John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor the two-month anniversary of the death of Mark Lewis Gillming, who passed away Sunday, October 8, 2000, in a car accident in Springfield, Missouri, on his way to church with his cousin, John Lingo. Mark Gillming grew up in my home town of Springfield, Missouri, and was a senior at Hillcrest High School to be graduated with the class of 2001. As a student, he excelled in both academics and athletics, becoming an honors student and being involved in track and football. Mark exhibited a great presence on the Hillcrest High football team, both in action and in spirit. Mark's life touched many lives, far beyond his school into his community. He was well liked by his peers and had great influence on those who knew him during his short life. His positive outlook enriched those around him. Mark was the son of Pastor and Mrs. Kenneth D. Gillming. He was a member of Cherry Street Baptist Church where his father is a pastor. Mark was a leader in their youth ministry. His Christian faith was a central part of his life. He loved his family, friends and most important of all, he loved Christ. Today, I join his family and friends in remembrance of Mark Gillming, whose demeanor and character were a blessing to those who knew him. He will be missed greatly.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my entire staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks. In addition, I ask that Tracie Spingarn, from the Congressional Special Services office, be permitted on the floor for the duration of my remarks. The members of my staff are: Kris K. Ardizzone, Rachel S. Audi, David Ayres, Andy A. Beach, Annie E. Billings, Cara Bunton, Adam G. Ciongoli, Bob Coughlin, Chuck DeFeo, Mark Grider, Greg P. Harris, Jacob Herschend, Chris Huff, Jessica Hughes, David James, Sally Lee-Kerns, Elizabeth Kim, Kelly D. Kolb, Taunya L. McLarty, Caleb Overstreet, Smita Patel, Janet M. Potter, Jim Richardson, Susan Richmond, Andrew Schauder, Lori A. Sharpe, John A. Simmons, Shimon Stein, Tevi D. Troy, Brian Waidmann, Ricky Welborn, and Matt Wylie.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with a sense of deep gratitude that I have this opportunity to speak on the Senate floor for one last time before I conclude my term in the Senate. There are few compensating factors for the lame duck session in which we find ourselves, but one is the opportunity for one who has lost an election to come back and make a few last remarks. This sort of makes this like home. At home I always have the last word--``Yes, dear.'' And to have a last word here is a pleasing thing for me. Obviously, I am deeply grateful, and, as I think about the opportunity I have enjoyed to be in the Senate, it is a set of thoughts that are characterized by gratitude. I am grateful to God that we are created as individuals with the capacity to shape the tomorrows in which we live. If freedom has a definition, it is that--that we can change things. And, obviously, we want to change things for the better. America respects that understanding of the creation and how we act as individuals with a Government that represents the people as agents of change, making decisions about the kind of community we want to have. Any of us who has the opportunity to represent fellow citizens obviously is in a position to do great things and to enjoy the ability to fulfill what God has destined for us to do, and that is to shape the tomorrows in which we live. I want to thank the citizens of Missouri first. It is a community that I love and that I respect. Janet and I live in Missouri, obviously because I was raised there, but by our choice. I have had the opportunity to serve the people of Missouri for 33 years. I began teaching in Southwest Missouri State University as a way of serving the people of the State of Missouri. And then, one of the most important mentors in my life, and one of the individuals who perhaps represents what Missouri is and what Missouri stands for more than any other single individual, the senior Senator of this State, Senator Kit Bond. He accorded me the opportunity to serve as the State auditor of Missouri when he vacated that office upon his election as Governor. I had first offered myself to the people of Missouri to serve in the U.S. Congress, and they had expressed their profound affection for me, indicating that I should stay in Missouri and not go to the Congress. Kit Bond, recognizing that, appointed me to be the State auditor of Missouri. It began a marvelous set of opportunities for me for which I am grateful in every respect. I served as the State auditor for 2 years. I later served as the attorney general of Missouri after a short period of time as an assistant attorney general in Missouri, and that was a notable experience. I had the wonderful privilege of sharing an office with a now Justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. We were in the same room together for 16 months. That is a historic item that I did not understand the history of at the time, but I certainly do now. I had the chance, after serving 8 years as attorney general, of going on to be Governor of the State of Missouri for 8 years. What a marvelous opportunity it was to work with the community, to work with people, to shape our community in a way which was constructive and reinforced the things in which we believed. This past election obviously was a disappointment