John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to salute a family from southeastern Missouri whose dedication to providing a better life for their children and whose commitment to education serves as a model for parents and families across America. Ferdie Reed had to leave school in the sixth grade to work in the cotton fields outside his home of Poplar Bluff, MO, and has worked as a night watchman at Three Rivers Community College for the past 28 years. He married Lillie Mae Arrington in 1950 and together they raised eleven children, stressing the values of hard work and responsibility as the keys to a successful future. Ferdie worked hard to provide for his family by farming, while holding other jobs. Lillie devoted herself to her family as a full time mother and was active in the work of the Reed's local church. She proved to be an inspiration for her children by going back to school and earning her General Equivalency Degree. The emphasis the Reed family places on education and their example of hard work was followed by their 11 children, all of whom graduated from Three Rivers Community College in Poplar Bluff. Ten of the children have also gone on to earn bachelors' degrees at 4-year universities. Together, the 11 Reed children have more than 170 years of education. Recently, the Reeds were honored in their home of Poplar Bluff for their dedication to education and the positive impact they have had on their children and their community. I join today in honoring Ferdie and Lillie Reed, as well as their children, Wendell, Ferdie Jr., Linda, Brenda, Sharon, Patricia, Kathryn, David, Karen, Paul, and Mary Ann for their significant achievements. I salute them for their dedication, determination, and perseverance in the pursuit of a better life through education.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today we embark upon a most important responsibility, a responsibility that the people of this country called upon us to undertake in the elections of 1994. I must say that I believe the people have been yearning that Congress confront this challenge forthrightly and productively for years. But I believe that the Congress has finally gotten the message, and we have been working very hard to change the welfare system--to change it from a system for keeping the poor and maintaining the poor. And, unfortunately, that is what we have done. We have maintained them and kept them poor through a system that should have become a transitional system, a system that would help people move from poverty to prosperity, move from welfare to work. And it is an important responsibility which we have. The welfare system in the United States has been a system of failure. It has not been that the people have failed so much as the system has failed. We started out with an aggressive program in the 1960's to launch a war on poverty. And yet, in spite of the great war on poverty, spending over $5 trillion, we have more people in poverty now than we did when we started the war on poverty. We have a greater percentage of the children of America on poverty than we did when we started the war on poverty. It occurs to me that we have a great responsibility to change this system--to change it profoundly so that, instead of a system which ends up trapping people in lives of poverty, we make this a transitional system; that, when people really need help, we move them from the desperation of needing help to the opportunity of work and responsibility. So this national system which has become a national disgrace is the topic now of national debate, and it should be the topic of action in the Senate today. As you and I well know, and as our colleagues here in the Senate well know, the House has already acted forthrightly in this respect. There are differences between what the House has passed and what those of us in the Senate have been working on. But we can find a way to reconcile our differences, and I believe we can give to the President of the United States, who has said that he wants to end welfare as we know it, a constructive bill. During the past several weeks we have debated this measure, and we have properly spent substantial time on it because this is no small item. It does not just deal with the billions and billions of dollars. The welfare problem, the welfare challenge, deals with much money. It deals with the great set of natural and national resources--not just financial but human resources. The fact of the matter is that the United States of America can ill afford to compete on the international scene, can ill afford to be a part of the challenge for productivity as one nation will seek to do and do better than another nation, if we have so many of our players that are not really on the field. We would not think of sending our team out to play another team for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon football game with half of our team not taking the field, not being capable of participating, and being ruled out of the system. Well, our team is a big team, and it is a strong team. It is a capable team in the United States. But we have too many that have been consigned to bench duty without any possibility of making it to the field. And we will not win in the competition of the international arena unless we find a way to bring people into productivity and out of poverty. So the real challenge we face is changing the system, and changing it not just by tinkering around the edges. No rearrangement of the deck chairs on the welfare Titanic will get the job done. We need to have the kind of profound changes that will move people out of despair into industry, and out of hopelessness into opportunity. So we will vote on a clear question today, and that is whether we will continue to fund the horror that came to define the United States welfare system and which came to detail the lives of individuals trapped in this system. Whether we have the courage to change that or not will be the real vote which we make today. I believe we have the courage to do that which is right, and I believe we will do so. And I believe we ought to do so. I would say that this is not an ideal welfare bill. This is not something that is in my judgment the best that could be done. There are probably changes that almost every Member of this Chamber would make in the bill. I believe that the right thing to do would have been far broader, not just block granting AFDC with an option to block grant food stamps. In my judgment we should have had AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income. The big four of welfare should all have been in this bill, all reformed at the same time for a variety of reasons, such as stopping the insanity of entitlement spending. We should avoid cost shifting that would take people out of one program in which we removed the entitlement status and shove them over into another program which has remained as an entitlement. That kind of cost shifting should not be allowed. It should be avoided. I would have preferred a more comprehensive bill. Obviously, I would have preferred one where the block grant for food stamps was mandated. I would have preferred one where we had Supplemental Security Income. I would have preferred a bill that would have had a more significant breadth, that had Medicaid in it as well. But we are making some first steps, and they are important first steps. One of the important first steps is the reduction in bureaucracy here; the reduction in the redtape, the reduction in this micromanagement, this intermeddling micromanagement from the Federal Government which makes it very difficult for the States to adopt policies that will really make a difference and makes it very