John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 250, submitted earlier by me, Senator Ashcroft, along with Senator Kit Bond and Senator Peter Fitzgerald, and Senator Durbin of Illinois.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for passing, S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. I'm proud to say this comprehensive anti-methamphetamine bill was built upon the DEFEAT Meth legislation that I introduced earlier this year. This reflects a tremendous amount of bi- partisan work by the members of the judiciary committee. And the reason for the level of bipartisan effort in crafting this bill was the recognition by all involved that it is needed desperately to combat one of the fastest growing threats to American society: the explosive problem of methamphetamine. With its roots on the West coast, this epidemic has now exploded in middle America. Meth in the 1990s is what cocaine was in the 1980s and heroin was in the 1970s. It is currently the largest drug threat we face in my home state of Missouri. Unfortunately, it may be coming soon to a city or town near you. If you wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on your community, you'd make methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, highly destructive, cheap, and easy to manufacture. To give you an idea of the scope of the problem, in 1992, law enforcement seized 2 clandestine Meth labs in my state of Missouri. By 1994, there were 14 seizures. In 1998, they seized 679 labs. Based on the figures collected so far this year, that number will jump again this year to over 800 labs. And with this growth have come all of the problems. As meth abuse has increased, domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries and meth related murders have also increased proportionately. From 1992 to 1998 meth- related emergency room incidents increased 63 percent. What is more unacceptable is that meth is ensnaring our children. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 level. In recent conversations I have had with local law enforcement officers in Missouri, they estimated that as many as 10% of high school students know the receipe for meth. In fact, one need only log on to the Internet to find scores of web sites giving detailed instructions to set up you own meth lab. This is unacceptable. Despite the appropriation of over $35 million dollars in the past two appropriation cycles for the Drug Enforcement Administration to train local law enforcement in the interdiction and clean-up of methamphetamine labs, the meth problem continues to grow. And that is why I am so pleased S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti- Proliferation Act of 1999 passed the Senate. This bill provides the necessary weapons to fight the growing meth problem in this country, including the authorization of $9.5 million for DEA programs to train State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth investigations, $5.5 million for the hiring of new agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small and mid-sized communities, $15 million for school and community-based meth abuse and addiction prevention programs, $10 million for treatment of meth addicts, and $15 million to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to combat trafficking of meth in designated HIDTA's (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas) which have had great success in Missouri and the Midwest. This bill also amends the Sentencing Guidelines by increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for manufacturing meth and significantly increases mandatory minimum sentences if the offense created a risk of harm to the life of a minor or incompetent. Furthermore, the bill includes meth paraphernalia in the federal list of illegal paraphernalia. But focusing on reducing supply through interdiction and punishment is not enough. The bill also authorizes substantial resources for education and prevention targeted specifically at the problem of meth. Local law enforcement in Missouri tells me that 10% of high school students know the recipe for meth. I want to ensure that 100% of them know that meth is a recipe for disaster. Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced many other challenges in the past and we can face this one as well. In fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All its takes is that we marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit. Through legislative efforts like this bill we will meet this new meth challenge and defeat it.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today the United States Senate completes its business for calendar year 1999 by passing two important bills: H.R. 3194--the final spending bill, and H.R. 1180--the Work Incentives Act, which provides new opportunities for disabled individuals to enter the work force and includes $18 billion dollars in tax cuts. I am pleased to announce my support for both these bills. The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has eloquently explained how this budget agreement keeps faith with the Republican pledge that no Social Security trust fund monies be used to pay for other government programs. Last year, for the first since 1960--during the Eisenhower Administration--we balanced the budget without counting the Social Security surplus. Mr. President, for the first time in 39 years the government did not divert money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for other programs. As a result of the spending plan pursued by this Republican Congress, which called for protection of Social Security, increased spending on education and defense, and reduction of the national debt, we have begun to put our fiscal House in order. When I was elected to this body in 1994, the incoming 104th Congress inherited a projected four-year budget deficit of $906 billion. Now, through the hard work and discipline of this Congress, the tables have turned. That actual four-year period produced a net budget surplus of $63 billion--a turnaround of $969 billion, just a shade under a trillion dollars. With the passage of the final FY 2000 appropriations bill, we will continue on that path, reducing our national debt by $140 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. Unlike last year's omnibus appropriations package that increased spending by almost $14 billion, this Congress successfully obtained offsets for all of the President's new spending, including an across- the-board cut that will help eliminate government waste and excess. In addition, despite President Clinton's best efforts, the offsets do not include a tax increase. At the beginning of this year, I said that the Congress' primary responsibility was to protect the Social Security surplus. With the passage of this budget, we have accomplished that goal. In addition, not only have we avoided a tax hike, but we have also given the American people an $18 billion tax cut through the provisions contained in H.R. 1180--the Work Incentives Act. I am pleased that the final bill includes over $2 billion in additional education spending over last year and gives local school districts more flexibility in how they spend that federal assistance. The appropriations bill also contains an increase of $1.7 billion for veterans spending above President Clinton's request, as well as an increase in funding for national defense that includes a boost in pay and benefits for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. But this bill does not just fund these important priorities, it also provides real cuts in government waste and abuse. The legislation includes a 0.38% across the board reduction that is essential to maintaining our fiscal discipline and protecting Social Security. Included in this package are provisions to address some unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to protect Medicare recipients and providers. This bill includes $16 billion over 5 years to ensure that senior citizens can continue to receive quality health care. These Medicare changes will help Medicare patients in hospitals-- particularly rural, teaching, and cancer hospitals--skilled nursing facility residents, home health care recipients, and seniors who wish to receive their health care through the innovative Medicare+Choice program rather than through the conventional fee-for-service mechanism. I have traveled around Missouri and heard from countless doctors, patients, nurses, and other health care providers about the necessity of these changes. These provisions are good for the seniors in Missouri and across the Nation. The package also provides for State Department Reauthorization, including language I authored that requires the State Department to publish a report documenting American victims of terrorist attacks in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. In addition, the almost 400,000 Missouri households that are satellite television viewers will be pleased that this bill includes language that will allow them to continue receiving local programming. The Satellite Home Viewer Act will give real price competition and choice in video programming to all Missourians. Finally, Mr. President, I am pleased that unlike last year, when we lumped all the bills together, allowing $14 billion in extra spending into one package, this year we finished our work on each of the bills, and negotiated each bill on its individual merits. While this bill is an omnibus package for procedural reasons, it was not negotiated as an omnibus package. Every provision was negotiated according to regular order, and as a result, we were able to succeed in our goal of protecting Social Security.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Missouri. We in Missouri are just as protective of our water as any other State in the Missouri River Basin, or for that matter, the rest of the United States. Before either of us can agree to any legislation that has the potential to affect our State, we must have the opportunity for our state experts to go over this legislation with a fine-tooth comb. I welcome the chance that the Senator from Alaska has offered and I know our state water experts will be happy to participate. As I have repeatedly stated, I am willing to work with my colleagues to try to resolve any concerns in a manner that will fully protect the interests of Missouri.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President I rise today to talk about an important and highly successful program operated for more than 25 years by the Salvation Army in conjunction with the Bureau of Prisons. This program is called the Prison Card Program. Under the program, greeting cards are donated to the Salvation Army that are then given to inmates at correctional facilities across the country. This program allows inmates to keep in touch with family and friends--not only during the holiday season--but throughout the year. The benefits of this program to the inmates and their loved ones are clear. However, there are also benefits to the community as well. Inmates who maintain strong ties with their families and friends are less likely to return to prison once their sentence is completed. I want to commend the Salvation Army, the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Prisons for supporting this program. In particular, I want the Department to know that this program has the support of Congress. I have spoken to Chairman Gregg, who has indicated that he is prepared to work with me and other supporters of the program in the coming months to ensure that this important charitable program is sustained well into the future.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Hatch, Senator Abraham, and myself. This amendment contains the text of S. 486-- Amendment No. 2771 (Purpose: Relating to methamphetamine and other controlled substances)