for me, but I am not disappointed in the people of Missouri. The tragedy of this election, the death of my opponent and his son in a plane crash of unspeakable disaster, was one that the Missouri community responded to with two values and virtues that I cherish about our community--the value and virtue of compassion. I want America and Missouri to be a place of compassion. What a tremendous and wonderful thing it is when people are compassionate and share the feelings of each other, and the value of respect, particularly respect for those who have gone on and have been of service. In expressing those values, the people of Missouri decided they would honor the deceased Governor by voting in his behalf and in his stead in the election rather than voting for me, and I respect them for that and I honor them for that. It is a great community. They are a community to be loved and respected, and I profoundly love and respect them. I wish well Mrs. Carnahan who will succeed me in this seat in the Senate. I thank her for coming by my office yesterday. I hope she is treated with kindness. I told her yesterday that I was pleased to see her and have the opportunity to communicate with her, and I reminded her yesterday that 30 days from now she will be my Senator, and I want her to do well. I thank, in addition to Missourians, my staff. I am delighted the Senate has agreed to allow them all to be here on the floor of the Senate during these remarks. When I came to the Senate, my staff and I decided there were values and principles we wanted to honor in everything we did. We wanted those values and principles to transcend circumstances. We wanted them to be controlling factors of our conduct. So we spent some time together. Early in my time in the Senate, I came to the floor of the Senate and placed in the Congressional Record this statement of service, commitment, and dedication that each member of my staff joined me in formulating. This one hangs near the desk of Annie Billings in my office. I asked each staff member to sign this commitment and then I signed the commitment, too, so each one of these items contains the signature both of the staff, the real workers of the Senate, and the Senator, at least in this case, who relied so heavily on their work. I did not want to set the standards for my office absent the staff's participation because I believed the staff would help me reflect profoundly the values of the people of Missouri--and, indeed, they did. Each member of my staff took the pledge, the pledge that is contained in this statement of service, commitment, and dedication--high standards of service. Our pledge states, and I will read part of it: We dedicate ourselves to principled public policy. We believe that Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The power we exercise is granted by Missourians and the American people; we serve to secure their rights. Our commitment is to respect diverse political views and serve all people by whose consent we govern. As people of liberty reach for opportunity and achieve greatness, our Nation prospers. A government that lives beyond its means and reaches beyond its limits violates our basic liberties, and the Nation suffers. We dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We will strive to lead with humility and honesty. We will work with energy and spirit. We will represent the American people with loyalty and integrity. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. We hold that these principles are a sacred mandate. We take responsibility for these standards. I thank my staff for helping me formulate that format for our service, and I thank them for, in every instance I know, pursuing the fulfillment of that format and formulation for public service. It is an honor to serve with individuals who are in pursuit of principle, and my staff has been consistent in that respect. We have literally in the last Congress had over 550,000 constituent contacts with our office, to which we have made millions of responses because frequently we can acknowledge the contact and then provide additional service or otherwise follow up. There have been 110,000 specific cases in which individuals had dealings with the Federal Government, and we were able to facilitate those dealings. So I thank the staff. I thank them for their dedication to principle and for understanding that working with humility and integrity and industry and timeliness is a way of fulfilling a sacred trust in the people of my State. I thank the Members of the Senate. This is an institution that is unique. The function of the Senate is a very frustrating one, and real fulfillment probably is found in the friendships of the Senate more than in the function of this body. I have to say that this opportunity for my service in the Senate has been one that has been a fulfilling experience, in sum because we have been able to achieve things that are very important, in other respects as a result of the relationships that come with the friendships in the Senate. I have the very pleasing opportunity to think of myself as a friend of each Member of the Senate, and I am grateful for that. I am particularly grateful for the leadership that has been kind to me. For Senator Lott--and, of course, I have had a lot of fun with Senator Lott as a Singing Senator. That has ruined more than 1 day for other people--but the leader has been kind to me in every