expensive when you have to comply with hundreds of pages of Federal bureaucratic redtape. It is expensive. Instead of money getting to the truly needy, instead of the resource making it to the population that wants to move from welfare to work, sometimes the resource gets clogged in the bottleneck of the bureaucracy and the money is spent there instead of being spent on the poor. We are going to reduce the number of regulatory impositions from Washington substantially. This bill will improve our ability to deliver the real kind of help that people need. That is important--maximum State flexibility. Second, I believe it is important that we will end an entitlement. This philosophy that we do not care how much it costs, that as many people as can meet certain criteria are just entitled to self- appropriate to themselves--that has to stop. It is a major thing. First, reduce the bureaucracy; second, end entitlement; third, we are going to require work far more pervasively than ever before. The American people have told us with a clarity that is unmistakable. We must require work, and, of course, provide the flexibility so that people can do in the various States and communities of this country what works there, not what somebody in Washington wants to impose, but to do simply what works. This bill makes a statement that Washington does not have all the answers. We are now looking to the communities and the States to do what works there, to tailor programs, and to be experimental stations to say we will try this, and, if it works here, others might want to try it. But it should not be imposed on them because people should have an opportunity to do what works to move people from poverty to productivity. Washington, it may be said, has been the mad scientist seeking to impose its will. But the truth of the matter is we need to provide an opportunity for States to do that which works. Well, this bill comes with an explicit admonition as well. This bill recognizes that Government alone will not solve these problems. And I think that it is important for us to express nationally and as a part of policy that we really expect charitable and nongovernmental institutions in this culture to rally to address this problem, and not expect the problem to be solved fully by Government. So we have in this bill a specific invitation to private charities, nongovernmental entities, even faith-based organizations to participate in the solution of this serious challenge to the success of this society in the next century. And I believe that is a major step forward. We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to do something that is substantially in the best interests of the people of this country, something they have yearned for us to do. That is to change a welfare system which is badly broken, which has been the keeper of the poor and has kept people poor, which has managed to find more people in poverty after its great effort than less people in poverty. The war on poverty has resulted in the children of America being taken as prisoners. We have to do something, and we have to do it well. As I previously stated, this welfare reform bill is not perfect, but it does take the first steps. The lack of perfection in this bill, the absence of a mandate that the Food Stamp Program be sent to all the States, the lack of reforms to the SSI Program in the bill, are some of a number of things which keep it from being perfect but should not keep it from being passed. This bill gives us the opportunity to say, ``Let us pass this bill, but let the imperfections drive us to keep our focus and in the next year to continue to improve and extend it.'' There has been a lot of talk in the last few weeks during the welfare reform debate about money and about resources. We know how desperately important it is for us to balance the budget, but the ultimate importance of this bill is not money. The savings we are talking about are the savings in lives and opportunities and, through those savings, the future of America. Our task in this welfare reform measure is then to save the lives and opportunities of citizens. To pass this welfare reform bill today would be a real step toward saving lives, and we must support it and must be driven by its imperfections to do even more when we reconvene next year.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you Mr. President. I rise in support of the amendment. One of the taxes on poor Americans, people who are truly needy, is a bureaucratic tax. As a Governor, I can testify that the more the bureaucracy proliferates in Washington the greater the percentage of the resource at the State level that has to be used to respond to the bureaucracy in Washington rather than to meet the needs of the truly needy. I believe, to the extent that we can reduce the bureaucratic tax on the poor which is represented by Washington bureaucrats who are no longer needed because we cut the program, that we ought to do that, and for that reason I believe Senator Gramm's amendment is in order and ought to be supported by Members of this body.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, along with Senators Abraham, Bond, Cochran, DeWine, Hatch, Inhofe, Kyl, McCain, Simpson, and Thurmond, I am pleased to introduce the Violent and Hard-Core Juvenile Offender Reform Act of 1995. The crime epidemic sweeping across our country-- growing with each passing year--can be attributed, [[Page S 13657]] in significant part, to the steady increase in serious and violent crimes committed by juveniles. Between 1988 and 1992, juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased by 47 percent, while adult violent crime arrests increased by 19 percent. Specifically, juvenile murders increased 26 percent, forcible rapes increased 41 percent, robberies increased 39 percent, and aggravated assaults increased 27 percent. These statistics are alarming. But in order for Congress to provide a real solution, it must first understand the nature of the problem. Until that occurs, legislative initiatives coming out of both Houses of Congress will continue to miss the mark. Just last year, Congress passed the Omnibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill intended to control crime. Although the bill contained some provisions directed at youth violence, they were amendments to the Federal criminal code. The reality is that a very small number of juveniles are tried in Federal proceedings. In 1990, there were 197 such proceedings; in 1991, 166; in 1992, 109; in 1993, 64; and in 1994, 92. Therein lies the major weakness in the 1994 crime bill. Any amendments strengthening the federal criminal code regarding juveniles are limited to those offenders, a minute number, who happen to find themselves in federal juvenile proceedings. If the goal is to reduce juvenile crime, then fundamental changes must occur at the state level. This is because States and local governments handle the vast majority of juvenile offenders. The problem of juvenile violence is occurring everywhere in the United States. In Rockland, MA, four teenagers beat a man to death with a baseball bat and bottle while he was waiting for his girlfriend. The assault followed the death of two men who were shot by a teenager for a leather jacket. In Jacksonville, FL, when the victim could find only $5 in his pocket to appease the two 16 year olds robbing him in 1994, he asked: ``You're not going to shoot me over $5, are you?'' They did, and he died. In St. Louis, MO, two female college students were out on a weekend night when they were abducted by two suspects, ages 16 and 19. The lone survivor was raped, shot in the face three times, and abandoned. The other, Melissa Aptman, who