized. This bill is intended to prevent the morally contemptible injustice of taking money from an American citizen and then using that money to kill another American citizen through assisted suicide. This is a bill which is very narrowly focused. It is clearly targeted. It only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing suicide--actions that are clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and also illegal in the vast majority of our States. Again, this bill simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist suicide. This bill is needed because, in March, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicted the positions of 49 States, when it found a ``Federal constitutional right'' to physician-assisted suicide in a case involving Washington State law. Similarly, the State of Oregon passed Measure 16, the first law in America to authorize the dispensing of drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in their suicide. Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down the law that Oregon had enacted, the case is being appealed to that same ninth circuit, which has already signaled that it believes in a right, a constitutional right, to assisted suicide. Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of Oregon's Health Services Commission have both said that whenever the ninth circuit allows the Oregon law to go into effect, that the federally funded Medicaid Program in Oregon will begin paying for assisted suicide with Federal taxpayers' funds. According to Oregon's authorities, the procedure would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque euphemism of ``comfort care.'' That is a rather startling, almost Orwellian label to put on assisted suicide. I would think if I were going over an insurance policy and someone said, ``Do you want to be covered for comfort care,'' I would say, ``Oh, yes, throw in the comfort care.'' But comfort care turns out to be a phrase that is destined to be used for assisted suicide, and I do not believe it is intended by this Congress or previous Congresses, or in the law of the United States, that tax dollars from Federal resources be used to support that kind of ``comfort care.'' The problem is greatly magnified when we consider that Oregon will be drawing down Federal taxpayers' funds to help pay for such assisted suicides. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare nor any other Federal health program has explicit language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to dispense lethal drugs for suicide, primarily because nobody in the history of these programs felt that we would be appropriating money or creating a program to provide for suicide. We felt we were providing for individuals, developing therapeutic approaches to health problems, not providing for something that the American Medical Association would say was unethical and inappropriate, and which would shock the conscience of most Americans. When Oregon's ninth circuit reinstates measure 16, Federal funds will be used for comfort care, a.k.a.--also known as--assisted suicide. As a result, I think it is important for us to step up and to define and to place into law the kinds of restrictions which I think we felt were implied in all of our activities prior to this time. We would be derelict in our duty if we were now to ignore this problem and allow a few officials, either in a Federal circuit or in a specific State, to decide that the taxpayers of all other States and jurisdictions would have to help subsidize a practice which they have never authorized and that millions find to be morally abhorrent. It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs with the sole intent to assist suicide. Recently, a Wirthlin Poll showed 83 percent of the public opposed such use of Federal funds. Even the voters of Oregon, who narrowly approved Measure 16 by a vote of 51 to 49 percent, did not consider the question of public funding. Voters of two other west coast States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar initiatives to legalize assisted suicide. Since November of 1994, when Oregon passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to legalize assisted suicide. Of course, the Federal funding question has never been placed before the people in a ballot initiative. I would like to say a few words about the way this legislation is crafted. It is very carefully limited, and it is very modest. It does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide. If a State like Oregon chooses to do so, the Federal Government does not choose to intrude under this bill, or even forbid the State to provide its own funds. If the State were to provide for assisted suicide and were to fund that with State dollars, in spite of the fact that is not my idea of good State government, it would be allowed under this bill. This bill simply would prevent Federal funds and Federal programs from being drawn into and providing support for and promoting assisted suicide. After the passage of this bill, States may choose to legalize or even fund assisted suicide. They simply could not choose to draw down Federal funds to promote or develop that program. The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue that is on its way to the Supreme Court, that issue being whether there is a right to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Nor would this legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court might do when it decides that issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent Federal funding of such a practice, even if the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional right to assisted suicide. It is also important to understand what this bill does not cover. As its rule of construction clearly provides, it does not affect abortion. It does not affect complex issues, such as the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition and hydration. Nor does this bill affect the disbursing of large doses of morphine or other pain killers to ease the pain of individuals with terminal illnesses, even though the administration of such drugs does, in some cases, carry the risk of hastening death as a side effect. The administration of pain killers is a long-acknowledged, legally accepted practice in all 50 States--and is ethically accepted by the medical profession and even pro-life and religious organizations as well. What we are dealing with here is the Federal funding of actions whose direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing the suicide of a patient. I am pleased that in spite of the fact the Democrats and Republicans may disagree on how to reform Federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare, there are things on which we do agree. One thing we should be able to agree on is the measure in this bill. Of course, our agreement is reflected in the cosponsorship of this measure by individuals on both sides of the aisle. These Federal programs should provide a means to care for and to protect our citizens, not become vehicles for the destruction of our citizens, especially as a result of Federal funding. I would like to close by quoting the hallmark of Jeffersonian principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I therefore urge all my colleagues to support this bill, an effort to uphold congressional responsibility, to defend the foremost of our unalienable rights, the right that citizens have to life.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Nellie Norton Schnell of Fayette, MO, who will celebrate her 100th birthday this Friday, September 27, 1996. She is a truly remarkable individual. Nellie has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of her life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives she has touched over the last 100 years. Nellie Norton Schnell's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. Despite being visually and hearing impaired, Nellie organized and planned her own birthday celebration to take place this Friday at her grand-daughter's home in Boonville, MO. Her achievements are significant and deserve to be saluted and recognized. I would like to join her many friends and relatives in wishing her health and happiness in the future.