John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments on the Agriculture appropriations conference report. It is a bill which I think is very important for America's farmers and ranchers. Clearly, the agricultural community in America is in dire straits. Farmers need relief quickly. But the irony about this bill is that farmers are getting, in my judgment, shortchanged. They are getting short-term financial relief, but they have been robbed of good policy; that is, a policy to reform the unilateral embargoes of food and medicine that have kept our farmers from being able to sell their products around the world. Before I get substantially into my remarks, I thank the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, for his support and vote to end unilateral food embargoes, and for his very mannerly handling of this issue on the floor and in the Senate-House conference. He has a strong record of supporting an end to the food embargoes. I know he recognizes the incredible groundswell of support for this policy change that is in the Congress and, more importantly, in the farm community. Senator Cochran is to be commended. I thank him. He has done an outstanding job. Farmers in America are aware that the current U.S. embargoes tie their hands and give an advantage to Canada, Brazil, Europe, and South America, farmers from around the world, when competing against the United States. Current U.S. policy favors foreign farmers--not U.S. farmers. It is a tragedy that our own policies throw roadblocks between our farmers and the world marketplace so producers in other countries have a better opportunity to be more successful than producers in our country. Make no mistake about it. The history of U.S. food embargoes is that they almost uniformly hurt only two parties: the American farmer and innocent people overseas. Food embargoes generally don't succeed in changing other nations. They succeed in taking dollars out of our farmers' pockets and in putting dollars in the pockets of foreign farmers. They succeed in undermining our farmers' reputation as reliable suppliers in the world market. We understand that because farmers have talked to us. Farmers have come to me. I have met with them. Senator Bond and I have several times sat down together and discussed it with farmers in the last 3 or 4 months at various places. We were in the foothills of Missouri. We were in the central part of the State. We have been at various places around the State. They have helped me understand this issue more clearly than ever before. A number of other Senators are very attuned to this. This is something that goes on on both sides of the aisle. This is not an issue that is defined by parties in this Congress. Senators Hagel, Baucus, Dodd, Brownback, Dorgan, Kerrey, along with myself and many others--you notice this is one of those things where you can go back and forth across the aisle as you name the Members of the Senate--have been working on a bill that would lift embargoes involving U.S. farm products. I wish to recognize the fact that Senator Lugar has for a long time been working on measures to do the same and is chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate. This understanding about the need to have markets where farmers can sell what they produce is a pretty substantial understanding. It is not partisan. We did not surprise anyone with this proposal. Americans have long agreed it is generally unwise for the United States to use food as a weapon. The weapon usually backfires and hurts us more than it hurts anyone else. Congress has endorsed the values of the American people. Our job is to represent the values of the American people and not to allow a select few inside Washington, DC, to go behind closed doors and impose their values on America. I am here today to do what I was elected to do--to promote farm policies that reflect the values of the farm belt instead of caving in to the values of the beltway. If Members listen to their farmers, they will most likely hear what I have been hearing. This is a letter from Kansas City, MO, signed by 10 people with a strong interest in this issue. Let me read a part of it: We believe that this legislation-- that is the legislation to allow farmers to market their products to change the way we have embargoes imposed so we don't have the unilateral embargoes against food and medicine imposed by the President without Congress. We believe that this legislation will help the United States sell its valuable farm products and medicines as well as help the receiver countries. The President and Congress ought to review more carefully unilateral embargoes against any country. Withholding food and medicine is an affront against human rights as well as a politically foolish practice. Such sanctions have never toppled governments, but only serve to perpetuate hatred, hunger, and poverty among the ordinary citizens. This was signed by 10 individuals. This is one of a number of letters I would like to submit for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. A final letter from Mrs. Joan Botwinick in University City, MO: I want to thank you for introducing a bill which would lift the embargo on food and medicine. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but it would also benefit our farmers. That is a clear statement of what I think is the important truth. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, not only do members of my constituency and citizens of Missouri write letters to me, but they write letters to the editor. They talk to the press and farm focus forums about the significance of lifting food embargoes. Senator Bond and I not only were in Columbia at one of these farm forums, but we were at the State fair. I am reading from a newspaper article out of Sedalia, MO, entitled, ``Farmers Meet with Bond, Ashcroft at State Fair.'' This is what some farmers said. This is what the article begins with. It includes quotes by farmers. Some farmers who are worried by low prices and the recent lack of rain felt encouraged after talking with Missouri's two U.S. Senators about emergency relief and trade barriers. ``I hope the relief comes soon,'' said Brent Sandidge, a hog farmer. ``[But] rather than always giving us immediate relief, help us so that we can live so that emergency money won't be needed. That is what the hog farmer was saying. Give us the capacity to sell our products so emergency money won't always be needed. One such long-range plan is Ashcroft's Food and Medicine for the World Act. . . . The article continues, and then Brent, the hog farmer who was with us, said: . . . lifting embargoes makes sense. We need to use the agriculture in this country to feed the grave hunger of people around the world. I am pleased to have had that article in the Sedalia paper. The bottom line is this: The final Agriculture appropriations conference report should have included the embargo reform that was overwhelmingly supported by American farmers and adopted by the Senate. Frankly, it is a great disappointment to me that the Agriculture conference report does not include reform for food embargoes. First of all, this reform, which we had included in the Senate version of the Agriculture bill, was a reform that would have required the President to collaborate with Congress and get approval before imposing any unilateral sanction that would embargo food or medicine. The Senate approved that amendment by an overwhelming vote of 70-28. That included a majority of positive votes from both sides of the aisle--both Democrats and Republicans. This vote shows that not only do we have more than a majority, but 70 votes would be more than enough to invoke cloture, if these votes remain committed, more than enough votes to even override a Presidential veto. After the Senate 70-28 vote when the Agriculture appropriations bill went to the conference, the House conferees voted on a proposal to make the Senate reform even stronger. This is significant because it reflects the view of many of the House Members with whom I have talked that embargoes be brought to the House of Representatives for a straight up-or-down vote, and the proposal would receive the same kind of overwhelming support in the House that it received in the Senate. They were confident of that if voted on by the House. Also, eight Senate conferees to three favored keeping the Senate provisions along with the stronger House provisions. It is a mystery that the House wanted this, the Senate wanted this, we voted 70-28 to have it, and then behind closed doors a decision was made to strip out the reform provision that received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Congress. It is something that the American farmers want, that will help sell American goods overseas, that will help reverse the currently depressed prices, that will help provide food and medicine to people all around the world, and a reform that would reverse the rather ridiculous policy in which America finds itself alone so often as a nation using food and medicine as a weapon of foreign policy. A select few in Congress have tried to make the issue of embargoes on food an issue about Cuba. I reject this narrow interpretation. It is about the importance of consistent U.S. policy on food and medicine embargoes. Since Cuba is one of those countries that we sanction or embargo exports of wheat, rice, pork, and other vital farm products, let me address that. Does it really make sense for the United States not to sell food to Cuba when the entire rest of the world already does? I don't think so. Does it really make sense for the United States to deny food and medicine and thereby bolster Castro's anti-American distortions? Let's hear from the countryside on this issue. Here is an e-mail I received from one of my constituents, Thomas Capuano, from Kirksville, MO: Dear Senator Ashcroft, I want you to know that I favor loosening the embargo on Cuba. The best way for understanding between our two peoples is by means of free markets, free exchange of ideas and goods and services, and freedom of movement. . . . I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Here is another e-mail received from Ms. Janelle Sharoni: The blockade against Cuba has been going on for so many years we have nearly forgotten about the terrible suffering of the Cuban people and the total lack of any results to point to from this blockade. The blockade has not worked and has alienated us from other Latin Americans. All this does is exempt food, agricultural supplies, medicine and medical supplies for the trade embargo. It does NOT indicate any change in American policy, just a change in how we deal with the poor and suffering. That is a description of the Food and Medicine for the World Act. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I received many letters about this issue. Here is one from a constituent in St. Joseph, MO, Mr. Craig Drummond, who is the Drake University student body vice president. I don't know why he went all the way to Iowa to get his education, but Drake is a fine institution. He states it this way: The United States is a country that was founded on the premise of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. We enact policies, laws and regulations that best exhibit the highest ideals of democracy and the American public. For the most part, we do a good job and function well as a powerful global leader. I am a proponent of democracy and capitalism and hold the values and ideas of the aforementioned paramount to any other country or government. The United States has problems and for the most part we are aware of these and have good people working to rectify our problems and wrongs. That is why this whole Cuba situation intrigues me so much. Why does America continue to have an embargo against trade with Cuba? Why have we chosen to isolate Cuba and ourselves from each other? I think the point here that ought to be made is a point that needs to be made over and over again. For food and medicine, we don't strengthen the regime; we strengthen the people. Strengthening oppressed people is what is fundamentally appropriate in terms of eventually allowing them to survive oppressive regimes. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Comments about lifting the food embargo come not just from the Midwest. An editorial from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, August 16, 1999, states: It clearly would be in America's best interest to expand trade in food and medicine to Cuba, for more reasons than one. I continue to quote: If nutrition and health-care conditions don't improve in Cuba under the easing or lifting of U.S. trade restrictions, Castro won't have the embargo to blame for his government's failures. In other words, we provide Castro with an opportunity to blame America for hungry people, to blame America for sick people, as long as we embargo food and medicine. Quite frankly, there is a ground swell of support to lift the food and medicine embargo on Cuba--and other countries. An article from the Omaha World-Herald commends the cosponsor of this legislation, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been such a leader in this respect. I will read from that article: Sens Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo., added to the Senate's recent farm spending bill an amendment that would exempt most food and medical supplies from U.S. sanctions against foreign nations. As an editorial in this space said on August 10, Cuba provides the closest example of why Hagel and Ashcroft have a good idea: Such sanctions usually harm only the people who deserve it least, and they pointlessly exclude U.S. farmers and pharmaceutical manufacturers from significant international markets. I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial from the Omaha World- Herald, Friday, August 20, 1999, printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Most people realize it is the good thing to do for our farmers and it is the right thing to do in terms of humanitarian interests of those abroad. That is why the Senate overwhelmingly approved this concept, and that is why it should have been retained in the conference report which provides relief for American farmers. We provide financial relief, but we ignore the need for structural relief so that their market can be expanded. It is no secret that what happened to the appropriations bill for farmers has been construed by some as an affront to farmers. Missouri farmers are not duped; they are not fooled. They understand that while there is additional financial assistance being given out, they are still being deprived of their markets, and Missouri farmers want to be able to produce and to sell. That is what farming is all about. They are bewildered as to how their freedom to market, which had majority support from both sides of the aisle, could be stripped out of the bill. I will do everything I can to make sure they get the freedom to market we have been promising them for years; we must deliver. Quite frankly, there is growing consideration of an idea that says we can't have Freedom to Farm if we don't have freedom to market. We have never given it a real chance to work. We have to give our farmers the chance to market what they produce as well as the freedom to be producers. If what happened over the last 2 weeks on sanctions policy keeps up, I do not think we will be seeing this program work. We have to have both freedoms: The freedom to farm and the freedom to market; and who will be to blame but those who kept us from passing the freedom to market? Our amendment, the Food and Medicine for the World Act, is designed to allow our farmers to market around the world and is designed to restructure the way in which agricultural embargoes, or food embargoes, would be imposed--if at all. That proposal would have put United States farmers on more competitive ground with the Canadians and more competitive ground with the Europeans and South Americans in world markets. It would have put money in the pockets of U.S. farmers--clear and simple; just a fact; there would have been money in the pockets of American farmers. It is hard to believe we simply--we? I should not say ``we.'' From somewhere, in the dark of night in the conference committee, out goes that provision which had overwhelming support, I believe, in both Houses of the Congress. It would have restored the credibility of the Congress worldwide, across America, and would have restored our farmers' credibility worldwide as suppliers. I will continue my efforts to win final approval for ending unilateral food and medicine embargoes. Next week the sponsors of the amendment, that was approved 70 to 28 and was added to the Agriculture appropriations bill, intend to introduce the embargo reform as a freestanding bill. We will bring it to the Senate and the Congress. We will say to the Congress: This is not part of the Agriculture appropriations measure as it was before, but we want to present this to the Congress. I am grateful the majority leader of the Senate has made a commitment to me to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for separate consideration this session. That is important to me. I wanted the measure approved as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill and sent to the President for signature. It would have been easier. It certainly was an overwhelming consensus of this body and I believe an overwhelming consensus of the House. But if that can't be, then we try plan B. Plan B is to bring it up separately and get it passed through the Senate, get it passed through the House of Representatives, and sent to the President. I thank the majority leader of the Senate who has made a commitment to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for separate consideration. This debate will continue, therefore. Let me reiterate a few points that are vital to the proposal we are advancing. The general framework is this. We do not make it impossible to have an embargo. We just say, before there can be an embargo, the Congress has to approve it. So we do not tie the hands of the President, but we ask him to shake hands with the Congress before you take this draconian, drastic step which hurts American farmers, before you have sanctions on food, fiber, and medicine. We will not allow the President, with the stroke of a pen, to damage the livelihood of American farmers or to cut off the subsistence of oppressed people around the world. It will require consultation with the Congress. I want to make one thing as clear as I can. This is genuinely a proposal that supports the policy of helping our farmers and putting products which will eliminate suffering and hunger into the hands of those who need them most. This is not about shipping military equipment or even dual-use items--things that could be used in the military setting--to other countries. We want to keep those kinds of things out of the hands of tyrants. But we do not want to assist tyrants, or strengthen the hands of tyrants, by allowing them to blame America for hungry people who are oppressed or people who are ill in health, so that the tyrant can say: The reason you are ill and the reason we don't have good medicine is the United States of America won't allow you to have good health or won't sell us food. Our approach helps us show support for the oppressed people who need to be strengthened in these countries, at the same time we send a message that the United States in no way will assist or endorse the activities of the rogue leaders of these nations which threaten our interests. If these rogue leaders don't spend the money with the American farmers to buy food, that leaves them hard currency to buy weapons and destabilize countries around the world. We ought to hope they spend all their money on food for their people instead of weaponry they use either to repress people in their own regimes or destabilize neighboring countries. Ending unilateral embargoes against sales of U.S. food and medicine is good, solid foreign policy, it is good farm policy, and it promotes U.S. interests around the world. In the past, we have imposed embargoes that have done exactly the opposite from what we intended. If we use food as a weapon, we have to be careful it doesn't backfire. Using food as a weapon has really resulted in more backfiring than forward firing. We have actually enriched the people we were seeking to hurt, and we have hurt the people, the American farmers, who have been the producers of what has made this Nation the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, where hunger has been virtually abolished--or it should be. Let me just give this example. It is a tragic example. It is not humorous, but it is almost funny because it backfired so badly. Everyone remembers the Soviet grain embargo in the 1970s. We canceled 17 million tons of high-priced exports from the United States. We told farmers: You cannot make those sales; we are not going to allow you to ship that grain to Russia. Here is what happened. The Russians, having been relieved of their contractual obligation to buy what they wanted to buy, went into the world marketplace. Do you know what they did? They bought all the stuff which we refused to sell them, and they saved $250 million in the process. We really hurt the Russians with that one. Robert Kohlmeyer of ``World Perspectives'' brought that story to the committee as we had hearings on sanctions. I thought to myself, that gun backfired in a big way. The only people with powder burns, the only people suffering as a result of that volley, were American farmers and individuals in the production of American agriculture. Our market reputation as a supplier in the world went down, and other people decided they would bring on land to be producers, in South America and other settings, so they could supply what we would refuse to supply. All of a sudden, we brought new competitors into the arena; we destroyed our reputation; we helped our enemy get $250 million he wouldn't otherwise have gotten, and we hurt American farmers. Seldom can a gun backfire so accurately in so many directions. I say seldom, but it is just generally so in the arena of embargoes. Our