respect. His demeanor in leading this body is one of kindness to every Member. Senator Nickles--I had the privilege of nominating him as assistant majority leader, and I respect greatly his contribution. I see my friends in the Senate today--Senator Gramm, Senator McConnell, in addition, of course, to the senior Senator from Missouri about whose service I have already remarked, and my colleague, Senator Santorum, with whom I have had the opportunity to fight for things in which we believe. These are all very pleasing items. In particular, I thank Members of the Senate for participating in very important legislative achievements that are a part of what I believe has been important for me to do while I have been here. I had the privilege of filing legislation to protect the Social Security trust fund, called the Social Security lockbox legislation. I believe I was the first to do that in the Senate. Senator Abraham, Senator Domenici, Senator Santorum, and I worked awfully hard for that concept. It is now part of the Senate rules, and it has guided the way in which we have appropriated resources. The Medicare lockbox passed the Senate. I am grateful for that opportunity and was grateful that Senator Conrad, on the other side, was interested in making sure we put the right framework around the Medicare trust fund so that it was not raided for other purposes. An effort to repeal the Social Security earnings tax--the test on the Social Security earnings--which we were able to achieve in April of this year under the leadership of Chairman Roth, and signed by the President, I had the privilege of being the Senate sponsor of that measure. There were about 45 Senators who joined together, but there was even overwhelming help from people on the other side of the aisle, such as Senators Landrieu, Feinstein, Baucus, Dorgan, Lieberman, and Lincoln, in addition to members of this caucus. A big problem in the State of Missouri has been methamphetamines. Over and over again, I have worked to strengthen the law regarding methamphetamines, both with my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, and with others who have also been concerned about this problem. Senator Feinstein's State of California, similarly, has been afflicted with the curse of methamphetamines, and she was always helpful in this respect. And we could not have done it without Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on which I have had the privilege of serving. May I digress for just a second to say I have had the privilege of serving under Chairman Hatch. I respect him and am grateful for his leadership on the committee. There are a tough set of circumstances that always involves us in the tensions of give-and-take, and he has masterfully negotiated the shoals in that particular arena. Of course, I should mention as well John McCain's leadership on the Commerce Committee, on which I have had the privilege of serving, and his graciousness to me and kindness to me and his direction in a committee which has achieved massive revisions in the kind of liberating renovation which has provided tremendous energy to American industry. The revision in the telecommunications law which we were able to achieve is a result of excellent leadership. It has changed the dynamics of the world's economy, not to mention the United States. But I go back to some of the specific legislation. This year, we enacted legislation to provide funding so that the survivors of slain law enforcement officers could have the opportunity to get education and training so that they could in some way begin to undertake an effort on their own behalf, which the law enforcement officer, slain in the line of duty, was otherwise prepared to help them with. I am thankful to Senator Specter and Senator Collins and Senator Biden for working and being so helpful to me in that respect. Tougher penalties for gun crimes: When I put the amendment into Senator Helms' law, which was moving through this body, for tougher criminal penalties for those who use guns in the commission of a crime, it could not have happened without Senator Helms' measure. Of course, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I have had the opportunity to serve, I have learned to respect Senator Helms, his gentlemanly character, and his generous and judicious approach to running the committee. I worked with Bill Frist on curtailing weapons in schools and making sure we could provide penalties for those who carried guns into schools or maintained guns at schools. It could not have happened without him. I think of the late Senator Paul Coverdell and his efforts on education flexibility, sending resources to the State. I was thrilled to have the opportunity to work with him and Senator Wyden and Senator Frist on that legislation. It was very important legislation across the aisle, but it would have an impact across America. Then on the legislation to end food and medicine embargoes, I think this is a major step forward for America--good foreign policy, good farm policy, and expresses the values of the people of this country. Working with Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan, and on our side, Senator Hagel and Senator Roberts--and Senator Wellstone joined in that effort--the Senate overwhelmingly worked together to get that done. Now that it is a part of the law of this country, I think it is a major step in the right direction. I was pleased to be