pleaded with the teenagers not to hurt them, was shot and killed. Both suspects had previous criminal records. In fact, the 16 year old was on probation at the time of the abduction. In Washington, DC, 11 blocks from the Capitol, a 14 year old stopped a young man during rush hour who he thought had stolen his jacket a few days before. He whipped out a pistol and blazed away. One bullet killed a father of two. The teenager got the maximum sentence: 2 years in the District of Columbia detention center. In Detroit, MI, six teenagers decided to carjack a motorist by dragging a tree across a road. When the driver tried to run their blockade, one of the thugs shot him dead. The gunman, a 16 year old, was sentenced as a juvenile, and, unless the prosecutor's wins an appeal, he will go free at 21. The judge was quoted as saying, ``I'm not concerned about whether or not this makes anybody safer.'' Law and order in our neighborhood communities have yielded to crime and disorder. For its part, the current juvenile justice system reprimands the crime victim for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and then turns around and hugs the young criminal, whispering ever so softly into his ear, ``Don't worry, the State will protect you.'' The critical question facing us Americans, as asked by the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, is: ``Are we to stand idly by while fierce young hoodlums--too often and too long harbored under the glossy misnomer of juvenile delinquents--roam our streets and desecrate our communities?'' We cannot afford to stand idly by, not when the homicide rate committed by teens ages 14-17 has more than doubled, increasing 165 percent from 1985 to 1993; not when juvenile arrests for weapons law violations increased 117 percent between 1983 and 1992; not when one out of every 13 juveniles reported being a victim of a violent crime in 1992; and not when the number of juvenile violent crime arrests is expected to double by the year 2010. We must challenge this culture of violence and restore the culture of personal responsibility. Having examined the juvenile justice system, having analyzed the efficacy of different philosophical approaches, having had conversations with representatives from school districts, law enforcement, and citizens' organizations, I have devised a comprehensive approach that will control violent juvenile crime by encouraging States to enact sweeping reforms. This legislation provides Federal funds to States and local governments to assist them in reforming their juvenile justice systems. The bill identifies violent and hard-core criminals, imposes stiffer penalties, and deters crimes. First, serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders would be held accountable. The juvenile justice system's primary goal is to rehabilitate the juvenile offender. Such a system can handle runaways or school truants, but is ill-equipped to deal with chronic, serious offenders. Even the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a membership organization for juvenile justice professionals, is hard-pressed to admit: Rehabilitation has been remarkably successful for most juvenile offenders. It has not been successful for the small number of chronic and serious offenders. For them, strict accountability appears necessary. Studies have found that a small percentage of juveniles are responsible for the vast majority of serious offenses committed by juveniles. The bill identifies this group of juvenile offenders. Traditionally, the juvenile court judge decides whether to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court. In making this decision, the juvenile judge has broad discretion. Thus, the judge is able to abuse his discretion. The bill would replace the subjectivity of the juvenile court judge with the objectivity of the seriousness of the crime committed and the age of the offender. The bill would encourage States to prosecute juveniles, age 14 and older, who commit: First, murder; second attempted murder; third, forcible rape, fourth, serious drug offenses--as defined by Federal law, or fifth, serious offenses while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon, namely, robbery, assault and battery. Such a system is not a radical idea. In fact, more than 25 States legislatively exclude certain serious offenses from the juvenile court's jurisdiction. Those States include Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, and Maryland. Moreover, the automatic referral of certain serious cases to the criminal justice system will free up limited resources in the juvenile court system. The criminal justice system, not the juvenile justice system, can emphasize that adult criminal acts have real consequences. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish, that is, to hold defendants accountable. Studies show repeatedly that punishment reduces both frequency and seriousness of offenses by young criminals and is most effective when it is consistently imposed for every offense, according to University of Southern California psychologist Sarnoff Mednick. Therefore, since research studies have confirmed that criminal punishment of young offenders will reduce further criminal activity, then serious offenders should face adult prosecution. In addition, the bill contains what I like to refer to as the ``three-strikes-and-you're-out'' provision for chronic offenders. It provides that juveniles, who have two prior felony adjudications, will be subject to transfer to adult criminal court on their third, subsequent charge for a felony offense. A 1988 study on the court careers of juvenile offenders found that juveniles referred to juvenile court for a second time before age 15 are likely to continue their law- violating behavior. The study further found that juveniles who committed a violent offense were the most likely to return to court charged with a subsequent violent offense. The legislative proposal draws from these findings. The bill seeks to intervene early in the lives of the hardened career criminal and places them in the criminal justice system. Second, States would create and maintain juvenile criminal records. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1967 landmark decision, In re Gault, said: ``The summary procedures of juvenile courts are sometimes defended by a statement that it is the law's policy to hide youthful errors from the full gaze [[Page S 13658]] of the public and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past. This claim of secrecy, however, is more rhetoric than reality.'' In other words, in rhetoric we are protecting juveniles from the stigma of a record but in reality we are coddling criminals. We must divorce the rhetoric from reality by lifting the veil of secrecy. The bill encourages States to create and maintain records on juveniles, age 14 and older, for offenses that if committed by an adult would be classified as a felony. And, juveniles under age 14 adjudicated delinquent of any of the enumerated crimes I mentioned earlier will have their conviction recorded and made available to necessary parties. The bill would also encourage States to transmit juvenile criminal records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the criminal identification database. That way, when young criminals and gangs move from State to State, their records will follow them. The juvenile records would be made available to law enforcement agencies, school officials, and judges. Third, juvenile criminal records would be made available to adult courts for purposes of adult sentencing. According to the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, nearly 40 percent of prison inmates had a prior