embargoes more often deny people who suffer under such regimes the food and medicine they need and desire rather than hurting the leaders in those countries. America has been a nation that promotes freedom worldwide. We should continue to talk truthfully about political oppression in other countries. We should do so, though, without denying food and medicine to the oppressed people who need to be strengthened, not weakened. How can we ever expect to topple a regime by starving those who populate it? Our foreign policy interests should be to strengthen, not to weaken, those who could resist an oppressive regime. We need to stop using food as a weapon against the innocent. It is not good foreign policy. It is failed foreign policy. That gun backfires. It is not working. It is hurting those abroad and is hurting those of us who are back home. In terms of market access for farmers, we can talk about the roadblocks that are laid down by foreign governments--and I am pretty distressed about those roadblocks. The Europeans have vast subsidies that make it hard for us to compete with them overseas. But let us also be aware we have to stop throwing roadblocks in the way of our own farmers here at home. We have built a solid brick wall in front of our own farmers. Simply, it is an impenetrable wall when it relates to embargoes and sanctions imposed unilaterally on food and medicine against a number of countries around the world. My message today to the Congress is simply this: Tear down this wall we have built. Let our farmers be free. Our food embargoes have failed. Our food embargoes are not effective. Food embargoes are not the way for us to win. That gun backfires. It is time to tear down this wall. And we will. Starting next week, we will do our best to bring this measure up as an independent, freestanding measure. While I believe it is important to help our farmers in the Agriculture appropriations bill upon which we are going to be voting, that is a financial assist in the short term for a disastrous year, but we need the long-term structural reform that the hog farmer in Sedalia, Brett, came to me and said: We need the ability to market so we don't need to come back for financial assistance over and over again. Tear down this wall. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Signed by the President on September 24, 1996, and submitted to the Senate approximately one year later, the CTBT bans all nuclear explosions for an unlimited duration. Every member of the Senate would like to strengthen the national security of the United States. Every member of the Senate would like to leave this country more safe and secure. There are time-honored principles which undergrid genuine security, however. As George Washington stated over two centuries ago, ``There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy.'' Washington believed that if we wanted peace, we must be prepared to defend our country. The CTBT is not based on the national security principles of Washington or any other President who used strength and preparedness to protect our way of life and advance liberty around the globe. This treaty is based on an illusion of arms control, dependent on the unverifiable good will of signatory nations--some of which are openly hostile to the United States. The CTBT will do nothing to stop determined states from developing nuclear weapons and will degrade the readiness of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The U.S. nuclear arsenal is still the most powerful deterrent to aggression against the United States, but this treaty would place the reliability of that arsenal in question. Is such a step worth the risk? What does the CTBT give us in return? Is the treaty really the powerful weapon in the war against proliferation that the Administration claims? Several critical deficiencies of the CTBT make this treaty a genuine threat to U.S. national security. First, the monitoring system of the treaty will not be able to detect many nuclear tests. The International Monitoring System (IMS) of the CTBT is designed to detect nuclear blasts greater than one kiloton, but tests with a smaller blast yield may be used to validate or advance nuclear weapons designs. Tests larger than one kiloton can be masked through certain testing techniques. By testing underground, for example, the blast yield from a nuclear test can be reduced by a factor of 70. The bottom line is that countries will be able to continue testing under this treaty and not be detected. The unverifiability of the CTBT was highlighted by the Washington Post on October 3, 1999. In an article entitled ``CIA Unable to Precisely Track Testing,'' Roberto Suro writes that ``the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that it cannot monitor low-level nuclear tests by Russia precisely enough to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. . .'' Twice last month, Russia may have conducted nuclear tests, but the CIA was unable to make a determination, according the Post article. Senator John Warner, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is quoted in the Post article concerning a broader pattern of Russian deception with regard to nuclear testing. According to a military assessment mentioned in the Post, Russia has conducted repeated tests over the past 18 months to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon to counter U.S. superiority in precision guided munitions. Such behavior reinforces the central point that proponents of the CTBT seem to miss in this debate. When nations have to choose between the communal bliss of international disarmament or pursuing their national interest, they follow their national interest. Countries such as Russia have the best of both worlds with an unverifiable treaty like the CTBT: Russia can continue to test without being caught and the U.S. nuclear arsenal cannot be maintained or modernized and eventually deteriorates over time. A second critical problem with the CTBT is that countries do not have to test to develop nuclear weapons. The case of India and Pakistan provides perhaps the best example that a ban on nuclear testing can be irrelevant. Pakistan developed nuclear explosive devices without any detectable testing, and India advanced its nuclear program without testing for twenty-five years. Proliferation in South Asia also lends itself to a broader discussion of this Administration's nonproliferation record. The Administration's rhetoric on the CTBT has been strong in recent weeks, but has the Administration always been as committed to stop proliferation? The case of Pakistan is particularly illustrative of this Administration's flawed approach to nonproliferation and arms control. In an unusually candid report in 1997, the CIA confirmed China's role as the ``principal supplier'' of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Although the Administration has been careful to use milder language in subsequent proliferation reports, China is suspected of continuing such assistance. Rather than take consistent steps to punish Chinese proliferation, however, the Administration is pushing a treaty to stop nuclear testing--testing which is not needed for the development of nuclear weapons in the first place. This Administration would have more credibility in the area of nonproliferation if it had been taking aggressive steps to punish proliferators and defend America's interests over the last seven years. When China transfers complete M-11 missiles to Pakistan, this Administration turns a blind eye. When China is identified by the CIA in 1997 as the ``. . . the most significant supplier of WMD-related goods and technology to foreign countries,'' the Administration rewards China with a nuclear cooperation agreement in 1998. These severe lapses in U.S. nonproliferation policy cannot be covered over with the parchment of another unverifiable arms control treaty. A third problem with the CTBT is that it places the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal at risk. While other countries can develop simple nuclear weapons without testing, such tests are critically important for the maintenance and modernization of highly sophisticated U.S. nuclear weapons. In that it forbids testing essential to ensure the readiness of the U.S. stockpile, the CTBT is really a back door to nuclear disarmament. The preamble of the CTBT itself states that the prohibition on nuclear testing is ``a meaningful step in the realization of a systematic process to achieve nuclear disarmament . . .'' Proponents of the CTBT argue that we have the technology and expertise to ensure the readiness of our nuclear arsenal through the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The truth of the matter is that only testing can ensure that our nuclear weapons are being maintained, not computer modeling and careful archiving of past test results. As Dr. Robert Barker, a strategic nuclear weapons designer and principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all nuclear weapons matters from 1986-92, stated, ``. . . sustained nuclear testing . . . is the only demonstrated way of maintaining a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent.'' Dr. James Schlesinger, a former Secretary of the Defense and Energy Departments, is one of the most competent experts to speak on the national security implications of the CTBT and the Stockpile Stewardship Program. His comments on the Stockpile Stewardship Program should be heeded by every Senator. In testimony before Congress, Dr. Schlesinger stated that the erosion of confidence in our nuclear stockpile would be substantial over several decades. Dr. Schlesinger states that ``In a decade or so, we will be beyond the expected shelf life of the weapons in our nuclear arsenals, which was expected to be some 20 years.'' The real effect of the CTBT, then, is not to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, for less developed countries can develop simple nuclear weapons without testing and countries like Russia and China can test without being detected. The real effect of the CTBT will be to degrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal, dependent on periodic testing to ensure readiness. Modernization and development of new weapons systems, also dependent on testing, will be precluded. The need to modernize and develop new nuclear weapons should not be discounted. New weapons for new missions, changes in delivery systems and platforms, and improved safety devices all require testing to ensure that design modifications will and be effective. In supporting this treaty, the President is saying that regardless of the future threats the United States may face, we will surrender our ability to sustain a potent and effective nuclear deterrent. Mr. President, such shortsighted policies which leave America less secure are completely unacceptable and should be rejected. It is difficult for me to understand how a President who determines that ``the maintenance of a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile to be a supreme national interest of the United States'' can support the CTBT, a treaty which could jeopardize the entire nuclear arsenal within years. Those who favor the CTBT argue that the treaty will create an international norm against the development of nuclear weapons. If the United States will take the lead, advocates for the treaty state, then other countries will see our good intentions and follow our example. Mr. President, moral suasion carries little weight with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Moral suasion means little more to Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. These countries follow their security interests, not the illusory arms control agenda of another international bureaucracy. It is folly to degrade the U.S. nuclear deterrent through a treaty that has no corollary security benefits. I am not opposed to treaties and norms which seek to reduce the potential for international conflict, but arms control treaties which are not verifiable leave the United States in a more dangerous position. When we can trust but not verify, the better path is not to place ourselves in a position where our trust can be broken, particularly when the security of the American people is at stake. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address this important matter and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. After hearing from a number of doctors and patients in my State over the past few months, I concluded that Kansas City is an inappropriate location for this project and that it will jeopardize the health care benefits that seniors currently enjoy in the area. I believe that halting this project is necessary to protect the health care of senior citizens and to assure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to excellent health care at prices they can afford. HCFA's project is a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of my constituents. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created the Medicare Prepaid Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project to use competitive bidding among Medicare HMOs. Through the appointment of a Competitive Pricing Advisory Committee, HCFA was to select demonstration sites around the nation. Kansas City was one of the selected cities. As I understand it, the intent of the project was to bring greater competition to the Medicare managed care market, to address concerns that Medicare HMO reimbursement rates in some areas are too high, to expand benefits for Medicare HMO enrollees, and to restrain the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers. When considering these factors, it is clear that the Kansas City metropolitan area is not an appropriate choice for this demonstration. First, managed care competition in the Kansas City market is already vigorous, with six managed care companies currently offering Medicare HMOs in the area. Participation in Medicare HMOs is also high: As of July 1 of this year, nearly 23% of Medicare recipients in the Kansas City metropolitan area were in Medicare+Choice plans--approximately 50,000 of 230,000 total beneficiaries. Nationally, only 17% of Medicare recipients are enrolled in such plans. Second, Medicare managed care payments in the Kansas City area are below the national average. According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, 1999 payment rates per Medicare+Choice enrollee in Kansas City are $511, while the national rate is $541. Documents provided to me by HCFA also demonstrate that 75 other cities had a higher adjusted average per capita cost (AAPCC) rate for 1997 than Kansas City. I wonder why Kansas City was chosen for this experiment, when so many other cities have higher payment rates. Third, I am concerned that this demonstration project will not provide expanded benefits to Medicare HMO enrollees, but will instead cause severe disruption of Medicare services. It is important to note that customer dissatisfaction is low in current Medicare managed care plans in the Kansas City area. Only one in twelve seniors disenrolls from Medicare HMOs each year. Currently, 33,000, or 66% of the seniors in Medicare managed care plans in the Kansas City area do not pay any premium. Under the bidding process set up by CPAC for the demonstration, a plan that bids above the enrollment-weighted median--which becomes the reimbursement rate for all plans--will be forced to charge seniors a premium to make up the difference between the plan's bid and the reimbursement rate paid by the government. In essence, the penalty for a high bid will be imposed upon seniors. Under this scenario, it is virtually assured that some seniors who pay no premium today will be required to start paying one. Moreover, seniors who cannot afford to pay a premium would be forced to abandon their regular doctor when it becomes necessary to change plans. Both individual doctors as well as the Metropolitan Medical Society of Greater Kansas City have warned that the demonstration could cause extreme disruption of beneficiaries away from current doctor- patient relationships. I have also heard concerns that both health plans and physicians may withdraw from the Medicare program if reimbursements under the demonstration project prove financially untenable. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries may be left with fewer choices in care. This would be intolerable. I question why we should implement a project that will create more risk and uncertainty for my State's seniors, who are already satisfied with what they have. Finally, I question how the demonstration project would be able to provide us with useful information on how to improve the Medicare program if fee-for-service plans--which are generally the most expensive Medicare option--are not included in the project. In its January 6, 1999 Design Report, the Competitive Pricing Advisory Committee expressed the judgment that the exclusion of fee-for-service might ``limit HCFA's ability (a) to measure the impact of competitive pricing and (b) to generalize demonstration results to the entire Medicare program.'' After studying this issue, I concluded that implementation of the Medicare Managed Care Demonstration Project in the Kansas City metropolitan area should be halted immediately. HCFA must not be allowed to risk the ability of my State's seniors to continue to receive high quality health care at affordable costs. I have been working closely with my Senate colleagues from Missouri and Kansas to protect our Kansas City area seniors from the dangers and uncertainty of a planned federal experiment with their health care arrangements. So, I want to make clear to my colleague from Florida that patients and doctors speaking on behalf of their patients were the ones who approached me and asked for my assistance in stopping the Medicare managed care demonstration project in the Kansas City area. I heard from a number of individual doctors, as well as medical societies in the State, expressing grave concerns about the project. The President of the Metropolitan Medical Society of Greater Kansas City even made the prediction that the unintended risk of the demonstration ``could dictate 100% disruption of beneficiaries away from their current relationships'' with their doctors. Clearly, this is unacceptable. Inclusion, Mr. President, I would like to quote from some of the letters I received from the seniors themselves, voicing their opposition to the Medicare managed care demonstration project coming to their area. Elizabeth Weekley Sutton, of Independence, Missouri, wrote to me: Dear Senator Ashcroft: We need help. My husband, my friends, and I are very concerned and worried that our health care will be very limited by the end of the Competitive Pricing Demonstration that will be starting in January. Of all the HMO's in the U.S., only the entire K.C. area and Maricopa County in Arizona will be conducting this competition for the next 5 years! And here are some excerpts from a letter sent by Edward Smith of Platte City, Missouri: I am totally opposed to the Health Care Financing Administration competitive pricing demonstration project to take place here in the Kansas City area. My health will not permit me to be a guinea pig for a total of five years when the rest of the country will have business as usual. He continues: Instead of the Health Care Financing Administration determining what is best for the beneficiaries I would prefer to do that myself. And finally, Mr. Smith says: If this plan is adopted my HMO could choose to leave the market. Then what is gained? Certainly not my health. Mr. President, we need to listen to the voice of our seniors. We cannot afford to jeopardize their health with a risky experiment that could raise costs, limit choices, and cause doctor-patient disruption. For this reason, I have continued--and will continue--to work to halt this project in its present form in the Kansas City area. Exhibit 1 Metropolitan Medical Society of Greater Kansas City, July 21, 1999. Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Graham: I was concerned to read in the July 16, 1999, Congressional Record your dissatisfaction about the Senate's passage of the moratorium on the Medicare Prepaid Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project in Kansas City and Arizona. On behalf of the more than 2500 physicians of the Metropolitan Medical Society of Greater Kansas City and its affiliated organizations, I want to assure you that doctors strongly support the moratorium that was passed in the Senate Patient Bill of Rights legislation last week. The physicians of Kansas City have expressed serious concerns about the demonstration project since April, and we continue to be concerned. We believe the experiment will bring unacceptable levels of disruption to our Medicare patients and the local health care market. Additionally, I worry that quality care, which is often more expensive, will be less available to Medicare patients. In Kansas City, the opposition to the project is widespread. Our senators acted on behalf of our entire health care community, including patients, doctors, hospitals, and health care plans. The medical community has participated in the discussions about the demonstration with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the local Area Advisory Committee for the demonstration project. Despite these discussions, problems with the experiment remain. We support congressional efforts to stop the demonstration project in the Kansas City area. I remain concerned that under-funded HMOs place our most vulnerable Medicare recipients at risk of getting less attention to their health care needs. I expect to hear more cases of catastrophes to Medicare recipients when the care given is too little, too late. You may be aware that Jacksonville, Florida is another potential site for the demonstration. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I hope I've helped to clarify the existence of broad based support in Kansas City for the moratorium on the competitive pricing demonstration. Sincerely, Richard Hellman, MD, President-Elect and Chair, National Government Relations Committee. amendment no. 1845 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding school infrastructure)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I took great interest in the statement that Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) made expressing his displeasure that this legislation contains a provision--Section 214--halting implementation of the Medicare Prepaid Competitive Pricing Demonstration Project both in Arizona and in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The Senator from Florida claimed that the inclusion of this provision was accomplished by HMOs. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to him that it was Medicare beneficiaries and doctors who alerted me to their grave concerns that the project would create huge patient disruption in the Kansas City area. In fact, after the Senator from Florida made similar remarks during debate on the Patient's Bill of Rights legislation regarding a similar provision in that bill, the Metropolitan Medical Society of Greater Kansas City wrote him a letter conveying their concerns with the implementation of the demonstration project in Kansas City, and expressing support for congressional efforts to stop the demonstration in their area. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be inserted in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for affording me this opportunity to make some remarks regarding the vote on the nomination of Ronnie White. Yesterday, in accordance with the unanimous consent agreement entered into last week, we set aside substantially over an hour to debate not only the White nomination but a number of other nominations which came before the Senate today. I was here for that debate, I engaged in that debate, and I outlined my opposition to Judge White, not my opposition based on anything personal or based on my distaste in any way for the judge, but based on my real reservations about his record as it relates to law enforcement. After the conclusion of the vote today, there were a number of individuals who secured integrals of time to speak about that nomination and about that vote and raised questions that more properly should have been raised in the debate, and, secondly, deserve a response. So I come to respond in that respect. I want to explain why I believe Judge White should not have been confirmed, and I believe the Senate acted favorably and appropriately in protecting the strong concerns raised by law enforcement officials. The National Sheriffs Association expressed their very serious opposition to the nomination of Judge White. The Missouri Federation of Chiefs of Police expressed their opposition. The Missouri Sheriffs Association raised strong concerns and asked for a very serious consideration. In my conferences with law enforcement officials, prosecutors and judges, they raised serious concerns; so that when those who come to the floor today talk about this nomination in a context that is personal rather than professional and is political rather than substantive, I think they miss the point. There are very serious matters addressed in his record that deserve the attention of the Senate and which, once having been reviewed by Members of the Senate, would lead Senators to the conclusion that, indeed, the Senate did the right thing. Judge White's sole dissent in the Missouri v. Johnson, a brutal cop killer, an individual who killed three law enforcement officials over several hours, holding a small town in Missouri in a terrified condition, that opinion which sought to create new ground for allowing convicted killers who had the death penalty ordered in their respect, allowing them new ground for new trials, and the like, is something that ought to trouble us. We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity or with a bent toward excusing or providing second chances or opportunities for those who have been accused in those situations. Missouri v. Kinder is another case where he was the sole dissenter, a case of murder and assault, murder with a lead pipe, the defendant was seen leaving the scene of the crime with the lead pipe and DNA evidence confirming the presence of the defendant with the person murdered. The judge in that case wrote a dissent saying that the case was contaminated by a racial bias of the trial judge because the trial judge had indicated that he opposed affirmative action and had switched parties based on that. Another case, Missouri v. Damask, a drug checkpoint case. The sole dissent in the case was from Judge White who would have expanded substantially the rights of defendants to object to searches and seizures. I believe that law enforcement officials had an appropriate, valid, reasonable concern. That concern was appropriately recognized and reflected in the vote of the Senate. Not only Missouri needs judges, but the entire country needs judges whose law enforcement experience is such that it sends a signal that they are reliable and will support appropriate law enforcement. I am grateful to have had this opportunity. No time was expected for debate on this issue today, and as an individual who was involved in this matter, I am pleased to have had this opportunity. I thank the Senate. I thank the Senator from Arizona for helping make this time available to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Utah. It is these opinions and other opinions like them that have generated the concern in the Missouri law enforcement community about Judge White and have caused me to conclude that I must oppose his confirmation. It doesn't mean I oppose his coming to the floor. I am entirely willing to let the Senate express itself in this respect. But I urge my fellow Senators to consider whether we should sanction the life appointment to the responsibility of a Federal district court judge for one who has earned a vote of no confidence from so many in the law enforcement community in the State in which he resides. Many of my fellow Senators on the Judiciary Committee determined we should not and voted against his nomination. I ask my fellow Senators to review Judge White's record carefully. Keep in mind that he will not only sit for life, but he will still have occasion to vote on death penalty cases reviewed by the Missouri Supreme Court. Again, as a district judge, he will be able to hear habeas corpus petitions challenging death sentences that have been upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court; only, as a district judge, his sole dissenting vote will be enough to reverse a unanimous opinion by the Missouri Supreme Court. He will have a veto over the Missouri Supreme Court in death penalty cases. And based on Judge White's track record, this is not a situation that the law-abiding citizens of Missouri should have to endure. As I conclude my remarks, I will read some of the text of communications I have received concerning this nominee. Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife was murdered by James Johnson, put it this way: Every law enforcement and every law-abiding citizen needs judges who will enforce the law without fear or favor. As law enforcement officers, we need judges who will back us up and not go looking for outrageous technicalities so a criminal can get off. We don't need a judge such as Ronnie White on the Federal court bench. I quote again from another paragraph: The Johnson case isn't the only antideath penalty ruling by Judge White. He has voted against capital punishment more than any other judge on the court. I believe there is a pattern here. To me, Ronnie White is clearly the wrong person to entrust with the tremendous power of a Federal judge who serves for life. A letter from a prosecutor: Judge White's record is unmistakably antilaw enforcement, and we believe his nomination should be defeated. His rulings and dissenting opinions on capital cases and on fourth amendment issues should be disqualifying factors when considering his nomination. A letter from the Missouri Sheriffs Association: Attached please find a copy of the dissenting opinion rendered by Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White in the case of State of Missouri v. James R. Johnson. Then a recitation of how James Johnson murdered Pam Jones, the wife of the Moniteau County sheriff, Kenny Jones. And then: As per attached, the Missouri Sheriffs strongly encourage you to consider this dissenting opinion in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to be a U.S. district court judge.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I will.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I don't have the specific count.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes on the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Confirming judges is serious business. People we put into these Federal judgeships are there for life, removed only with great difficulty, as is evidenced by the fact that removals have been extremely rare. There is enormous power on the Federal bench. Most of us have seen things happen through judges that could never have gotten through the House or Senate. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, put it this way: If [judges] should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. Alexander Hamilton, at the beginning of this Nation, knew just how important it was for us to look carefully at those who would be nominated for and confirmed to serve as judges. A judge who substitutes his will or her will for the legislative will, by displacing the legislative intent in enlarging the Constitution or amending it by saying, it is an evolutionary document and I am going to say now it has evolved to this state or that state, as opposed to an earlier state--that kind of judge is involved in what I call ``judicial activism.'' Judicial activism is simply the substitution of one's personal politics instead of the legislative will as expressed in our documents of the Constitution or in the law. At no other place in our Republic do voters have virtually no recourse. This is an important thing for us to consider as we evaluate judges and we seek to determine whether or not their confirmation would be appropriate. So as it relates to Judge Ronnie White, who serves now as a supreme court judge in the State of Missouri, upon his nomination I began to undertake a review of his opinions, and especially those circumstances and dissents where, as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge White would have sought to change or otherwise extend or amend the law as it related to a variety of matters, especially in the area of criminal law. I also heeded carefully his answers during his confirmation hearing and his answers to followup questions. I believe Judge White's opinions have been and, if confirmed, his opinions on the Federal bench will continue to be procriminal and activist, with a slant toward criminals and defendants against prosecutors and the culture in terms of maintaining order; he will use his lifetime appointment to push law in a procriminal direction, consistent with his own personal political agenda, rather than defer to the legislative will of the