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of an amendment offered by Senator Hatch and by Senator Abraham and by me. This amendment contains the text of S. 486, the Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act of 1999. It is a comprehensive antimethamphetamine bill that I am grateful to have the opportunity of saying is built upon what we called DEFEAT Meth legislation that I introduced earlier this year. It reflects a tremendous amount of truly bipartisan work by the members of the Judiciary Committee cooperating to address a threat which was once thought to have been very localized but is a threat now that is literally reaching from sea to sea. The reason for the level of bipartisan effort, of course, in crafting this bill is the recognition by all involved that it is needed to combat one of the fastest growing threats to America, the explosive problem of methamphetamine. When I say explosive, I do not just refer to the fact that those cooking or producing methamphetamines are using dangerous chemicals that often result in explosions and house fires. It has exploded in terms of growth across our culture, and we need to curtail it. Today we are blessed and privileged to live in a period of great national prosperity, but with prosperity sometimes comes apathy or complacency. Unfortunately, this is the perfect breeding ground for drug abuse. Worse still, apathy and complacency not only foster drug abuse, they hamper our society's ability to combat drug abuse and other social ills. We have not been combating drug abuse effectively enough as a culture, and for that reason we have been working on this measure to increase and elevate our effectiveness against this most dangerous of drugs. As I have noted many times before, under this administration we have been backsliding in the war against drugs. Marijuana use by 8th graders has increased 176 percent since 1992, and cocaine and heroin use among 10th graders has more than doubled in the last 7 years. And now we need to add to these failings the burgeoning epidemic of methamphetamines. Methamphetamines have had their roots on the west coast and for a long time in other parts of the country, but the epidemic has now exploded in middle America. Meth in the 1990s is what cocaine was in the 1980s and heroin was in the 1970s. It is currently the largest drug threat we face in my home State of Missouri. Unfortunately, it may be coming soon to a city or town near you. If you wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on your community, you would probably design methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, highly destructive, cheap, and it is easy to manufacture. To give you an idea of the scope of the problem, in 1992 law enforcement seized 2 clandestine meth labs in my home State of Missouri; by 1994, there were 14 seizures; by 1998, there were 679 clandestine meth lab seizures in the State of Missouri alone. When we talk about a clandestine meth lab, we are talking about a place where people are making or manufacturing methamphetamines. Based on the figures collected so far this year, however, the number will jump again this year to over 800 meth labs to be seized in the State of Missouri. Let us put that in perspective: 2 in 1992, 800 in 1999. By any definition, this is a problem that commands our attention. And with this growth have come all kinds of difficult challenges and problems. As meth use has increased, domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries, and meth-related murders have also increased. From 1992 to 1998, meth- related emergency room incidents increased 63 percent. What is most unacceptable is that meth is ensnaring our children. In 1997, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 level. In recent conversations I have had with local law enforcement officers in Missouri, they estimate that as many as 10 percent of high school students know the recipe for methamphetamines. In fact, one need only log onto the Internet to find scores of web sites giving detailed instructions about how to set up your own meth lab or production facility. This is unacceptable. We in the Congress have taken these indicators seriously. In the past two appropriations cycles, we have appropriated $11 million and then $24.5 million for the drug enforcement administration to train local law enforcement officials in the interdiction, finding, discovering, and then cleaning up of methamphetamine labs. Despite these appropriations, the meth problem continues to grow. I believe it is time we dedicate more resources to stopping this scourge once and for all. So that is why I am so committed to passing S. 486, the Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act of 1999, as part of this bill. This amendment provides the necessary weapons to fight the growing meth problem in this country, including the authorization of $5.5 million for DEA programs to train State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth investigation. There is $9.5 million for hiring new Drug Enforcement Administration agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small and midsized communities. There is $15 million for school and community-based meth abuse and addiction prevention programs; $10 million for the treatment of meth addicts; and $15 million to the Office of the National Drug Control Policy to combat trafficking of meth in designated high-intensity drug trafficking areas which have had great success in Missouri and the Midwest in bringing attention to, focus upon, and eradication of the methamphetamine problem. This bill also amends the sentencing guidelines by increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for manufacturing meth and significantly increasing mandatory minimum sentences if the offense created a risk of harm to the life of a minor or an incompetent. As I have traveled across my own State of Missouri, I have learned about cases where methamphetamines were being produced in the presence of children--children contaminated chemically by the processes and the byproducts of meth production. It is time we make a clear statement that we will not sacrifice our children on the altar of methamphetamine production. We must have serious increased, mandatory minimum sentences for putting at risk the life of a child in the creation and development of methamphetamines. Furthermore, the amendment includes meth paraphernalia in the Federal list of illegal paraphernalia. For a long time, drug paraphernalia relating to other serious drug scourges has been outlawed. The maintenance or development of, and the utilization of paraphernalia in those settings has been inappropriate and wrong. Now we are going to add meth paraphernalia to that Federal list of illegal paraphernalia. By focusing on reducing the supply through interdiction and punishment, we will make some progress, but that progress is not enough. The amendment authorizes substantial resources for education and prevention targeted specifically at the problem of meth. As I said earlier, law enforcement in Missouri tells me 10 percent of the high school students know the recipe for meth. I want 100 percent of the high school students to know that meth is the recipe for disaster. Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced other challenges in the past, and we can face this challenge as well. In fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All it will take is that we marshal our will and we channel the great, indomitable American spirit. If we focus our energy on this problem, we can add substantially to the safety and to the health and to the future and opportunities for our young people. Through legislative efforts like this amendment, we will meet this new meth challenge and defeat it, and I urge Members of this body to work hard to make sure this effort to defeat meth becomes a part of the law. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. And I thank my colleagues for allowing me this time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about one of Missouri's most important natural resources, and that is the Missouri River. There is a bill that another Member is trying to pass by unanimous consent that would threaten the Missouri River. I am making it clear that I have an objection to this bill, and I am firm on this issue. On Friday around 4 p.m., 52 bills were hot-lined to be passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. Most of the time, Members pass bills by unanimous consent that are noncontroversial. However, buried in this list of 52 bills was one that I am opposed to, S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act. I am opposed to it because it would divert a substantial amount of water out of the Missouri River. The bill that I am objecting to authorizes $200 million to divert additional water from the Missouri River system to the Cheyenne River and the Red River systems. This is an inter-basin transfer of water which could have substantial impacts all along the Missouri River basin. I do not blame the North Dakota Senators for fighting for this, but it hurts my State and it hurts other States, and I cannot consent to its approval by unanimous consent. Apparently, this bill has broad opposition by many different parties along the Missouri River. It is a very controversial provision and should not be passed in the dead of night on a consent calendar with a lot of noncontroversial bills. This is opposed strongly by the Governor and the Department of Natural Resources in Missouri. It is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense. It is opposed by a host of environmental