able to work with Tom Daschle, the minority leader of the Senate, to make sure that the U.S. Trade Representative had a full-time, permanent ag ambassador so agricultural interests were not neglected when negotiations were made regarding trade. Over and over again, I think of things that happened this last year, such as when HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, announced new rules for reimbursing cancer care treatments. I thought of the millions of people around the country who lived in rural areas who would find their care curtailed. Senator Mack of Florida worked with me to make sure we were able to begin the process of changing the law. And the process was so successful that HCFA changed its rules and regulations. Sometimes that is the way we make progress. There are the big things we have done. Some of these are a litany of things that are more incidental. There are the things such as welfare reform. I think of Phil Gramm's work, Senator Grassley's work, and Senator Roth's work there. This was early during my term. I had the opportunity to craft a provision called charitable choice that welcomed nongovernmental agencies into the process so that we could begin to remediate the pathology of welfare in the country, abusive welfare, by making sure that we helped all of America address this problem, not just America's government. It was a wonderful thing to see its broad bipartisan acceptance. It was very pleasing to see in this last Presidential election that Governor George W. Bush of Texas made this a point of what he would provide in the welfare arena, as did Vice President Gore. I had the privilege of chairing several subcommittees. I am grateful for the opportunity to have done so. In particular, with Senator Feingold, I chaired two subcommittees. I chaired the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have to say, I have never had a better working relationship with any individual than with Senator Feingold in that respect. Never did he ask me to do something that I thought was unfair and that I could not do and that I would not do. In each instance, when I offered him an opportunity to participate in a broad range of what the subcommittees were doing, he fulfilled his responsibilities with fairness, with dignity, with respect, and with the public interest as the uppermost criteria. I am grateful for that. Obviously, I do not want to overstate what it means to have been a Singing Senator, but it was a tremendous opportunity to spend time on Tuesday mornings, before the workday began, rehearsing and seeking perfection--elusive perfection--which never attended our efforts. But we never lost our faith for it. I thank the Singing Senators for allowing me to be a part. We did travel over a good bit of the United States from one time to another. We raised, I think, well over a half million dollars for the Alzheimer's research effort. It is one of those things that otherwise provided a little squirt of WD-40, where the friction might otherwise have made things less pleasant. It lubricated the relationships and gave us a great opportunity. I have recited a lot of important things that went into law. I am very close to concluding my remarks. I just want to say this: I do not want anyone to think the law is the most important thing in America. What happens in families, in churches and civic organizations, the values people believe in their hearts, is more important than the laws we write on the books. I don't want anyone to ever believe the laws are not important. We do have to have laws that tell us what the baselines are of our culture and, if you fall below those, we will punish you, what the framework is in which we operate. But no culture ever really achieves greatness by everyone just being at the baseline. Cultures achieve greatness not when people just stay out of jail but when they soar to their very highest and best, not when they just accommodate our threshold of the lowest and the least. The greatness of this great Nation is to be found in the hearts of the American people more than in the books of the American Government. But those items of policy and framework that we have put there guard the opportunity for greatness that comes from the heart of the American people. So our law and Constitution and the decisions we make are fundamentally important. It has been a great privilege for me to be involved. I thank one last group of people, and that is my family. If we didn't believe in these very important principles, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to ask them to make the sacrifices they have made. My wife Janet has been willing to dislocate her career time after time when changes in my life have moved me from one place to another. She has taught at Howard University in Washington, DC, on the faculty for the last 5 years now. I am grateful for that. My son, when I first came to the Senate, was still in high school, and we divided our family for that year so he could finish. A high school senior generally likes a dad around. I am not sure I would say he always wants me around, but there was a little bit of a dislocation of the family. But dislocations are worth our effort. Perhaps the most important thing my father taught me was that there were more important things than me, and the ability to make sacrifices to get good things done is important. When we understand there are some things that are more important