people and interpret the law rather than expand it or redirect the law. I believe the law should be interpreted as written, as intended by the legislature, not as amended or expanded by the courts. I believe Judge White will, as Alexander Hamilton so aptly described in Federalist 78, improperly ``exercise will instead of judgment.'' This is particularly true in the area of criminal law. I am not alone in this view. Judge White's nomination has sparked strong concerns from a large number of Missouri law enforcement officials. Seventy-seven of the 114 sheriffs in the State of Missouri have decided to call our attention to Judge White's record in the criminal law. I do not take lightly the fact that 77 of these law enforcement, ground-zero sheriffs--people who actually are involved in making the arrests and apprehending those who have broken the law-- would ask us to look very carefully at this nominee. They cite specific opinions he has written and say these are the kinds of opinions that give them great pause. Anyone who knows something about Missouri's political system knows that 77 out of 114 sheriffs would be a bipartisan delegation. As a matter of fact, over 70 percent of all the public officials in Missouri who are nominated and elected are Democrats. So you have 77 of the 114 sheriffs of Missouri on record saying: Look carefully. Evaluate very carefully this nominee to the federal bench. The Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs, an organization of police chiefs that spreads all across the State of Missouri, has indicated to us that we ought to tread very lightly here. As a matter of fact, they express real shock and dismay at the nomination. Prosecutors have contacted me with their public letters. And, frankly, other judges in the State have suggested to me I should think and consider very carefully whether or not we proceed in this matter. The letter from the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs is very direct. It says: We want to go on record with your offices as being opposed to his nomination and hope you will vote against him. I want to express that the concern about Judge Ronnie White is far broader than some of us in the Senate; it goes to a majority of the sheriffs in the State, with an official letter of expression from the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs. There are prosecutors who have come to me and asked me to think very carefully about the qualifications and the philosophy expressed by this nominee. This opposition stems largely from Judge White's opinions in capital murder cases. These opinions, and particularly his dissents, reflect a serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty. Judge White has been more liberal on the death penalty during his tenure than any other judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. He has dissented in death penalty cases more than any other judge during his tenure. He has written or joined in three times as many dissents in death penalty cases, and apparently it is unimportant how gruesome or egregious the facts or how clear the evidence of guilt. He has been very willing to say: We should seek, at every turn, in some of these cases to provide an additional opportunity for an individual to escape punishment. This bias is especially troubling to me because, if confirmed, Judge White will have the power to review the death penalty decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court on habeas corpus. In the seat of district court, Judge White's sole dissents are transformed into a veto power over the judicial system of the State of Missouri. I do not think that should happen. Let me give you an example of Judge White's sole dissent in the highly publicized case of Missouri v. Johnson. James R. Johnson was a brutal cop killer. He went on a shooting rampage in a small town called Carolina, MO. It sent shock waves across the entire State in 1991--during the time I had the privilege to serve as Governor of the State. At that time, James Johnson stalked and killed a sheriff, two sheriff's deputies, and Pamela Jones, a sheriff's wife. Johnson first shot a deputy who had responded to a call about a domestic dispute at Johnson's house. He shot the deputy in the back and then walked over, as the deputy lay on the ground, and shot him in the forehead, killing him. Johnson then reloaded his car with guns and drove to the local sheriff's home. There the sheriff's wife, Pamela Jones, was having a Christmas party. Johnson fired a rifle repeatedly through the window, hitting Mrs. Jones five times. Mrs. Jones died of those wounds in her home in front of her family. Then Johnson went to another deputy sheriff's home and shot him through a window as the deputy spoke on the phone. That deputy was lucky and survived. Johnson then went to the sheriff's office, where other law enforcement officers had assembled to try to address the ongoing rampage that was terrorizing the town. Johnson lay in wait until officers left the meeting and then opened fire on them, killing one officer. Then as another officer arrived on the scene in her car, Johnson shot and killed her. It was then that Johnson fled to the house of an elderly woman who he held hostage for 24 hours. She eventually convinced Johnson to release her, and she notified the authorities who apprehended Johnson. He was tried and convicted on four counts of first degree murder and given four death sentences, convicted on all counts, received four separate death sentences. In a sole dissent urging a lower legal standard so that this convicted multiple cop killer would be allowed a second bite at the apple to convince a different jury that he was not guilty, Ronnie White sought to give James Johnson another chance. Sheriff Jones, obviously, opposes this nomination. He is urging law enforcement officers to oppose it because he believes there is a pattern of these kinds of decisions in the opinions and dissents of Judge White. He believes there is a pattern of procriminal opinions, and I think if one looks carefully, one might see that pattern. Judge White was also the sole dissenter in a case called Missouri v. Kinder. In that case, the defendant raped and beat a woman to death with a lead pipe. White voted to grant the defendant a new trial, despite clear evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony that Kinder was seen leaving the scene of the crime at the time of the murder with a pipe in his hand, and genetic material was found with the victim. White dissented based on the alleged racial bias of the judge, which he urged was made evident by a press release the judge had issued to explain his change in party affiliation. The judge changed parties at sometime prior to this case, and the judge, in explaining his change of party, said he was opposed to affirmative action, discriminating in favor of one race over another race. He left the one party he was in because he disagreed with their position on affirmative action. That was the only basis for Judge White to provide a new opportunity for this individual to get a second bite at the apple, not the evidence about his conduct, the genetic material, or the eyewitness testimony. Judge White's procriminal jurisprudence is not limited to murder cases. It extends to drug cases as well. In the case of Missouri v. Damask, Judge White's sole dissent in a drug and weapons seizure case, I think, reveals this same tendency on the part of this judge to rule in favor of criminal defendants and the accused in a procriminal matter and procriminal manner. This was a case, Missouri v. Damask, about a drug checkpoint set up by the Missouri State police. The State police had erected a traffic sign on the highway in the middle of the night indicating ``drug checkpoint ahead.'' The sign was placed just before a remote exit, one which only local residents would have cause to use. Those seeking to avoid the ``drug checkpoint'' by exiting met with a real drug checkpoint at the top of the exit ramp. There were no gas stations, no restaurants or facilities at that exit. Motorists exiting at that exit were stopped and asked why they exited. If police were able to determine from their answers that they were suitably suspicious to warrant a search, they searched their cars. It was a very successful program, netting numerous arrests. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the practice as a reasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment, consistent with many rulings of our Federal courts interpreting the fourth amendment. Judge White was the sole dissenter in an opinion that seemed less concerned with the established fourth amendment precedent than with whether the search was intimidating. Judge White's opinion would have hamstrung this effective tool in the war on drugs.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I think I can go to the question here that I think the Senator is driving at. I will be happy to do that. The judges that the Senator from Vermont has named have served a variety of tenures, far in excess of the tenure of Judge White. The clear fact is that, during his tenure, he has far more frequently dissented in capital cases than any other judge. He has, I believe, participated in 3 times as many dissents as any other judge. To try to compare a list of dissents or items from other judges from other timeframes, longer intervals, and a variety of different facts, with the tenure that Judge Ronnie White has served is like comparing apples and oranges. And the numerics thereof, without that additional aspect of the situation being revealed, may appear to cause a conclusion that would be different. With that in mind, if you will think carefully about what I said, I believe I thought carefully when I said ``Judge White's record during his tenure''; that is what you have to be able to compare, judges during the same interval of time. With that in mind, during that same interval of time, he has been the champion of those dissenting in death penalty cases and has dissented in ways which, very frankly, have occasioned an outcry from the law enforcement community in Missouri. None of the other judges that I know of have been the recipients of that kind of outcry. There is one final point that I will make. Those are other notable judges and they have records and serve on the Missouri Supreme Court. They are not persons against whom the law enforcement community has raised issues. But they are also not persons who have been nominated for service on the U.S. District Court, a court which could set aside the verdicts of the Missouri Supreme Court in habeas corpus cases. So while I think those particular judges are important--and if they are nominated for the Federal Court, I think we ought to look carefully at their work product. So there are two points to be made here. One, the relevance of the numbers is only relevant in the context of the interval. To suggest that the numbers are out there, without defining the interval, would be inappropriate and misleading. So I would not do that. Secondly, I think the relevance of a record that is unsatisfactory