groups--including the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, and American Rivers. The Canadian Government opposes this bill and has opposed the program it authorizes for decades, claiming that it violates a 1909 United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. The Governor of Minnesota opposes this measure. The Minnesota State Department of Natural Resources opposes it, and the list goes on. It is too early in the process for me to clear this bill. There are too many questions that remain to be answered. There are too many related issues that the States are negotiating at this time. We are awaiting the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers on how much additional water they intend to reserve for Dakota purposes. The senior Senator from Missouri and I will continue to object. As a result of our objections, the sponsor of the bill is holding up 51 other unrelated bills. Let me be clear. These 51 holds are not related to the longstanding dispute between North Dakota and Missouri and many other parties over the water allocation in the Missouri River. Therefore, Senator Bond and I will not be pressured into lifting our hold on a bill that will harm the livelihood of the people of Missouri. These types of interstate river disputes that have been going on for years simply should not be resolved without all interested parties involved and without adequate consideration given to the ecological and commercial effects. From the farm to the factory, the Missouri River creates jobs in the Midwest. The Missouri River is a stable water supply and a source of hydro power for major cities. We must be very cautious about changing water levels along the Missouri River in order to maintain the recreational opportunities for local communities, as well as hatcheries for fish and flyways for migratory birds. I regret that important unrelated and noncontroversial measures are being held up by the sponsors of S. 623, but I cannot consent to passage of this bill at this time. The water flow of the Missouri River is too important to the livelihood of numerous metropolitan areas and small cities, and transportation and industry not only in Missouri but all along the waterway. We must deal with this measure reasonably and in the context of real negotiations, not as a matter of consent to be undertaken without full discussion by the parties. I thank the Senate for my opportunity to reference my position on this issue. I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have no objection to the statements of the Senators from North Dakota. I made my position clear. This issue has been well known for a couple of decades now.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for their efforts in crafting S. 976, the ``Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act,'' which reauthorizes programs under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. In particular, I want to recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, for his tremendous leadership in drafting this legislation. I am especially pleased that this legislation contains the Charitable Choice provision--modeled after my Charitable Choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform law--which will expand the opportunities for religious organizations to provide substance abuse treatment services with SAMHSA block grant funds. This provision is also very similar to language contained in Senator Abraham's legislation, the ``Faith-Based Drug Treatment Enhancement Act.'' While government substance abuse programs have not succeeded very well in helping people break free from addictions, faith-based drug treatment programs have been transforming shattered lives for years by addressing the deeper needs of people--by instilling hope and values which change destructive behavior and attitudes. What results have they achieved? We have heard countless stories of the efficiency and effectiveness of these faith-based programs. Teen Challenge has shown that 86% of its graduates remain drug-free. These are individuals who finally broke free of addictions after being routed through a number of government drug treatment programs. The Bowery Mission in New York City has had the most effective free-standing substance abuse shelter in the city-wide system. Bowery also serves its clients at approximately 42% of the cost of some other city-sponsored men's substance abuse shelters. Mel Trotter Ministries in Grand Rapids, Michigan, named for its former alcoholic founder, has an astounding 70 percent long-term success rate in its faith-based rehabilitation program. According to director Thomas Laymon, government programs leave addicts without ``spiritual support.'' Worse, addicts ``are not held accountable for addictions, and they have no incentive to change their behavior.'' Meanwhile, Trotter Ministries provides guidance, a supportive community, and integration into a life beyond drugs. San Antonio's Victory Fellowship, run by Pastor Freddie Garcia, has saved thousands of addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. The program offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance to provide for themselves and their families. It has served more than 13,000 people and has a success rate of over 80%. USA Today cited a study from Georgetown University Medical Center regarding recovery from opiate addiction. The study found that 45% of those who participated in a religious program were drug-free after one year, while only 5% of those who participated in a non-religious program remained drug-free after a year. Why are faith-based organizations successful? Because they see those they serve as people, not profiles. They come at this with a holistic approach. They address the moral and spiritual cause of the problems rather than simply dealing with the symptoms. While some states may already collaborate with religious and charitable organizations in the area of substance abuse programs, Charitable Choice is intended to expand the use of these partnerships by clarifying to government officials and religious organizations alike what the constitutional ground rules are for these partnerships. If we know that faith-based substance abuse programs are successful in helping people break destructive addictions, government should encourage their expanded use. That is precisely what this legislation does. The Charitable Choice provision in this legislation makes clear that states may direct SAMHSA block grant funds to religious organizations through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements to provide substance abuse treatment services to beneficiaries. The provision reflects our belief in Congress that government should exercise neutrality when inviting the participation of non-governmental organizations to be service providers by considering all organizations--even religious ones--on an equal basis, and by focusing on whether the organization can provide the requested service, rather than on the religious or non-religious character of the organization. Unfortunately, in the past, many faith-based organizations have been afraid--often rightfully so--of accepting governmental funds in order to help the poor and downtrodden. They fear that participation in government programs would not only require them to alter their buildings, internal governance, and employment practices, but also make them compromise the very religious character which motivates them to reach out to people in the first place. Charitable Choice is intended to allay such fears and to prevent government officials from misconstruing constitutional law by banning faith-based organizations from the mix of private providers for fear of violating the Establishment Clause. Even when religious organizations are permitted to participate, government officials have often gone overboard by requiring such organizations to sterilize buildings or property of religious character and to remove any sectarian connections from their programs. This discrimination can destroy the character of many faith-based programs and diminish their effectiveness in helping people climb from despair and dependence to dignity and independence. Charitable Choice embodies existing U.S. Supreme Court case precedents in an effort to clarify to government officials and charitable organizations alike what is constitutionally permissible when involving religiously-affiliated institutions. Based upon these precedents, the legislation provides specific protections for religious organizations when they provide services with government funds. For example, the government cannot discriminate against an organization on the basis of its religious character. A participating faith-based organization also retains its religious character and its control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs. Additionally, the government cannot require a religious organization to alter its form of internal governance or remove religious art, icons, or symbols to be eligible to participate. Finally, religious organizations may consider religious beliefs and practices in their employment decisions. I have been told by numerous faith-based entities and attorneys representing them that autonomy in employment decisions is crucial in maintaining an organization's mission and character. Charitable Choice also states that funds going directly to religious organizations cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. Government dollars are to be used for the secular purpose of the legislation: providing effective treatment for substance abuse problems. The Charitable Choice provision also contains important and necessary protections for beneficiaries of services, ensuring that they may not be discriminated against on the basis of religion. Also, if a beneficiary objects to receiving services from a religious provider, he has the right to demand that the State provide him with services from an alternative provider. Mr. President, the Charitable Choice provision is truly bipartisan in nature. Shortly after passage of the federal welfare law, Texas Governor Bush signed an executive order directing ``all pertinent executive branch agencies to take all necessary steps to implement the `charitable choice' provision of the federal welfare law.'' And earlier this year, Vice President Gore stated that Charitable Choice should be extended ``to other vital services where faith-based organizations can play a role, such as drug treatment, homelessness, and youth violence.'' The Vice President described why faith-based approaches have shown special promise with challenges such as drug addiction. He said that overcoming these types of problems ``takes something more than money or assistance--it requires an inner discipline and courage, deep within the individual. I believe that faith in itself is sometimes essential to spark a personal transformation--and to keep that person from falling back into addiction, delinquency, or dependency.'' Mr. President, I am pleased to say that today we are responding to the Vice President's call for expanding Charitable Choice to drug treatment programs. We are ready to provide people with resources needed to experience a personal transformation and break free from drug or alcohol addiction. Through the bipartisan effort of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have legislation that will provide greater opportunities to those in our society who are fighting to overcome substance abuse problems. Again, I want to thank Senator Frist, his staff, Chairman Jeffords, and the rest of the Committee for their fine work on this legislation.