than we are, we have a willingness to make sacrifices. I thank my family profoundly--my wife Janet, my sons Jay and Andy, my daughter Martha, my son-in-law Jim, and my grandson Jimmy. I thank them for being willing to understand that when there are things more important than we are, we can sacrifice those things and recognize in our lives our willingness to set aside our personal agenda for the public good. It is my hope that if and when I ever have an opportunity to serve again, I will be able to serve in accordance with those principles, with the values that my staff and I had the privilege of developing, always understanding that the public good is an objective well worth pursuing, not just pursuing but well worth sacrificing for, because when we sacrifice for each other, we communicate the most important values of our culture, that we love and respect one another. I thank the Chair for the opportunity. I know he has foregone the time limit on my behalf. I thank each Member of the Senate, this very important body in preserving liberty, for its courtesy and kindness to me and for this last opportunity to speak.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, issues surrounding possession and ownership of firearms have been some of the most divisive in this legislative session and political season. Americans hold a wide range of differing opinions regarding gun rights and responsibilities, and the proper balance of those rights against the need for public safety. But, despite the larger differences, most Americans agree that there are common sense actions that can be implemented to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens while preventing those with criminal records or histories of violent behavior from access to firearms. I support the provision in federal law that prohibits certain people from owning or possessing firearms. Under current law, certain categories of persons are unable to purchase guns. These include felons, fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, the mentally incompetent, and persons convicted of crimes of domestic violence. These proscriptions protect law-abiding citizens from those who have demonstrated they cannot use firearms responsibly. This law protects law-abiding gun owners because the fewer people who criminally misuse guns, the less sentiment that there will be to impose more restrictions on lawful gun owners. In 1994, the Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that instituted a system to check whether a prospective gun purchaser, prior to the transfer of a firearms, is ineligible to possess a gun because he or she falls into one of the nine prohibited categories. The permanent phase (phase II) of the Brady Act--that went into effect November 30, 1998--requires an instant background check be done on the buyer when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer. Either the State or the Federal Government conducts this check. This is to ensure that those prohibited by federal law from owning guns do not purchase them. It makes sense, and although the legislation was passed before I arrived in the Senate, I support the instant background check. Since the implementation of the Brady Act in 1994, through the end of calendar year 1999, 22 million background checks have been conducted on potential firearms purchasers. Of that 22 million, more than 536,000 individuals were determined ineligible. And since phase II of the Brady Act went into effect in 1998--mandating Instant Background Checks in place of checks with a mandatory waiting period--more than 8.6 million requests for instant checks were received, with 2.4 percent of applicants being denied. I would note that unfortunately, this Administration has chosen not to prosecute those felons for attempting to buy a gun, which is a federal crime. Federal prosecutions have fallen at the same time background checks have given law enforcement a reliable tool for tracking down and locking up criminals trying to buy guns. In 1993, the Clinton-Gore Administration prosecuted 633 people for trying to illegally purchase a gun. That fell to 279 in 1997 and rose to 405 in 1999. From 1994 to 1999, the Administration prosecuted an average of 404 defendants for violations of the gun purchasing law annually--a 36- percent drop from 1993. Obviously, we need to prosecute felons who are attempting to illegally buy guns. But there is another hole in the current law. While the federal database of state criminal records is fairly comprehensive, the same cannot be said of mental incompetency records. Forty-one states, including the State of Missouri, do not permit records of the criminally insane to be searched prior to a firearm sale. This is a travesty. The result of this loophole is that individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms because of mental impairment are allowed to slip through the cracks-- often with tragic results. In April of this year, the New York Times did a series of four articles on what they termed as ``rampage'' killings--multiple-victim killings that were not primarily domestic or connected to a robbery or gang. The New York Times examined 102 killers in 100 rampage attacks in a computer-assisted study including the shooting in 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, a day-trading firm in Atlanta, and a church in Fort Worth, Texas. The New York Times study found that