is directly appropriate to the judge who has been nominated. So we are not here to talk about other judges so much as we are to talk about whether or not Ronnie White ought to be confirmed as a member of the U.S. District Court. In my judgment, the law enforcement community in Missouri has expressed serious reservations about his lean toward defendants, and I think we should not vote to confirm him. I urge my colleagues not to vote to confirm Judge White, based on this understanding of the Missouri law enforcement community and a reading of his judicial papers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I will try to say what I have to say in less than 10 minutes, especially because of my regard for my esteemed colleague from the State of Connecticut, who I see has entered the Chamber. I appreciate the intensity and commitment of the Senator from Nebraska. He is correct; we do not have on the drawing board a long- term remediation for the long-term problems of Social Security. But if we just spend and spend and spend so we continue to elevate the debt of the United States rather than curtail the spending by not spending the Social Security surplus, we are going to make it more difficult, when the time comes, to pay for the Social Security benefits for which we are committed to pay. So I think it is important not to spend Social Security surpluses to expand Government and to make Government more and more committed and deeper and deeper in debt. It is a major benefit to the future of this country if we decide to refrain from spending Social Security surpluses, which will allow us to protect the integrity, not only of Social Security, on a more persistent basis, but certainly to protect the integrity of the finances of this Government so when the time comes for us to make payments, we will have the fiscal integrity to do so. I know we are in morning business, but particularly today I rise to comment on and to support the Nickles amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I support the amendment because it puts the Senate on record demanding we protect the Social Security trust fund from being raided to pay for other Government spending. The less we go into debt for other Government spending, the more likely we are to be able to honor the claims of Social Security. So the theft of Social Security funds this year must stop. We should stop spending as if Social Security were a funding resource for all kinds of other spending programs. I am concerned the Labor-HHS bill will result in the Senate's completion of all 13 appropriations bills and, as a result, perhaps take us into the Social Security trust fund. Some estimates have been as high as $5 billion. I would work to delay the bill if I did not have assurances from the majority leader that the conference reports will not touch the Social Security surplus, even if Senate appropriations have, that the entirety of the package of bills we send to the President after negotiation with the House will not touch the Social Security trust fund. The majority leader has worked tirelessly to protect the Social Security trust fund. I commend him for it, and I appreciate his ongoing effort. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office has stated in a letter to Speaker Hastert that the House plan to spend $592.1 billion will not touch the Social Security trust fund. If we do dip into the Social Security trust fund this year, it would erase all the hard work we have undertaken to protect Social Security. In January, President Clinton proposed bleeding $158 billion out of Social Security surpluses over the next 5 years. This Congress objected to President Clinton's proposal, and I am glad to say that the Congress got the President to change his mind and to take far less out of the Social Security surpluses over that 5-year period of time. I wish I could say that he had agreed to take none, and sometimes he represents it that way. In the President's midsession review of the budget process, he said that Social Security surpluses should be spent for Social Security, period. That is right. That is the Social Security lockbox philosophy. Unfortunately, his new budget still took $30 billion out of Social Security over the next 10 years, but that is a lot better than $158 billion. I commend the President for moving so aggressively in the direction of the Congress. Still the President's midsession review, while it is a vast improvement, and Congress has succeeded in moving him as far as he has moved, it is not far enough. We need to work throughout this year to demonstrate our commitment to protect every single penny of the Social Security trust fund. In April, we passed a budget resolution that does not spend 1 dime or 1 cent of the Social Security trust fund surplus. In addition to protecting the Social Security surplus, the budget resolution sticks to the spending caps from the 1997 balanced budget agreement. It cuts taxes and increases spending on education and defense. In addition to ordering our spending priorities correctly, the budget resolution contained a majority point of order preventing the use of Social Security surpluses for non-Social Security purposes. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of this point of order. I had the privilege of sponsoring this particular provision, and since that point, the Congress has continued along its responsible spending path and has also repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to the Social Security lockbox concept, which is to limit Government spending to the revenues designed for Government spending, and not to have general Government spending come out of the revenues designed to provide for the retirements of America's workers. The House of Representatives passed the Herger bill which created a supermajority point of order of protecting Social Security. These actions demonstrate a strong commitment and dedication to protecting every dollar of the projected Social Security surplus to shoring up Social Security, making sure we treat it with integrity. In addition, a majority of Senators have repeatedly voted for the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft Social Security lockbox provision. Unfortunately, the lockbox, which was approved by the House, has been endorsed by the President, and a majority of the Senate has been held hostage in the Senate by those on the other side of the aisle. Despite this setback, we have made great progress in protecting Social Security, the integrity of the fund, and limiting the kind of spending that would jeopardize our capacity to make good on our commitments at some date when Social Security needs to call upon us. The most important thing we can do right now is demonstrate our commitment to protecting every cent of Social Security resources to make sure they are available for Social Security and to make sure they are not spent on the operations of Government generally. This is a plan that we have agreed to under the budget resolution. We promised the American people that Social Security surpluses will be reserved for Social Security, and now is the time when we are testing that resolve. Last year, when faced with this test, Congress failed, agreeing to an omnibus appropriations bill that raided--and I think that is the right word--$21 billion from our retirement security fund. I voted against the bill but was unable to prevent the raid by doing so. This year, we have all been committed to completing all our spending bills on time and avoiding the omnibus spending train wreck such as we saw in last year's $21 billion raid. I approve of this plan, but a necessary element of the plan is that Congress not spend resources on operating Government that were destined to and designed to support the Social Security trust fund. The Nickles amendment would put us on record stating we categorically oppose a raid on our retirement system and will support spending cuts to let us meet that goal. As I said, according to unofficial Budget Committee estimates, the Congress is now poised to spend as much as $5 billion out of the Social Security trust fund. If that is the case, I will vote against any plan that would do so. We must avoid filching resources from the Social Security trust fund to support the operations of Government. This spending bill, the Labor-HHS fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, is the last of the 13 appropriations bills to reach the floor. It is also the largest of the nondefense discretionary appropriations bills. If the estimates about this year's spending that I have referred to are correct, we are going to dip into Social Security, and this is the bill that will push us over the edge. For this reason, I commend Senator Nickles for bringing up this amendment on this bill at this time. Now is the time for us to stand up and say we will not support taking any money out of the Social Security trust fund to finance the operations of Government. Making sure that Social Security funds do not go for anything other than Social Security is essential to the protection of long-term Social Security integrity. Social Security is expected to meet all of its obligations until the year 2034--until then. Starting in 2014, however, Social Security will begin spending more than it collects. It will begin spending the trust fund, the surpluses. By saving Social Security surpluses and using those surpluses to pay down the debt, Congress will ensure the Nation is on secure economic footing when Social Security surpluses diminish and then disappear. If we do not save Social Security now, it will make it that much harder for us to meet our own obligations later. We need to protect Social Security now for the 1 million Missourians who receive Social Security, for their children, and their grandchildren. We need to protect Social Security now, and this bill fails to do that. It certainly threatens not to do it, and it is time for us to vote in favor of the Nickles amendment, and to vote against any plan that would invade the Social Security trust fund. It is for this reason I urge my colleagues to support the Nickles amendment calling for the full protection of our Social Security resources. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the state of the proceedings?