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I join my Senate colleagues, the people of Rhode Island, and the citizens of this great nation in bidding a sad farewell to our friend and countryman John Chafee. From the shores of Guadalcanal to his hometown of Providence, RI, to the floor of the United States Senate, John Chafee was a true patriot. In everything he did, he put the best interests of the United States first. And even when I disagreed with him, I knew that our disagreements were legitimate disagreements about what each of us felt was the best interests of this great country. Descendant of two Governors and a Senator, John liked to joke that the one member of his family who ran for office as a Democrat--Harvard professor Zechariah Chafee--lost handily. John, knowing the family history, signed up as a Republican and never looked back. John was a remarkable man coming from a remarkable family. His legacy gave him a lot to live up to, and he not only met but exceeded all expectations. John's record of successes began at an early age. In high school, he was the runner up in the 135 pound class in the state wrestling championships. And let me tell you, nobody wrestles like those 135 pounders! Not only was it an impressive achievement, but it was good training for a future career as a Senator. Later, at Yale, he was captain of the undefeated Yale freshman wrestling team. We will never know if he would have repeated that achievement the following year, because he left Yale in his sophomore year to enlist in the Marines--he didn't have to do that, but because he was an American Patriot, he did. In the Marines, he served at the Battle of Guadalcanal. John was in the first wave of Americans to join in the bloody and important battle there. This country will always owe a great debt to him and the other Marines who served so bravely there. After the Marines, John sought to move on with his life. He went to Harvard Law School, got married, and began the practice of law in the state he loved so dear. But duty called once again, and he returned to the Marines, to lead a rifle company in our struggle in Korea, and the nation's debt to him became even greater. After his service in Korea, John returned to Rhode Island and embarked upon a political career. While John had ups and downs in his time, he certainly had more ups than downs. And more importantly, he knew how to handle those downs. One of the downs came in 1968, when he lost the governorship in a surprising upset. Richard Nixon, recognizing the talent in John, tapped him to be Secretary of the Navy. There he was faced with a difficult decision concerning the chief officers of the Pueblo, a Navy ship that had been taken by the North Koreans. John decided not to court martial the captain and chief intelligence officer of the ship, deeming that they had suffered enough during their internment in a Korean prisoner of war camp. It was a difficult decision, but John Chafee has a great wisdom in difficult matters and the nation once again benefited from John's leadership. In 1976, he was elected to the United States Senate, the institution to which he would devote the rest of his days. Both John Chafee and I won elections to the Senate in 1994, he for his fourth term and I for my first. Despite the disparity in seniority, we became friends, exchanging greetings on his birthday, which was just last Friday. He always appreciated my greetings, and sent the kindest thank you notes in response. In my time here, I had the pleasure to work with him on a great number of issues, but two in particular stand out. The first is ISTEA, the all-important transportation legislation we passed here few years ago. I worked closely with John to secure desperately-needed transportation projects in my home State of Missouri. John was always willing to work with me and my staff, and the citizens of Missouri must be added to the list of those who owe him a debt of gratitude. The other issue that stands out in my mind when I think of John is his effort to reform the Superfund program. John was always concerned about the environment; back in 1969, the New York Post reported that John would stop his campaign motorcade and get out of his car to pick up a piece of litter. John always understood that we were all responsible for improving the environment, and his efforts to improve Superfund were based on that belief in individual action. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he was in a position to act on his love for the environment, and his work in reforming Superfund is one of his most important achievements. John leaves behind a loving wife, Ginny, 5 children, and 12 grandchildren. My prayers are for them at this time. They will miss him, as will we all.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Monday was a tragic day for golf fans across the country, and especially for folks in my home town of Springfield, MO--the town where pro golfer Payne Stewart was born and raised. Today, we mourn the loss of Payne, who lost his life Monday in a plane crash. I rise to express my sympathy to Payne's family and loved ones, and to the families of the other individuals who lost their lives Monday: Robert Fraley, Van Ardan, Michael King, and Stephanie Bellegarrigue. I would also like to take a moment to remember Payne Stewart, a man whose personality, talents, and faith are an inspiration to us. From his early years, Payne distinguished himself as not only a golfer, but as an all-around athlete. One of my staff members from Springfield remembers tagging along as a six year-old little sister with her father, her brother, Payne, and his father on a road trip to Kansas City, where the boys competed in the state's annual Pass, Punt, and Kick contest. She also recalls the countless hours her brother was gone during the summers, playing golf--often times with Payne. In high school, Payne excelled as an athlete in football, basketball, and of course, golf, at Greenwood High School, where he graduated in 1975. Payne then attended Southern Methodist University, where he won the Southwestern Conference Golf Championship and was named an All- American. Payne turned professional in 1981 and embarked upon what would be a highly successful career. Payne's flare for style and individualism soon made him one of the most recognizable golfers on the PGA tour, with his now-trademark knickers, long colorful socks, and coordinating hat. But Payne's attire on the golf course was not the only thing that distinguished him among his colleagues. Overall, Payne won 11 PGA Tour titles, including three major championships: the PGA in 1989, the U.S. Open in 1991, and the U.S. Open again in June of this year. He was on five Ryder Cup teams and won three consecutive Skins Games. He was inducted into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame earlier this year. In what is now known as his final U.S. Open appearance, Stewart finished his last U.S. Open round by sinking the longest winning putt ever to win the most heralded American tournament. While Stewart always will be remembered for this clutch putt to win the 1999 U.S. Open, what he did one month later during the Ryder Cup competition speaks to his character. After a miraculous final day comeback by the American team, Stewart's opponent, Colin Montgomerie, faced a ten foot putt to win the individual match on the final hole. Although the American team already had assured itself a victory, a tie with Europe's top player would have been a tremendous individual feat for Stewart. Instead of making Montgomerie attempt the putt, Stewart told his opponent to ``pick it up,'' conceding the putt and ensuring his own defeat. Stewart's justification for his action was that Montgomerie had been heckled all day by the American fans and he did not want to put his opponent through that if he missed. Payne Stewart, who became a world-famous golfer, continued to be a home-town boy from the Ozarks after his success. Although Orlando had become his official home, Payne still liked to come back home to Springfield to spend time with family and friends. Those close to him say that when he came home, Payne didn't act like a celebrity, but rather more like ``everyday people.'' There are many words that have been used to describe Payne Stewart. Fun-loving and generous. Highly competitive. Yet Payne was also very much of a family man. Payne was always close to his father, Bill. The father and son tandem shared the unique distinction of winning dual amateur championships, the Missouri Amateur and the Missouri Senior Amateur in 1979. After his father had died of cancer in1985, Payne donated his entire $108,000 in winnings from the 1987 Bay Hill Classic to a Florida hospital. Mr. President, I, too, had a father who had a major impact on my life, and I was touched by the reflections I heard Payne share about his father. Payne was also recently described by the Springfield News-Leader as the ``consummate family man who was as thrilled with picking up daughter Chelsea [13] and son Aaron [10] from school, or shuttling them back and forth to ball games, activities, etc., as he was picking up a first-place check.'' Friends say that Payne believed that family time with his children and his wife Tracey was the most important thing in his life, even if it meant canceling a tournament appearance. In the last year or so, Payne Stewart characterized himself as an increasingly religious man. He said that watching his children grow up further strengthened his faith. Payne also attributed his success to his faith. In fact, he publicly credited this faith with giving him the strength to sink the winning 15-foot putt at this year's U.S. Open this June. A close friend, reflecting Monday on Payne's death, said, ``Later on, coming to know the Lord, he was attributing his success, his talents and his blessing--he attributed it all and gave glory to Jesus Christ.'' Mr. President, while it is painful to see someone in the prime of his career have his life cut short by tragedy, it is also encouraging to remember someone whose life has inspired us--through both his talents as a golf champion and through his commitment to faith and family. Today we remember Payne Stewart--a local hero from the Ozarks--a champion and a competitor, and we convey our thoughts and prayers to his family and loved ones during this time of grief. I also want to express condolences to the families and friends of those who perished with Payne, Robert Fraley, Van Ardan, Michael King, and Stephanie Bellegarrigue.