at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems, and at least eight had been involuntarily committed. These articles highlight the difficulty of enforcing the provision of our gun control laws that prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions from buying a handgun. For example, Gracie Verduzco, was a 35-year-old paranoid schizophrenic who believed she had a transmitter in her left ear that received messages from a satellite and had been involuntarily hospitalized in Arizona twice. In addition, she had been committed to a mental hospital by a judge in the District of Columbia after she had threatened President Clinton. Despite three involuntary commitments, she was able to buy a .38-caliber revolver at a pawnshop in Tucson, Arizona by lying on her gun application. She used it to kill one person and wound four others there on May 21, 1998. According to the Justice Department, about 150,000 people a year are committed to mental institutions by court order in the United States. In total, there are now perhaps 2.7 million people who have been involuntarily committed at some point in their lives and are therefore barred by the federal law from buying a handgun. In response to some of the highly publicized cases, authorities in nine states have allowed law enforcement agencies some form of access to mental health records. And the number of ineligible individuals who attempt to purchase guns has been alarming. According to the Illinois State police, 3,699 people were turned down in Illinois from 1996 to 1998, when records showed they had been either voluntarily or involuntarily committed within the last 5 years, the legal test under Illinois law. An additional 5,585 people who were hospitalized from 1996 to 1998 were found to already possess gun permits, which as a result, were revoked. The New York Times reported, ``But at the national level, as in most states, there has been no comparable effort to create access to court commitment records for gun checks. That lack of action is in stark contrast to the long effort by gun control groups and the Clinton administration in winning enactment of the Brady law to create databases screening out convicted felons, who like the involuntarily committed, were barred by the 1968 law from handgun purchases.'' If we are serious about reducing the criminal misuse of firearms, this has to change. Federal law already makes the purchase or possession of firearms illegal for people the courts deem mentally incompetent, but the law is difficult, if not impossible to enforce because mental-health information is not currently part of computerized, instant background checks. That's why today I introduce the Records Access Improvement Act, to encourage states to make certain mental health information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). At present, the instant check system is administered jointly by the states and by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 15 states, state agencies serve as points of contact (POCs), and conduct full background checks for both long guns and handguns. In 11 states, state agencies conduct partial background checks for handguns only. In POC states, federal firearm licensees contact the state agency, rather than the FBI. In non-POC States, Federal firearm licensees contact the FBI directly through the NICS system. Over half of the applications for firearm transfers were checked directly by the FBI, while the remainder of applications were checked by State or local agencies. In February 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that the identification of non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms is likely to remain problematic under NICS. The Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that new enabling statutes may be required to identify and access such information. The legislation I am introducing today is such a statute. Specifically, this bill will encourage states to make the information available to the NICS system by tying the receipt of grants made under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to the provision of relevant data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This bill will ensure that the NICS system is as complete as possible, so that the Instant Background Check will be as reliable as possible. The Federal gun law-- the Brady Act--makes it clear that certain persons are ineligible to purchase firearms. It is time that we take the steps necessary for enforcement of the law. This bill is a giant step toward reaching that goal.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, issues surrounding possession and ownership of firearms have been some of the most divisive in this legislative session and political season. Americans hold a wide range of differing opinions regarding gun rights and responsibilities, and the proper balance of those rights against the need for public safety. But, despite the larger differences, most Americans agree that there are common sense actions that can be implemented to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens while preventing those with criminal records or histories of violent behavior from access to firearms. I support the provision in federal law that prohibits certain people from owning or possessing firearms. Under current law, certain categories of persons are unable to purchase guns. These include felons, fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, the