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 rise to speak on a very important subject. I am referring to teen smoking. Currently, teen smoking rates are far too high and they continue to rise. Since I left the Missouri Governor's office, teen smoking in Missouri has increased from 32.6% to 40.3%--almost a 24% increase! In fact, today, Missouri ranks sixth in the nation in teen smoking. While there is disagreement in this body on where teen smoking policies should be set--at the federal or state level--we all agree that it must be addressed. Seven years ago, in an attempt to tackle this problem, the United States Congress passed what is now known as the Synar Amendment. This amendment required the states to meet specified targets in reducing teen access to cigarettes. It did not tell the States how to meet the targets but just that they had to meet them. I believe, as I argued during the debate on the Federal tobacco tax legislation, that States are in the best position to tackle the serious problem of teen smoking. Governors, state legislatures, mayors, and city councils know how to target their programs. They know how to tailor educational programs for the local schools and communities. They have better access to convenience store owners and other retail establishments where teens buy cigarettes. With that in mind, I am deeply troubled about our current situation. Mr. President. Today, there are seven states and the District of Columbia who failed to meet their targets to reduce teen access to cigarettes. They have failed the state's teens and their parents. In addition, since their failure triggered a cut in federal block grant funds of 40%, they have failed those who need treatment for drug abuse and addiction under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). I guess we could be optimists and focus on the fact that 43 states did meet their targets. Forty-three states that made it a priority to cut teen smoking have succeeded. Forty-three states worked with local communities and found a way to reduce teen smoking. Therefore, 86% of the states met their goals--shouldn't we be pleased by that? Unfortunately I cannot be an optimist today. For one of those seven states who failed to meet the target was the State of Missouri. This is an important issue to me. As Governor of the State of Missouri, I signed the law that now makes it illegal to sell minors tobacco. Under the federal law, the State of Missouri had to make sure that no more than 28% of teens who attempted to purchase cigarettes were successful. That seems reasonable--however, the actual success rate was 33%. That means that in one out of every three minors attempting to buy cigarettes was successful. One out of Three! Due to this failure, the State of Missouri is set to lose $9.6 million to be used for drug addiction treatment. That is $9.6 million to be used to help drug addicted pregnant women, to reduce teen drug use, and to provide treatment to those whose lives have been destroyed by a lifetime of drug use. In this discussion, it is important to recognize that we have given the states the tools they need to fight teen smoking. We rejected the mammoth--bureaucracy and tax laden--tobacco bill. I led the fight against that bill. By defeating that bill, we made sure the tobacco money went to the states for tobacco prevention programs--and was not wasted on federal bureaucracy--on the 17 new boards, commissions, and agencies established in the bill. By defeating that bill, the states got the money rather than Washington. In fact, by killing that bill the State of Missouri received $6.7 billion from the tobacco settlement. That money is more than a third more resources than they would have received under the federal legislation. In addition to money, the states won clear limits from the tobacco companies on marketing techniques aimed at young people. With this Settlement in mind, it is even more disappointing that today we are left with this tough choice. We either respect the federal law and penalize those who are in need of drug treatment programs--or we bail out these states who have failed our nation's teens. In trying to determine the best course of action, we listened to the experts. Barry McCaffrey, the President's Drug Czar, stated that by withholding these funds ``. . . some heroin addicts might be forced back on the streets to return to a criminal life.'' He says: ``[w]e agree that the carrot-and-stick approach of the law can serve a purpose of pushing compliance, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater by increasing drug addiction and crime.'' It is a tough choice, but we must protect Americans from the scourge of drug use. In addition, I can't let those in the State of Missouri suffer due to the State's ineffective enforcement program. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Bond, the Senior Senator from Missouri, and other members whose states did not meet their targets in finding a solution to this problem. There is no question that the agreement does not contain everything I believe it should--such as creating penalties for teens who purchase, use and possess cigarettes. I continue to believe that if we really want to reduce youth smoking, we must place some responsibility on teens. However, I am relieved we have found a solution. These states will be forced to devote new money to anti-teen smoking programs. Based on that commitment, they will receive their SAMHSA money. I hope we do not find ourselves in this same position next year. This should be a wake up call to these states to step up their enforcement and pass tough teen smoking laws. The increase in teen smoking rates is unacceptable.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes regarding the agricultural embargo issue.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as I think everyone in this Chamber understands, I am advocating that there be sanctions reform with regard to the unilateral embargo imposed by this country on agricultural and medicinal products as it relates to sales in other settings. I say ``unilateral embargo.'' This means that the United States alone decides to deprive people in the United States of the right to sell to some other country. So it is not when we are involved in multilateral embargoes but unilateral embargoes. Secondly, the kind of embargo we are talking about is an embargo of medicine or agriculture. We are talking about the kind of thing that will keep people from starving or keep people who are in need of medicine from dying. Senators Hagel, Baucus, Dodd, Kerrey, Brownback, and a host of others have joined with me in working on a bill that would lift embargoes of this kind against U.S. farm products. In a sense, the bottom line is this: We offered our embargo proposal as an amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill. That is a bill that is supposed to serve the interests of farmers. The result? I have to say that the result in the Senate was a heartwarming and commendable result. Senators, understanding that we ought to improve the capacity of our farmers to market their products around the world, and to keep farmers from being used as pawns in diplomatic disputes through the imposition of unilateral agricultural and medicinal embargoes, considered the proposal, debated the proposal, and overwhelmingly concluded, in a vote of 70-28, that we should stop using our farmers as pawns in the world of international diplomacy. Also, the Senate conferees agreed, with a vote of 8-3. Furthermore, we had the agreement of House conferees. So what went wrong in the conference committee, after the Senate made a part of its agricultural appropriations bill a reform in this way, where farmers have been deprived of their right to market food and medicine--and pharmaceuticals are also marketed--what happened? What happened to us? The reason I am down here today is to talk about that. If there is such overwhelming support in the Congress for such reform, what happened to the Democratic process here? A few Members of the House and Senate leadership decided that they did not agree, and they basically vetoed something that was passed by the Senate--expressed by those who represent the people as the will of the people. Most of the time, in order to veto the Senate, you have to be elected President. But apparently sometimes you are going to be able to overrule a 70-28 vote in the Senate by just saying that your own position is more noteworthy than that of a virtually overwhelming majority of the Senate. They vetoed the Senate-passed provision and inserted their own policy into the agricultural appropriations bill. I am on the floor now to let farmers and ranchers across America know exactly what happened. First of all, I would like to explain to America's farmers--and particularly to those in Missouri and the Midwest--how I fought for their interests but was prevented from doing what they wanted because of a small minority--from the leadership--who worked against sanctions reform. Second, I would like to explain what my colleagues were proposing in the amendment with me, what was the nature of this reform. And then third, I would like to show how it is good public policy to have a reform in sanctions not only to help farmers and ranchers but also how it is good foreign policy. Here are the events of the House-Senate conference committee. Let me be perfectly clear. The Senate voted on agricultural embargoes. This was not something that was interjected in the committee. We agreed, with a 70-28 vote, to end the embargo on farmers. After I and the other sponsors of the amendment made additional concessions to those opposing sanctions reform, the amendment was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. So not only do you have a unanimous consent in the Senate, but it was after a serious negotiation, a good- faith negotiation, that followed a 70-28 vote. So we moved to elevate this from something that was just overwhelmingly supported to something that was passed with unanimous consent. Then the House-Senate conferees began consideration of the agricultural appropriations bill. Did they first consider what was passed by the Senate? Not really. A select few in the leadership unilaterally changed the Senate-passed amendment and imposed their personal agenda into the conference committee. The House leadership offered some sanctions reform but carved out Cuba. At this point, the Senator from North Dakota stood up for our farmers and for the will of the Senate and asked that the Senate amendment, as passed, be considered. Very frankly, I would not think it would be necessary to take a unanimous consent passage, that had followed a 70-28 vote prior to the final details being worked out to harmonize things--that it would be necessary to have an extraordinary event in the conference committee to ask that that just be considered in the committee. But, as I indicated, the Senator from North Dakota stood up for the farmers in my State and across the Midwest and America and stood up for the will of the Senate, as expressed in the unanimous consent and the 70-28 vote. So, again, the Senate conferees overwhelmingly voted to reinstate the amendment we had passed on the floor. The Senate conferees said: Wait a second. This is an effort by some leaders to substitute their own judgment for the expressed will of the Senate that was overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 70-28, and then negotiated further to gain unanimous consent, and it at least ought to be in the bill. I am grateful to the Senator from North Dakota, and I appreciate his effort. At this point, the House conferees were to vote. It was at this point that the democratic process broke down. The conference was shut down for a week because the Senate and the House conferees decided they would stand strong. They made a decision to vote the will of their constituents instead of the dictates of a few leaders in the Congress.