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, a lack of leadership from the administration is responsible for the present difficulty in reaching an agreement on the foreign operations appropriations bill. The President says he vetoed the bill over low levels of foreign assistance in general and a lack of funding for the Wye Accord specifically. The Administration did not exert the leadership needed to secure the Wye funding, however, and did not work with Congress to find a way to provide this critical assistance to Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians without raiding the Social Security surplus. I am a strong supporter of funding the Wye Accord if the money can be found without using Social Security surplus funds. The President should make Wye funding the priority it should be and find the money somewhere in the budget. The lack of leadership from the administration in providing for our allies and interests in the Middle East already has had real costs, however. The President's veto of the foreign operation appropriations bill on October 18, 1999 sends a disturbing signal that our foreign policy is being held hostage to the domestic budget politics of the administration. While the President's veto was the wrong step for U.S. foreign policy around the world, the administration's rejection of the bill is particularly troubling for U.S. policy in the Middle East and strategic allies such as Israel. The foreign operations bill passed by Congress contains $960 million in economic assistance and $1.9 billion in military assistance for Israel. The foreign operations bill also contains over $2 billion in assistance to Egypt and $225 million in aid to Jordan, both important countries in the peace process. The provision of such assistance to Israel is critically important at this juncture of the peace process, and it troubles me that the administration did not lay the groundwork for an acceptable foreign assistance package. The government of Prime Minister Ehud Barak has stated its intention to complete final status negotiations within one year. Many difficult issues must be resolved for a final settlement to be reached. Jerusalem, refugees, and water rights are just several of the monumental issues that will be topic of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It is my hope that the administration will support Israel more forcefully during these negotiations, including a clear statement of U.S. policy that Jerusalem is and should remain Israel's undivided capital. As final status negotiations proceed, the United States should defend Israel against diplomatic ambushes in international fora such as the United Nations. An unequivocal U.S. position in support of Israel in the coming months will be essential to achieve a sustainable peace settlement. Also at stake is a potential peace settlement with Syria. I trust that Prime Minister Barak will not make territorial concessions in the Golan Heights that will jeopardize Israel's security. As a former military chief of staff, Prime Minister Barak is well aware of the security implications associated with relinquishing territory in the Golan. Any Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights should be met with the most reliable assurances from Syria that its hostility toward Israel and support for terrorism will cease. For the peace to be sustainable, however, and Israel-Syrian settlement will have to be based on more than words. Israel will have to be able to defend itself, and continued provision of annual U.S. military assistance is an integral part of that process. With all that is at stake right now in the peace process, it is difficult for me to understand why the administration has not worked closely with Congress to ensure that vital assistance is provided to Irasel in a timely fashion. Mr. President, it is my hope that the administration will demonstrate better leadership in supporting Israel as the peace process enters this critical year.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership, and I thank him for making the attempt to increase our capacity to serve America by allowing me to offer an amendment. The measure that I am offering today is a measure that Democratic minority leader Senator Daschle, 31 cosponsors, and I had introduced as free-standing legislation earlier this year. All of the cosponsors of the measure have been strong advocates on behalf of American agriculture. We are addressing the ability of American agriculture to be represented effectively in trade negotiations. Currently, there is a temporary American Ambassador for agriculture in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so that America's farmers and ranchers always have a representative at the table when the United States enters large trade negotiations. If we are worried about the United States' balance of payments, we ought to elevate and try to increase our number of exports. Our farm community outproduces and outworks any farm producers around the world. When trade agreements are negotiated, we need our farmers to be represented there by a consistent, strong voice for agriculture. The Senate Democratic minority leader, Senator Daschle, and I and 31 cosponsors introduced this free-standing bill, S. 185, because we thought it is essential to U.S. farm and trade policy. It is a bill, which as an amendment to this measure, ensures that our Nation's farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Let me express that once more to be very clear: We want to have a permanent agricultural trade ambassador in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative so whenever our Trade Representatives are making considerations about the kinds of agreements that will govern the relationships between the United States and other nations as they relate to trade with agricultural products, an expert, clearly focused on, committed to, trained in, and abreast of the circumstances in the agricultural community, will be right there at the table advancing our interests. This is very important, especially as we understand that our agricultural productivity far exceeds our ability to consume. In my home State, between a quarter and a third of all the agricultural products produced must go into the international marketplace. I heard the Senator from Illinois the other day talk about how that in his State over half of all the products are grown for shipment overseas. For some commodities, such as soybeans, over half of those commodities must be exported. This is a simple concept. The placement in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative of a permanent trade ambassador for agriculture has broad bipartisan support in the Congress. It is supported by more than 80 national farm organizations. And the administration supports it. I talked recently with U.S. Trade Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky in a meeting with the congressional ``WTO Caucus for Farmers and Ranchers.'' Let me explain. Senators Larry Craig and Byron Dorgan have assembled people in the Congress who are concerned about agriculture's capacity to trade effectively and to get our products overseas. We have organized with their leadership this caucus, consisting of both Senate and House Members, to address agricultural issues in the upcoming World Trade Organization Seattle Round. This fall in Seattle we are going to launch a new round of trade negotiations. We have been seeking as a caucus of Members of the Congress to work with our trade ambassador, Ambassador Barshefsky, to say we want to make sure we in the Congress cooperate so that when any trade agreements are finally reached, the Senate is in a better position not only to understand them but also to approve them if at all possible. I was delighted that when we discussed this need for a permanent agricultural trade ambassador within the Office of the Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky endorsed the program fully. She said this initiative is very important. I described the fact we have the WTO round of trade talks starting in late November in Seattle. I want to communicate the urgency to get this provision we are offering today enacted into law before the Seattle Round kicks off. I think Senator Daschle understands, the other 31 cosponsors understand, the members of the WTO trade caucus understand, and the White House understands the urgency of having agricultural issues fully represented at the table. That is why the administration supports this. That is why I am pleased to have been an original cosponsor with the minority leader, Tom Daschle, on this proposal in February because we all understand the importance of this proposal. Ambassador Barshefsky went on to say: Ensuring that the United States has a permanent trade ambassador will put U.S. farmers in a stronger position in the Seattle round of the WTO negotiations that will begin late this fall. Ambassador Barshefsky pointed out that when she assumed the position of the U.S. Trade Representative, she appointed Peter Scher as a special trade negotiator for agriculture. He has been the voice for America's farmers and ranchers at the negotiating table, and he has been doing a wonderful job advocating positions that will advance the strength of their interests internationally. However, his position was an administration decision and an appointment as opposed to being a permanent position in the law. The bill we introduced and the amendment I am offering today makes his position permanent, subject to Senate approval, of course. Our farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who will focus solely on opening foreign markets, ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and services, and representing the interests of American farmers, the most productive of all of our sectors of our economy. The opportunity to do that is not only ripe and ready, it is necessary now because we are looking the WTO round in the face. We need to achieve this objective. In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first ever monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds an alarm for States such as my home State of Missouri. We receive over one-fourth of our farm income from agricultural exports. Already this year the U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported the value of agricultural exports has dropped by over $5 billion since this time last year. We need to be promoting and developing ways of exporting more of the food and fiber we grow in this country. At best, the total agricultural exports will be $49 billion in 1999. This is a reduction from total agricultural exports of $60 billion 3 years ago. We cannot afford to be in a situation where we are vastly increasing productivity and production and curtailing our farmers' amount of exports opportunities. We desperately need to enhance the level of exports for our farmers. We need to make permanent the position of agricultural trade ambassador within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Also, our agricultural trade surplus totaled $26.8 billion just 3 years ago. By last year, that amount had dropped by almost 50 percent. This year, our annual agricultural trade surplus will have dwindled to about $12 billion. The bottom line is we need more attention focused on farmers' competitiveness overseas. We need to make this a policy priority. Our priorities need to be reflected in the level of the resources we deploy to do this job of opening markets for farmers and ranchers. When I am thinking about the Nation's trade policy, especially about agriculture, I ask myself what is good for the State of Missouri. In some significant measure, Missouri happens to be a leader in farming. We are the State with the second highest number of farms--second only to Texas. We have just about every crop imaginable. Missouri is among the Nation's top producers in almost all crops. We are second in terms of beef cows. We are second in hay production. Missouri is one of the top five pork-producing States. Missouri is also among the top 10 States for the production of cotton, rice, corn, winter wheat, milk, and watermelon. With 26 percent of the income in our State coming from exports, our Missouri farmers, like farmers from sea to shining sea, need to know that their ability to export will expand over time rather than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them out of their market share. During the 1996 farm bill debate, in exchange for decreased Government payments, our farmers were promised more export opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on that promise. America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent agriculture ambassador who will represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face more negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and also as we have regional negotiations with both Central and South America progressing. There are a lot of opportunities that could be opened up to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years. We need to have someone at the door, always pressing for those opportunities. Under the legislation which the minority leader and I and 31 others introduced this year, the agricultural ambassador would be responsible for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also under the legislation, the ambassador must be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S. agricultural interests. It is imperative, in my judgment, that U.S. interests always have a strong, clear voice at the table in international negotiations. Foreign countries will always have agriculture trade barriers. We need to send the message to foreign governments we are serious about breaking down barriers to their markets, so that our farmers and ranchers will be put on more of a level playing field. Canada and Mexico have already concluded free trade agreements with Chile, for example. Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural products to Chile, and in most instances Canadian farmers face a zero tariff level. Our farmers, on the other hand, are confronted with an 11-percent tariff. That makes it very difficult for us to be competitive. The E.U. is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will give European farmers more access to their markets at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. We can not afford to wait. America must lead, not follow, especially in our own backyard in the Western Hemisphere, but certainly even around the world. The agricultural ambassador amendment we are offering today is supported by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. Additionally, State branches of these national associations such as the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers Council are weighing in with their strong support. We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and ranchers in America. Making permanent the position of U.S. Trade Representative for agriculture, we are guaranteed the interests of American farmers and ranchers will always have a prominent status and will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced. It is with this in mind, and because of what I believe is the overwhelming consensus on this measure, the bipartisan nature of it, and the pressing need for it for this year's WTO round, which will begin in Seattle later this fall, that I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor and offer it. I believe this Senate will overwhelmingly endorse this commonsense proposal which has such strong bipartisan support, which is supported by the Administration, and which would render such great service to the farmers and ranchers of the United States of America who lead America in productivity and who can lead America in terms of our balance of trade and exports. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter detailing the list of the national organizations, American farmers, and ranchers supporting the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on Sunday, October 3, 1999, the Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland, Bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph area of Missouri, delivered the homily at the Red Mass held at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, DC. The Red Mass traditionally marks the opening of the Supreme Court's new term. In his address, Bishop Boland discusses the idea of having cooperative dialog between the Church and State in their mutual search for justice and respect. I ask to have printed in the Record the text of the homily given by Bishop Raymond J. Boland. The text follows. Homily: 1999 Red Mass (St. Matthew's Cathedral, Washington, DC, Sunday, October 3, 1999, Most Reverend Raymond J. Boland, D.D., Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri) I am grateful to Cardinal Hickey for his gracious invitation to give the homily at this 47th annual Red Mass. Another legal year, the last of this century, is about to begin and conscious of our fallibilities we gather in prayer to beg God's Spirit to give us understanding, courage, forbearance and, above all else, wisdom. I am also grateful to the John Carroll Society for sponsoring this annual event once again. John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Bishop of the Republic, played a significant part in defining the role of the church in an infant nation where religion would have freedom but not state sponsorship. John's brother, Daniel, signed the Constitution which gave political and legal shape to what is now the United States. Because of a certain anniversary which occurs this year, I would like to think that a fuller acceptance of the dignity of the human person may lead to a more productive understanding of the relationship between church and state in this country and elsewhere. It augurs well for our individual freedoms but it is also a delicate balance which may be in jeopardy. This year marks the 350th Anniversary of the Toleration Act of 1649, a significant development for its time which boldly reaffirmed the right of religious and political freedom in the Maryland colony. Many of you are familiar with the monument at St. Mary's City, the first capital of the future state, which symbolically depicts a man with uplifted countenance emerging from the confining stone from which he is sculpted. At his feet three words are carved, Freedom of Conscience. The Edict of Toleration provided, ``No person shall from henceforth be in any ways troubled . . . for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province nor any way be compelled to the belief or exercise of any other against his will.'' (Their Rights and Liberties, Thomas O'Brien Hanley, S.J. p. 115) When Jesus enunciated his oft-quoted judgment, ``Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's.'' (Luke 20:25) Luke tells us that his response ``completely disconcerted'' his audience ``and reduced them to silence.'' (Luke 20:26) Over the centuries we have not remained silent but we have continued to remain perplexed. Couched in terms of black and white the principle is one for the ages but its complexity intensifies as its application uncovers a multiplicity of details. All people of faith are citizens and most citizens are people of faith. Avowed atheists may not believe in God or any god, as Bishop Fulton Sheen used to quip, ``they have no invisible means of support,'' but it can be argued that their secularized or humanistic self- sufficiency constitutes a belief system of some sort. The predicament is obvious. The church-goer pays taxes. A devout Christian can be passionately patriotic. Among our citizens are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and adherents of many other religions, all of whom wish to practice their faith in freedom and many of whom honor forebears who came to this country precisely for that reason. According to reputable opinion polls the vast majority of Americans believe in God, pray with some frequency and articulate their sincerely-held beliefs by following rituals and disciplines promoted by their respective churches. These same people are also participants in the political process. They vote, they seek political office, they express their opinions, they establish forums to give wider circulation to their political philosophies. There is absolutely no way they can prevent the influence of their religious beliefs from coloring their public attitudes and forming their political convictions. Indeed, churches as a whole, convinced that they have much which is positive to contribute to the public debate, expect their members to bring their cultural and religious values to the various arenas where ideas are being generated and laws being honed. The church, no less than the state, seeks to meet the challenges of a society where