mentally incompetent, and persons convicted of crimes of domestic violence. These proscriptions protect law-abiding citizens from those who have demonstrated they cannot use firearms responsibly. This law protects law-abiding gun owners because the fewer people who criminally misuse guns, the less sentiment that there will be to impose more restrictions on lawful gun owners. In 1994, the Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that instituted a system to check whether a prospective gun purchaser, prior to the transfer of a firearms, is ineligible to possess a gun because he or she falls into one of the nine prohibited categories. The permanent phase (phase II) of the Brady Act--that went into effect November 30, 1998--requires an instant background check be done on the buyer when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer. Either the State or the Federal Government conducts this check. This is to ensure that those prohibited by federal law from owning guns do not purchase them. It makes sense, and although the legislation was passed before I arrived in the Senate, I support the instant background check. Since the implementation of the Brady Act in 1994, through the end of calendar year 1999, 22 million background checks have been conducted on potential firearms purchasers. Of that 22 million, more than 536,000 individuals were determined ineligible. And since phase II of the Brady Act went into effect in 1998--mandating Instant Background Checks in place of checks with a mandatory waiting period--more than 8.6 million requests for instant checks were received, with 2.4 percent of applicants being denied. I would note that unfortunately, this Administration has chosen not to prosecute those felons for attempting to buy a gun, which is a federal crime. Federal prosecutions have fallen at the same time background checks have given law enforcement a reliable tool for tracking down and locking up criminals trying to buy guns. In 1993, the Clinton-Gore Administration prosecuted 633 people for trying to illegally purchase a gun. That fell to 279 in 1997 and rose to 405 in 1999. From 1994 to 1999, the Administration prosecuted an average of 404 defendants for violations of the gun purchasing law annually--a 36- percent drop from 1993. Obviously, we need to prosecute felons who are attempting to illegally buy guns. But there is another hole in the current law. While the federal database of state criminal records is fairly comprehensive, the same cannot be said of mental incompetency records. Forty-one states, including the State of Missouri, do not permit records of the criminally insane to be searched prior to a firearm sale. This is a travesty. The result of this loophole is that individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms because of mental impairment are allowed to slip through the cracks-- often with tragic results. In April of this year, the New York Times did a series of four articles on what they termed as ``rampage'' killings--multiple-victim killings that were not primarily domestic or connected to a robbery or gang. The New York Times examined 102 killers in 100 rampage attacks in a computer-assisted study including the shooting in 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, a day-trading firm in Atlanta, and a church in Fort Worth, Texas. The New York Times study found that at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems, and at least eight had been involuntarily committed. These articles highlight the difficulty of enforcing the provision of our gun control laws that prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions from buying a handgun. For example, Gracie Verduzco, was a 35-year-old paranoid schizophrenic who believed she had a transmitter in her left ear that received messages from a satellite and had been involuntarily hospitalized in Arizona twice. In addition, she had been committed to a mental hospital by a judge in the District of Columbia after she had threatened President Clinton. Despite three involuntary commitments, she was able to buy a .38-caliber revolver at a pawnshop in Tucson, Arizona by lying on her gun application. She used it to kill one person and wound four others there on May 21, 1998. According to the Justice Department, about 150,000 people a year are committed to mental institutions by court order in the United States. In total, there are now perhaps 2.7 million people who have been involuntarily committed at some point in their lives and are therefore barred by the federal law from buying a handgun. In response to some of the highly publicized cases, authorities in nine states have allowed law enforcement agencies some form of access to mental health records. And the number of ineligible individuals who attempt to purchase guns has been alarming. According to the Illinois State police, 3,699 people were turned down in Illinois from 1996 to 1998, when records showed they had been either voluntarily or involuntarily committed within the last 5 years, the legal test under Illinois law. An additional 5,585 people who were hospitalized from 1996 to 1998 were found to already possess gun permits, which as a result, were revoked. The New York Times reported, ``But at the national level, as in most states, there has been no comparable effort to create access to court commitment records for gun checks. That lack of action is in stark contrast to the long effort