record as a juvenile. That is approximately four in 10 prison inmates. The significance of this statistical information is illustrated in Armstrong Williams' book ``Beyond Blame'' in which he writes about the real-life experience of a 29-year-old former drug dealer named ``Brad Howard.'' Mr. Williams gives a vivid description of how society suffers the consequences when the criminal justice system fails to hold criminals accountable: Brad, staring at a sentence of thirty to sixty years in prison for violating Federal drug trafficking laws, used his drug money and the help of his parents to hire a good lawyer. He was able to beat the charge. The judge, Brad explains, looked favorably on his story to such an extent that even Brad is surprised that he got off. Obviously, the judge thought that Brad was just another young man who inadvertently ended up on the wrong end of the system-- probably for lack of real opportunity. In a sense, you can't blame the judge. Brad did not have a criminal record as an adult, since his youthful encounters with the law were hidden from the legal system under rules that prevent juvenile criminal history from being reopened once the person turns eighteen. . . . After the trial was over, Brad returned to the streets. This is a typical problem with many State statutes that seal juvenile criminal records. Our laws view juveniles through the prism of kids gone astray. When in fact those juveniles who commit serious and violent crimes are criminals who happen to be young. Young criminals know what Brad Howard knew in his former life as a street hustler--that they can commit crimes repeatedly as juveniles because their juvenile records are kept hidden under the veil of secrecy. These young criminals know that when they reach 18 years of age they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished criminal record. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea that crimes, no matter how heinous, by juveniles must be kept confidential. Under the bill introduced today, the Brad Howards in this nation would be held accountable for their criminal acts. The Brad Howards would be held accountable in their juvenile years because they would be tried as adults for selling illicit drugs. The Brad Howards would be held accountable in their adult years because their previous juvenile court records would be made available to State and Federal courts at adult sentencing. No longer will the Brad Howards of this country be able to act like neophytes to the criminal justice system. Our message will be clear, cogent, and convincing: Serious acts have serious consequences. Fourth, school officials would have access to juvenile criminal records. This past spring, I received a letter from a seventh grader who wrote ``Sometimes I wonder what people think crime really is. It's much worse than that. My definition is bringing drugs and guns to school so that other classmates wake up with the question: Will I be safe today?'' Following receipt of this letter, I met with school officials to discuss school violence. A school teacher recalled an actual incident in which a student came to school with an electronic ankle bracelet and no one had any knowledge of what that a student had done and, more important, no way of finding out. Students and teachers spend the greater part of their day at school. Students and teachers have a right to a safe, educational environment. Yet students are challenged to learn in an environment in which chronically violent students roam the halls terrorizing them during class exchange periods and after school. Teachers are challenged to carry out their duties and responsibilities in a seriously disruptive work environment. Under my bill, school officials would have access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in looking out for the best interests of all students. If schools know the identity of a violent juvenile, they can respond to misbehaviors 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 schools to take measures to prevent violence. Fifth, the sharing of juvenile records would assist law enforcement Agencies. The bill would assist law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations and apprehension. It encourages States to share juvenile record information within their subdivisions and with other States. While visiting with several law enforcement officers I heard the same recurring problem--when police officers arrest juveniles they have no idea with whom they are handling because the records are kept confidential. This veil of secrecy undermines law enforcement efforts. Law enforcement agencies need to know the prior records of individuals who are subsequently arrested. Under the bill, if a juvenile is arrested, the police will be able to access other state criminal history records. With more information, law enforcement officials will be able to make more intelligent decisions, like whether to detain or release a juvenile arrested for a serious crime. Additionally, the interstate sharing of accurate and up-to-date records would assist police departments in criminal investigations. For example, suppose a young offender is found guilty of burglary in Oklahoma. The court sentences him to 7 months in a detention center. Following his release, he travels to Texas where he robs an elderly lady who upon being accosted refuses to give away her purse. Angered by her refusal the young offender stabs her to death. He opens her purse, takes the wallet, and flees the crime scene. Assume further there are no eyewitnesses to the murder. The police, however, are able to lift fingerprints from the purse. If the bill were enacted, the Texas police would be able to identify the assailant because the juvenile would have been fingerprinted and photographed immediately following his conviction for burglary in Oklahoma. Sixth, school officials would be able to treat all students equally. Consider the case of Morgan versus Chris L.: In May 1992, Chris L. was diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. As a result, he was being treated with prescription medication. Throughout the 1992-93 academic year, his behavioral problems continued. On May 11, 1993, Chris allegedly kicked a water pipe in the school lavatory until it burst--a crime against public property. The Knox County School District filed a petition in juvenile court. Chris' father filed for a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] to review the filing of the petition in juvenile court. The hearing officer concluded that ``[t]he filing of a petition in Juvenile Court shall be considered as the initiation of a change in placement and/or a disciplinary action commensurate with expulsion or suspension for more than 10 days. * * * [B]efore a school files a petition against a child in Juvenile Court, it must follow the same procedures as for expulsion or suspension for more than 10 days.'' A Federal district court judge upheld the hearing officer's conclusion of law. IDEA is a grant funding statute that contains special due process procedures for children with disabilities. The problem is that the special due process procedures for disabled students take several months, and sometimes a year, to complete. [[Page S 13659]] The practical effect of the judge's ruling is that schools, as a matter of law, cannot unilaterally refer disabled children to juvenile court unless parents consent to the filing of the juvenile court petition. The bill makes it clear that those disabled students who commit criminal acts on school property are not protected under IDEA's special due process procedures. Seventh, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention would provide assistance to States to implement serious habitual offender comprehensive action programs. The bill would allow State and local governments to use Federal funding to implement serious habitual offender comprehensive action programs [SHOCAP]. SHOCAP is a multiagency program that is intended to improve the effectiveness of jurisdictions in handling serious habitual juvenile offenders. The program enlists police, schools, prosecutors, probation officers, juvenile courts, family and youth services, detention and corrections officials to collaborate more effectively and utilize their collective resources to identify serious, violent habitual juvenile offenders. SHOCAP targets the top 2 to 3 percent of the most serious habitual offenders and puts them under intense supervision. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, conducted five test pilots of SHOCAP. Oxnard, CA was of the selected sites. SHOCAP was implemented in 1983. Four years later, Oxnard's violent crime dropped 38 percent. By 1989, rape decreased 30 percent; robbery decreased 41 percent; and murder decreased 60 percent. The statistics demonstrate that SHOCAP can effectively control juvenile crime. SHOCAP is also instrumental in apprehending young criminals. Take, for example, the murder of the British tourist in Monticello, FL. If you recall, four teenagers age 13-16 were charged with murder in the 1993 slaying of a British tourist at a highway rest stop and attempted murder of his companion. The killing occurred while the juveniles were riding around in a stolen car. Because 3 of the 4 teenagers were serious habitual offenders, they were arrested within a matter of days. What is more, the 13-year-old reportedly had more than 50 offenses on his record. SHOCAP works, and through word of mouth in the law enforcement community: 16 States have at least one experienced site implementing the SHOCAP process; 150 sites have been reported as implementing SHOCAP based on the technical assistance provided by experienced SHOCAP sites; 5 States (Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, California, & Illinois); and 3 States are reportedly considering SHOCAP legislation. The bill would make support for SHOCAP available in all jurisdictions. Conclusion Mr. President, if enacted, the Violent and Hard-Core Juvenile Offender Reform Act of 1995 will effectively address the problem of juvenile violence.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I refer to line 7, section 103--no funds used for programs established or modified under this act shall be expended for sectarian worship or instruction.

Mr. ASHCROFT. If I spoke to use proselytization, the word to my understanding does not actually appear--the provision just prohibits using funds for purposes of sectarian worship or instruction. I do not think that it would obviously allow proselytizing.

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is with this in mind that I urge the defeat of the Cohen amendment.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if I might for a moment say a few words to close to state my support for the Dole bill as it exists rather than as it has been proposed to be amended, I thank the Senator from Maine for endorsing the concept of widening and broadening the groups of individuals in the culture who will help us solve the welfare problem. But to elevate the States to the place of a judicial entity which seeks to determine whether or not there has to be a separate structure in place in order to avoid first amendment problems I think is a compound misunderstanding. First of all, it is a misunderstanding to think that the States could make a difference. The truth of the matter is whether or not you violate the first amendment cannot be determined by the State. The State can cause additional expense, or can place barriers in the roadway for religious institutions, but it cannot provide any kind of guarantee that there will not be a lawsuit. Second, it is well settled law. I am talking about the modern law, and I thank the senior Senator from New York for his comments about the relationship between our States and funding for social services, and other types of services. But it is well settled modern law that the test of whether or not there is an infringement of the establishment clause is not a test of structure. The test is the test of activity, and a test of administration. If you had a totally sectarian organization which was using government funds to meet public purposes, it is clear that religious institutions, according to the case of Bowen versus Kendrick--that is the 1988 case of the U.S. Supreme Court--religious institutions are not disabled by the establishment clause from participating in publicly sponsored social welfare programs. You could have a totally secular organization, a private, even business, corporation endowed by funds from the Federal Government, and, if its activities were to somehow impose religion using those funds, it would be an affront to the Constitution. Recognizing that it was the activities that could potentially offend the Constitution, and not the structure that could potentially offend the Constitution, the Dole bill was carefully drawn so as to prohibit offensive activities and to allow the religious organizations to maintain their structure. We do not want religious organizations to have to change their character. We do not want them to have to belie what they are. We do not want them to have to participate in hiring practices and other difficult situations which are inconsistent with their belief structure. We want their help but we do not want them to use public funds in achieving religious purposes. So the Dole bill has clear language which goes to the heart of the relevant facts of activity, not of structure, and it makes it clear that, since structure is not really important, this barrier of expense and intimidation which would stop some from participating and coming to the table to participate in a full range of these activities should not be mandated or allowed to be required by the States. It is with that in mind that we seek to enlarge the community of care in America, and we seek to enlarge it in a way which will bring in individuals who can really make a difference. I pointed out earlier that we had the refugee resettlement program which has specific authority to deal with religious organizations--and, as a matter of fact, has been operating that way--so that we have a test. We already have organizations. As a matter of fact, I believe most of the Members who are in this Chamber now who were in this Chamber in 1980 voted for this program without these special provisions. It is interesting to me that in the closing days of the Bush administration they made a proposal, as a part of their service to this country, which recommended exactly what we have asked be done; that is, that we enlarge the group of individuals who are capable of assisting by inviting religious organizations, not to proselytize, not to promote their religion but to participate when their activities are characterized by the public purpose. And the Supreme Court of the U.S. has explicitly indicated that it is not structure but it is, in fact, purpose, and it is, in fact, activity which determines. I just add that the Bowen case in that matter indicated that when the activities were specific and public purpose in nature--and they were defined clearly enough so that there could be an assessment of those activities and an evaluation of them by the State--that was the real test which decided whether or not there was an improper intermixing of church and state that would be in violation of the first amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment and in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine. The Senator from Maine suggests that States should make determinations about whether there should be another hurdle over which nongovernmental, private institutions, religious in character, have to crawl in order to be participants in helping solve this major challenge to our society and culture. In doing so, it would place a hurdle in their path that is placed in the path of no other organization, in terms of their eligibility to help solve this problem. Strangely enough, this hurdle is placed in the path of some of the institutions that have the very best record at helping solve the problem. It is suggested that placement of this hurdle in the path is necessary to protect States and localities from lawsuits. But the truth of the matter is that nothing can protect anyone from a lawsuit relating to the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of a statute or a public program, other than a constitutional amendment, which is explicit in its authorization. But still you run the risk of litigation. It would be interesting, or perhaps maybe easier to understand this if what we were asking for here was unprecedented or had not been already enacted in other parts of the law. But I hold in my hand a report to the Congress for fiscal year 1994 of the Refugee Resettlement Program, which provides four grants directly to religious organizations for dispensing cash benefits. I could read a list of many, many such organizations that are involved in doing it. As a matter of fact, many of those who are in this Senate today voted in favor of this program in 1980 when the Refugee Resettlement Program was enacted and asked that there be no special safeguard against the ability of religious, nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations to assist with refugees. We would not want to end up with the anomalous situation of requiring churches to go over special barriers when providing services to welfare recipients in the United States, while not requiring them to go over the same barriers when helping refugees and others. Similarly, the Adolescent Family Life Act, which was tested in the case of Bowen versus Kendrick, provides funds to public and private counseling agencies that counsel teenagers on matters of premarital sexual relations and pregnancy. The act expressly provided that religious not-for-profit organizations were to be considered as eligible. In that case the Court held that the act did not on its face violate the establishment clause. As a matter of fact, the Dole bill as it is currently constituted here and is before the Senate, has special protections in it-- protections against proselytization, protections for individuals so if they are offended by having to go to a religious organization to receive a benefit, that the benefit can be provided in another setting rather than in the setting of the religious organization. It also provides protections for the churches so that the churches can know they do not lose their ability to hire of like faith, and be associated with employees whose belief and character is consistent with the values for which the institution stands. What we have here is an amendment which seeks to carve out a special category for welfare reform which does not exist in other parts of the laws. The report to the Congress of the refugee resettlement program provides a list of dozens of organizations which receive help including churches, help that they pass on to the refugees without this kind of problem. There has not been a great problem in any respect, as a matter of fact, with the alleged unconstitutionality. So we have a situation where we have those institutions in our culture and society with the very best track record of solving the problems of the welfare puzzle. We will say to them, you have to go to the added expense, you have to form a separate organization, you will have to lose some of the protections you have as a church, your ability to hire people that have values consistent with yours, that have a belief structure that is consistent with yours, you will have to forfeit all that in order to have this opportunity to participate in solving this problem which you have probably been working pretty aggressively to solve on your own. We would be well served as a Nation if these institutions would help us in the solution of this problem. I think that is the challenge which is before the Senate. The question is whether or not we will continue to throw barriers in the path of the organizations which can help us substantially in solving this problem. Now, we have tried the singular Washington one-size-fits-all remedy for a long time in welfare. We have seen what happens. We have watched the roles of those in poverty swell. We have watched the percentage of children in poverty in our country grow. So when it comes time to try and extend ourselves to find a real solution to this problem and to borrow some of the solutions that the refugee resettlement program has used and to borrow some of the solutions to the problem that have been found in other recent legislation like the Adolescent Family Life Act, all of a sudden we hear the old bugaboos about needing to have special requirements for the religious organizations. Requirements that will make them second- class citizens, that will force them to go through the burden of setting up separate organizations. Those who proposed the amendment and support it indicate there will be a tremendous fear on the part of agencies who might otherwise contract with the separate organizations. Nothing in this bill would stop a religious organization from setting up a separate organization. Nothing would prohibit it. Nothing would change its option. The only real mandate that we have in the Dole bill is that churches would be placed on a level playing field with other non-governmental institutions, that we would stop tossing barriers and prejudicial conditions in the paths of the religious institutions that wanted to help. I need to try and make it as clear as I possibly can that I cannot endow the churches with rights to do things that they do not have a right to do under the Constitution, and neither can this body. I would not want to. I believe that the States should not support the church, that the church should be separate from the State. But I believe that when organizations including religious organizations have the track record of helping move people from welfare to work, from indolence to industry, from a situation [[Page S 13520]] where they are kept in poverty to a situation where they have independence, I think for us to place undue burdens in their pathway is unfair, and not only is it unfair but it is inappropriate. Why we should single out the community of faith in the United States of America and say that for that community there are special requirements that do not inure to other individuals in other parts of our culture and say they are second-class citizens and they are ineligible, is beyond me. The courts have not said so. Previous enactments of the Senate have not said so, whether you are talking about the refugee resettlement program or whether you are talking about the Adolescent Family Life Act. In previous efforts to deal with problems like this, the Congress in the Stewart P. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act sought to provide emergency shelter grant programs that would allow those programs to go to religious nonprofit organizations. What we really ask for is that there be a level playing field here, not for the benefit of the organizations but for the benefit of a country that desperately needs help in breaking the cycle of dependence, breaking the cycle of poverty, and helping people move out of that welfare setting into a setting of work and industry. I think it is inappropriate to place between those organizations and the opportunity to participate barriers which will slow their ability rather than grow their ability to be a part of the solution. I think we need to emulate programs that can be found in virtually every city in America, programs which now are totally distinct and separate. Obviously, many of them fear involvement with governmental entities. We need to invite them to the table, not to proselytize, but to say we are interested in having their help. The Dole bill guarantees that no one is to be proselytized. It guarantees that no one can be forced to confess or otherwise subscribe to a faith to get a benefit. It says that no money can be used for purposes of propagating the faith. It says churches, however, do not have to become sterile institutions that are nameless and faithless. The Salvation Army would not have to take the word ``salvation'' out of its title in order to participate in the program. It would not have to hire people whose beliefs and whose value structure are a threat to the character and the doctrine of the Salvation Army itself. I believe that the bill as it stands is an invitation for help. It is an invitation which does not threaten the religious liberties of individuals. It does not prohibit churches or other nongovernmental religious organizations that are nonprofit from setting up separate organizations. But it simply would not allow the Government to impose upon them a requirement which is imposed upon no other organization, no other set of institutions in this country. It does not label religious organizations who come to the table as participants for reconciliation and resolution of the welfare problem as second-class citizens, but it does say there are limits to what they can do. It requires that they keep an accounting of the funds they receive from the Government. It requires that they follow and observe rules of how the funding must be spent. But it protects them from an invasive Government which might otherwise improperly seek to influence their belief structure or the way in which they conduct worship or engage in their activities. The Dole bill on this matter is a balanced bill. To require or to promote the requiring of an additional hurdle over which these religious organizations would have to go when that is not required for anyone else would be manifestly unfair, and in my judgment it would be counterproductive. I want to indicate that I do not have any objection to the first amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine to add to the bill the language that we will operate in a way that is consistent with the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States. That is fine with me. When I took my oath, in every job that I have had for quite some time, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I think that is part and parcel of what we do here. And I have no objection to that. I would be happy to agree to that. Since this item has been separated, we might avoid a vote on that. But on the second item, I urge my colleagues not to place in the path of well-meaning religious, nonprofit organizations the requirement that there be the opportunity for States to have them go over major hurdles and expenses and forfeit opportunities to protect the organization from improper intrusion by Government by accepting this amendment. So I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is the position of the Senator from Maine that that was decided in Bowen versus Kendrick, and a long line of cases?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Whether an organization is so permeated with sectarian purpose as to be ineligible to participate in a governmental purpose.

Mr. ASHCROFT. So it is up to the court to decide----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Who makes that decision?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So the Senator from Maine does not allege that this provision would provide any guarantee. I thought I misunderstood. I thought I heard the Senator from Maine tell the Senator from Rhode Island that such a guarantee would be in effect.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to know if the position of the Senator from Maine is that by virtue of requiring the formation of one or another, that you have a determination about whether or not something violates the first amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I heard the Senator from Rhode Island ask him if a State were allowed to require the formation of a separate corporate entity, that would guarantee the State immunity from suit based on grounds of the infraction of the first amendment. Is that the Senator's position?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask if the Senator from Maine will yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. A point of order. The amendment of the Senator from Maine seeks to strike the proposal in two separate places, and, as a result, I believe it is out of order.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to join the senior Senator from New York in commending the Senator from Indiana for an outstanding, insightful, and dispassionate analysis of [[Page S 13501]] a very, very difficult problem. Too often in this Chamber, we view this problem as a financial problem or a governmental problem or a bureaucratic problem. But I think the Senator from Indiana has clearly alerted us to the fact that this is a problem for individuals, and it is a problem for families, and it is a problem for our culture. I believe the measure which he and I are proposing is a measure which takes into account our understanding that we do not believe that government is the complete answer to the challenges we face. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Indiana has noted with clarity that there are many, many efforts by government which have been attended by only modest success, if it can be described as success at all. When those enterprises are compared with the efforts that have been made by a number of private groups, including faith-based organizations, it is clear that the success rate, sort of the change rate, the therapy rate, the healing rate in those organizations is dramatically higher. I was pleased to have the opportunity to cooperate with him to try to think of ways we could address our problems that go, as he puts it, ingeniously beyond government. So often, it is in the role and nature of government to establish the minimums: If you do not follow these rules or these regulations, you end up in jail. You have to pay this much or you have to do this much in order to remain free. Government does not really call us to our highest and best, frequently. That job is the job of other institutions. In order for us to solve this very substantial challenge, the critical challenge and a crisis in terms of our human resources, we are going to have to do more than minimums, the kind of thing government frequently deals with. We are going to have to get into the arena of maximums, and we have to find ways of calling on people to be at their highest and their best, rather than just participating in the fundamental threshold of what it takes to be a member of the club we call our society. So beyond government, to expect to do more than government would do, to try to elicit responses from individuals who literally accept responsibility for helping in this circumstance, we have come up with this idea to provide incentives for individuals to invest their resources and themselves in private charitable enterprises