sociological and technological change seems to be constantly outpacing our human capacity to keep it within the bounds of comprehension not to mention control. There is another dimension to this reality which is even more important because it comes closer to the cutting edge. Many citizens, whether they be religious or not, only participate in the public debate in a limited way. But we are concerned with the other end of the spectrum--the lawyers, the judges, the legislators who devote their lives to enacting and interpreting laws and who will naturally do so within the context of their own inherited and acquired religious convictions. When they enter statehouses and courtrooms they cannot leave their consciences along with their coats in the cloakroom. Not all matters are charged with ethical or moral overtones but those which are of most concern to our populace--rights and liberties, life and death, war and peace, affluence and poverty, personal freedom and the common good--are so interlaced with cultural, religious, scientific and legal implications that wisdom in all its personifications is called for. Is it possible to hope that, as we enter a new millennium, church and state in our land, and even the international world, may all subscribe to a synthesis of basic principles which guarantee freedom for all while equally protecting the rights of believers and unbelievers? Have we been moving in that direction? Surely such an outcome is desirable. Church and state have a lot in common in their mutual search for justice, in promoting respect for all just laws, in their concern for the common good and this, of necessity, includes such important areas as education, health care and social services. It is difficult to assess what influence Maryland's Edict of Toleration had on the framers of the Constitution. The Establishment Clause and, later on, the Free Exercise Clause have achieved a hallowed place in our national psyche even though many modern scholars detect inconsistencies in their application and some straying from their authors' intention in their interpretation. History certainly indicates that Congress adopted the two religion clauses as protection for religion, not protection from religion. English teachers constantly warn their students that analogies and metaphors should not be pushed too far. Thomas Jefferson's famous ``Wall of Separation'' metaphor may have suffered this over extension, something certainly not supported by a complete examination of his legal philosophy nor of the Constitution itself. The phrase has become a mantra. How high the wall? How impenetrable? Nobody denies the need for separation but such does not exclude cooperation. This vital area of constitutional law has experienced many twists and turns in its two centuries of history and more cases are winding their way upwards from lower courts. Maybe we need the equivalent of what manufacturers call R and D, Research and Development, to discover where we've been and to propose new ways of legally facilitating those who work with Caesar and walk with God. Instead of tanks and guns and land mines, maybe we have a great opportunity to offer the world a legal system which guarantees elementary human rights and yes, religious rights, and as a result, the potential for peace, justice and economic growth. We may even get to the stage when the words of Deuteronomy will be applied to us, ``this great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.'' (Deut. 4:6). In the last century the Church has made extraordinary strides in its own understanding of pluralism, religious freedom and political liberty. It was not easy because theocracies dominated the scene in the western world for so many centuries. The demise of the Holy Roman Empire and the disappearance of the Papal States gave the Church both an opportunity and a challenge to speak to the world with moral authority unfettered and unprotected by armies, navies or nuclear weapons. The high point of this new attitude was enshrined in one of the shortest documents of the Second Vatican Council, that world-wide meeting of Catholic Bishops in Rome in the mid- sixties. The document, known as Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Liberty, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in December, 1965 after five drafts and two years of vigorous debate. Called by the Pope ``one of the major texts of the Council'' it began with the felicitous observation, ``contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person'' (Dignitatis Humanae, 1). It is no secret that one of the most influential framers of this document was the American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, who brought with him to the Vatican a deep understanding and a genuine admiration for the guarantees established by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. It may have been indirect but there is no doubt that the American experience, dating back to the Toleration Act of 1649, found a responsive echo in St. Peter's Basilica. If there was any question about this new initiative it was resoundingly dispelled by our new Pope, John Paul II, in 1979 during the very first year of his pontificate. Here was a man whose only fellow seminarian was snatched in the night and executed by the Gestapo precisely because he was a Catholic seminarian. Here was a priest and bishop who later prevailed over the disabilities imposed upon him and his flock by an atheistic Communist regime. In his papal letter Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II would recall and reaffirm that Vatican Council document and again declare that the right to religious freedom together with the right to freedom of conscience is not only a theological concept but is one also ``reached from the point of view of natural law, that is to say, from the purely human position, on the basis of the premises given by man's own experience, his reason and his sense of human dignity.'' (Redemptor Hominis, 17) For over 20 years, on every continent, again and again the Holy Father has stressed that the human dignity of each individual is the basis for all law. Within the last year, in his New Year's message, addressing people of good will everywhere the Pope reiterated his conviction that ``when the promotion of the dignity of the human person is the guiding principle and when the search for the common good is the overriding commitment'' (World Day of Peace Message, 1999, 1) the right to life, to religious freedom, of citizens to participate in the life of their community, the right of ethnic groups and national minorities to exist along with those rights to self-fulfilment covering educational, economic and peace issues become possible. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, intimately associated with the United Nations Charter, affirms the innate dignity of all members of the human family along with the equality and inalienability of their rights. Even though these ideals are being blatantly ignored in many places across the globe, here in this land we must not ignore the unique opportunity we have to solidify the principle enunciated and developed by our leaders of both church and state that ``human rights stem from the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.'' (Cf. In particular the Vienna Declaration, 1993 Preamble 2). Crafting principles is easy in comparison to applying them to the extraordinary complexities of modern life. Mistakes have been made in the past. On the part of the Church there have been excesses of evangelistic zeal: in the halls of justice nobody seems proud of the Dred Scott decision. We live in an imperfect world and we are not all pious God- fearing and timid law-abiding clones. There will always be tension between church and state. This tension, in many ways, creates a safety valve. It is, after all, when this tension disappears that we should worry. In the enactment and administration of civil laws, people of faith do not expect privileges but they do expect fairness. George Orwell in his classic, Animal Farm, coined the phrase that ``all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.'' Is there a danger that the devotees of secularism are ``more equal'' than those who are proud of the faith they profess? Do secular symbols enjoy more protection than religious symbols? In every age there are some who would like to have religion disappear. As religion has proven itself remarkably durable, the next line of attack is the attempt to trivialize it into insignificance. It seems incredible but now and again there are those who maintain that believers have no right to engage in the public debate. ``To accept the separation of the church from the state did not mean accepting a passive or marginal status for the Church in society''. (Responsibilities and Temptations of Power: A Catholic View. J. Bryan Hehir, Georgetown University.) The church by definition has a theological foundation but it is also a voluntary association within our society with much to say about social policies. It should be accorded the same rights in the public debate as associations which profess no theological leanings. Even Pope John Paul II expressed his apprehension on this matter when he accepted the credentials of one of the esteemed John Carroll Society members, Lindy Boggs, as the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, a year ago. On that occasion he declared, ``It would truly be a sad thing if the religious and moral convictions upon which the American experiment was founded could now somehow be considered a danger to free society, such that those who would bring these convictions to bear upon your nation's public life would be denied a voice in debating and resolving issues of public policy. The original separation of church and state in the United States was certainly not an effort to ban all religious conviction from the public sphere, a kind of banishment of God from civil society. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their religious persuasion, are convinced that religious conviction and religiously informed moral argument have a vital role in public life.'' Religion will endure. Christianity, for one, has its own inner guarantees revolving around the presence of God's Spirit and the promises of Christ. They are doomed to disappointment who constantly predict that the unfolding discoveries of the many scientific disciplines will make religion obsolete or, at best, the hollow consolation of the feeble-minded. On the contrary, the more we reveal the mysteries of the universe in which we live, and decipher the minutiae of human existence, the more we come face to face with the creativity of God. We can partially answer the ``hows'' and the ``whens'' and the ``whats'' but at the end of the day, there is still the ``why''? My accent always betrays my origins and on July 12, 1965 I became an American citizen in the court house of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, which, coincidentally, is the town where John Carroll was born. I willingly promised to uphold the laws of the United States and I acquired the freedom and, indeed, the expectation to be part of the process which monitors, implements and sometimes modifies those laws. During these past thirty something years of my citizenship I have observed the Constitution endure some severe pressures and, by and large, I agree with the national consensus that ``the system works''. There is no substitute for the rule of law. Across the impressive facade of the Supreme Court Building are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' If I were the architect I would have been tempted to add two further words, ``For All.'' Criminals should fear the law: good people whose means are meager should not be intimidated by either the law itself or the wealth of those who can retain a bevy of high- profile lawyers. Claims are sometimes made that those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder rarely have access to adequate legal representation. It is for this reason that I wish to commend those legal firms and individual lawyers who, through various pro bono networks, seek to alleviate this shortcoming. They bring a nobility to their profession which is beyond value and it is often the only antidote to the popular cynicism which is foisted upon lawyers in general. As we usher in a new millennium, and as the world shrinks around us, we have much to learn from each other. The Church and the state must protect the freedom and the integrity of one another within their respective spheres of competence, and where there is overlapping, the dialogue must be marked by, as one scholar suggested, (J. Bryan Hehir) technical competency, civil intelligibility and political courtesy. In this way the 350 year old vision of the Toleration Act of 1649 will endure.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for his continuing work on this important issue. I express my strong support for legislation that would ban this unconscionable form of infanticide known as partial-birth abortion. Abortion is a moral and governmental issue of unsurpassed importance. It strikes at the very core of who we are as a people and a nation. It hits our deepest notions of liberty and questions our most fundamental assumptions about life. For decades, my home State of Missouri has been at the forefront of the abortion debate, and for the last several years, the discourse there has been focused on the procedure being discussed here today-- partial-birth abortion, infanticide. While the specific language of S. 1692 is different from the Missouri legislation, the question posed is the same: Are we willing to end a procedure that is so barbaric and extreme as to defy rational, reasoned support? Both Democrat and Republican legislators in Missouri answered, ``Yes, we are willing to ban that procedure.'' I had the privilege of serving as Missouri Governor. Regrettably, the legislature did not deliver a ban on this barbaric procedure to my desk when I was Governor. Had they done so, I would have signed it enthusiastically. Had that happened, the legislature could now be focused on other pressing problems, such as failing schools in Kansas City or St. Louis or the methamphetamine drug plague in Missouri. Most Missourians see, as I do, the effort to ban partial-birth abortion as part of a larger commonsense approach, restricting late- term abortions, ending taxpayer funding, and requiring parental consent. These sensible ideas are not about the right of choice. They are about the right of Missouri and America to act in a manner befitting humanity. We are talking about a barbaric procedure that is inhumane. It is not befitting humanity. Tragically, the Missouri partial-birth infanticide bill was vetoed, despite its overwhelming passage by the bipartisan Missouri General Assembly. Fortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans who fought for the original bill led a successful veto override effort in Missouri. It is an incredible accomplishment that represents only the seventh veto override in Missouri history, the third override this century, the first veto override since 1980. Banning partial-birth abortion, which is the destruction of a partially born child, requires a historic bipartisan effort here, as it did in Missouri. America must rise above this morally indefensible, cruel procedure. It is cruel to society's most vulnerable members. Missouri's Democrat and Republican legislators got past the obfuscation, the confusion, and the deceptions. It is time for the Senate to do the same. The defenders of the indefensible are already fast at work. They tell us that the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. The simple truth is, this procedure is never necessary to save and preserve the health of an unborn child's mother. Four specialists in OB/GYN and fetal medicine representing the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth have written: Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and fertility. That quote was from the Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1996. Nor should we accept the myth that this procedure is rarely utilized. According to interviews conducted by The Record of Bergen County, NJ, physicians in New Jersey alone claim to perform at least 1,500 partial- birth abortions every year--three times the number the National Abortion Federation claimed occurred in the entire country. Once we have established that the procedure is neither rare nor medically necessary, we will hear from the other side that our law would be unconstitutional. This is just another falsehood. A legislative ban on partial-birth abortions is constitutional. Indeed, allowing this life-taking procedure to continue would be inconsistent with our obligation under the Constitution to protect life. Although opponents will point to decisions in which activist Federal judges invalidated State-passed bans, language nearly identical to that which is in this bill has also been upheld in the Federal courts. These bans' requirements that the abortionist deliberately and intentionally deliver a living fetus that is then killed implicates the partial-birth procedure. This is not a generalized ban. Judges who have deemed the ban unconstitutionally vague ignored this text and instead have substituted their views in place of the views clearly expressed by the various State legislatures. I also want to share a word of caution with those claiming that a ban on partial-birth abortions is unconstitutional. If they truly believe that outlawing this procedure is impermissibly vague, the inevitable conclusion people will draw is that infanticide and abortion are indistinguishable. This argument provides little solace to the defenders of this gruesome procedure. On January 20 of last year, I chaired a committee meeting of the Constitution Subcommittee on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In that hearing, we learned much that is relevant to the debate over partial-birth abortion. We looked at how the Supreme Court's decision failed to provide a framework for sound constitutional interpretation or to reflect the reality of modern medical practice. This latter failure is not surprising, since the Court had neither the capacity to evaluate the accuracy of the medical data nor a way to foresee the remarkable advances in medical science that would make the then-current data obsolete. From Dr. Jean Wright of the Egleston Children's Hospital at Emory University, we learned at the hearing that the age of viability has been pushed back from 28 weeks to 23 and fewer weeks since Roe v. Wade was decided.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Surgical advances now allow surgeons to partially remove an unborn child through an incision in the womb, to repair the congenital defect, and slip the previable infant back into the womb. However, I think the most interesting thing we learned at the hearing was that unborn babies can sense pain in just the seventh week of life. These facts should help inform this debate. For instance, if we know the unborn can feel pain at 7 weeks, why is it such a struggle to convince Senators that stabbing a 6-month, fully developed and partially delivered baby with forceps, and extracting his or her brain is painfully wrong. It should be very easy to convince people that it is painful and that it is wrong. I realize, however, that not everyone agrees with my view on abortion. Indeed, I recognize the American people remain divided on this issue. Where there is a consensus, we need to move forward to protect life. The measure being discussed today to end the cruel, brutal practice of partial-birth abortion presents such an opportunity where consensus exists. The American people agree that a procedure which takes an unborn child, one able to survive outside the womb, removes it substantially from the womb and then painfully kills it is so cruel, so inhumane, so barbaric as to be intolerable and that it should be illegal. Legislatures in more than 20 States have followed Congress' lead and passed laws outlawing this procedure. Two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted to overturn the President's second veto last year. When this Chamber voted, more than a dozen Democrat Senators joined us in attempting to override the veto. A consensus has formed. Americans want this gruesome procedure eliminated. They should not be thwarted by the twisted science and moral confusion that has been argued in this Chamber.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Now more than ever we need to pass this legislation to make it clear that human life is too precious to permit legally sanctioned infanticide. As we as a nation confront the terrible violence in our schools, we in Congress need to embrace a culture that celebrates life, not a culture that celebrates convenience. The values at issue are too important to be lost in the legislative shuffle. We will pass this legislation again this year. If, again, the President vetoes it, despite the debunking of the so-called medical evidence that he used to justify that action in the past, we will continue to vote on this issue of life and death until the voice of the American people is heard and the lives of these unborn children, who are painfully destroyed while they are substantially born, are respected. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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