which have a track record of doing what we have failed to do so miserably in our welfare program. None of us have to recount the failure of the welfare program. We know that there are more people in poverty now than there were when we started the war on poverty. We know that the number of children in poverty is a higher percentage than it was when we started this assault on poverty by government. We can only conclude that the prisoners of the war, the POW's of the war on poverty, have been the children of America, the future of this great country. What can we do to try to break this cycle of dependency, to slow the problem instead of grow the problem, because it occurs to me that as we have sought to remedy this situation, to bring therapy to this wound through government, we have exacerbated the problem; the hemorrhage has increased rather than been stemmed. Perhaps it is instructive for us to look into our past to find out what might be helpful to us in the future. Our current crisis in the cities is not singular, not unique, not something that never happened before. We have had crises in our cities before. Scholars have studied them, and they can point to ways in which we might remediate them. And Professor Marvin Olasky, from Texas, has written eloquently, and Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, as well, about the same crisis that, 100 years ago, gripped American cities. One of the interesting things about those crises is that they were attended by a social outpouring, a civic commitment to deal with the problem. The distinguished junior Senator from Illinois, yesterday, had a picture on the floor of the Senate. It showed youths huddled against a building, semi-clothed, barefooted, sleeping one upon the other, in Chicago 100 years ago. It was a tragedy then, and what is happening to our young people is a tragedy now. She had several suggestions that we could remedy the tragedy with governmental guarantees today. It is interesting to me that the tragedy was not remedied 100 years ago with governmental guarantees--and I am not against Government and against having the right kind of safety net and the right kind of transitional welfare; but when welfare moves from being transitional to vocational, and the Government becomes the keeper of the poor, and as the keeper of the poor, the Government keeps people poor, we have missed part of the equation. One hundred years ago, a substantial component of the equation was simply that citizens cared, and they volunteered and worked with one another compassionately to meet the needs. We need to signal, state, and we need to, as the Government, develop an understanding in this culture, in our communities, in our cities across this country that we cannot get this job done and expect and want people to participate as volunteers. There are interesting data that in the crisis of 100 years ago in New York, there were two volunteers for every needy person. We have substituted Government for volunteers, and now we have 200 needy people for every social worker. That is just not a problem with the numerics, because 200-to-1 is an incredible load. It is also a problem with the character, not just the quantity. I am not impugning the character of social workers. They are wonderful people that are devoting their lives. But it is different to be administered to by a paid social worker than by an individual who says, ``I love you and this community enough to accept responsibility, and I want to be part of improving your lot. I want to help you move from where you are to a place that is closer to where I am. I want to help you elevate yourself from dependency to industry, from despair to hope.'' We need to do what can be done to send a strong signal that we want the desperate and needy of America to be a part of the devoted aspiration and contribution of our communities and cities and citizens. This modest proposal says to people that if you will give to charitable organizations that meet the needs of the needy, you will get your normal tax break. But if, in addition to giving your money, you will also get involved--and the Senator from Indiana said it very clearly, that we want the extra impact of citizen involvement, but we want the extra accountability of citizen involvement, citizens who do not just write a check as a means of shedding the consciousness and excusing themselves from the challenge, but we want citizens who want the check as a way of propelling themselves into the challenge, to meet the challenge. So if you will contribute to these charitable organizations and you will match your contribution with an hour a week, on the average, through the year--50 hours--we will say as a Government that we honor this, that we respect it, and we want to encourage this, we want to teach this as a value and virtue in American life, and we care for each other to the extent--to use the phrase of the Senator from Indiana-- that we go beyond Government and that we get into the involvement, one with another, and we have an interface between those in need and those who can meet the need. That would carry us forward. It is with that in mind that we have raised this proposal for debate in the U.S. Senate. I believe that I could stand here and go through a litany of these kinds of nongovernmental organizations, and I have pages of them and their examples and success rates and their success stories. The Senator from Indiana has appropriately indicated that they operated about one-twentieth of the cost that normally attends the governmental function. I could talk about the experience of certain Governors, like Governor Engler, who has a program that is successful. He says the reason is that because he has been able to get the Lutheran Services to be a party to it, because they care at a different level. There is a different character about the helping hand of a volunteer than there is about the heavy hand of Government. He says that the reason the program works is that this caring, loving, helping hand is available 24 hours a [[Page S 13502]] day, 7 days a week. He says that in order to get certain of the Government programs to work, he has to ask people to have their problems between 9 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon, Monday through Friday. The truth of the matter is that needs arise in ways that require caring and help and healing, rather than bureaucracy. So it is with this in mind that we have suggested to this U.S. Senate for its consideration, as it ponders what we do to meet the challenges of lives that are in despair, that we would consider making a statement that we want to revalue the work of volunteers. We want to say to individuals: Do not just write a check, but make a contribution with your life. And that could help us on the track to the solution that helped when, 100 years ago, volunteers overwhelmed the problems and began to move us on a track toward recovery. While we are continuing in a mode of intensifying the problem, we need to be switching to a mode of mitigating the challenge. I think we can do that by encouraging the citizens to be the caring hand of the community and doing it in a way that expresses the care that healthy communities must have in order to be surviving communities. I commend the Senator from Indiana for his outstanding statement of the opportunity for us to move beyond Government. I think we should take the small steps that are available to us and ultimately take larger steps to make sure that we move beyond Government so that we get into the category of success and remediation and we avoid what we have experienced to date, which is despair and aggravation of the problem. I am grateful to the Senator and I thank him.