by gun control groups and the Clinton administration in winning enactment of the Brady law to create databases screening out convicted felons, who like the involuntarily committed, were barred by the 1968 law from handgun purchases.'' If we are serious about reducing the criminal misuse of firearms, this has to change. Federal law already makes the purchase or possession of firearms illegal for people the courts deem mentally incompetent, but the law is difficult, if not impossible to enforce because mental-health information is not currently part of computerized, instant background checks. That's why today I introduce the Records Access Improvement Act, to encourage states to make certain mental health information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). At present, the instant check system is administered jointly by the states and by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 15 states, state agencies serve as points of contact (POCs), and conduct full background checks for both long guns and handguns. In 11 states, state agencies conduct partial background checks for handguns only. In POC states, federal firearm licensees contact the state agency, rather than the FBI. In non-POC States, Federal firearm licensees contact the FBI directly through the NICS system. Over half of the applications for firearm transfers were checked directly by the FBI, while the remainder of applications were checked by State or local agencies. In February 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that the identification of non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms is likely to remain problematic under NICS. The Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that new enabling statutes may be required to identify and access such information. The legislation I am introducing today is such a statute. Specifically, this bill will encourage states to make the information available to the NICS system by tying the receipt of grants made under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to the provision of relevant data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This bill will ensure that the NICS system is as complete as possible, so that the Instant Background Check will be as reliable as possible. The Federal gun law-- the Brady Act--makes it clear that certain persons are ineligible to purchase firearms. It is time that we take the steps necessary for enforcement of the law. This bill is a giant step toward reaching that goal.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Kennerly Elementary School, in St. Louis, MO. Kennerly is one of nine schools to be named recently to the 2000 National Schools of Character in recognition of its exemplary work to encourage the social, ethical and academic development of its students through character education. Sponsored by the Character Education Partnership, National Schools of Character is an annual awards program recognizing K-12 schools and districts demonstrating outstanding character education initiatives and yielding positive results in student behavior, school environment, and academic performance. Kennerly exemplifies its school motto ``Friends Learning Together'' by involving students, teachers, parents, and the community. Included in Kennerly's character education programs are a Character Plus Team, a Character Club, and a Character Cabinet. As a strong supporter of character education, I am pleased to see that Kennerly's Character Education program has produced great results, both in academics, and in the social climate of the school. Academic performance has increased, and discipline problems have decreased. I have fought to increase the amount of funding available for character education because schools like Kennerly have demonstrated that character education programs increase the value of education for all our children and enhance our communities. It is truly a privilege for students to attend schools like Kennerly. So, I extend my congratulations to Kennerly Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, for its outstanding character education programs.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. today. At 12:30, the Senate will recess for a party caucus meeting until 2:15 p.m. It is hoped that the Senate will receive the HUD-VA appropriations conference report and/or the continuing resolution from the House by early afternoon. The Senate may also have a procedural vote with respect to the bankruptcy reform bill during today's session. Therefore, Senators can expect up to three votes this afternoon. As usual, Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise with a deep sense of sadness. As you all are aware, on Monday night Missouri's Governor, Mel Carnahan, was killed in a tragic plane crash. Also killed in the crash were the Governor's son, Randy Carnahan, and the Governor's long-time aide, Chris Sifford. My wife Janet and I join with all Missourians in mourning these deaths. We express our deepest sympathies to the Carnahan and Sifford families. We will continue to pray that God will grant these families comfort, healing, and strength in this time of great sorrow. This is a time when the Carnahan and Sifford families must bear the burden of a tragedy so unexpected and so profound that each of us N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer feels their loss. That our Senate campaign could have ended so tragically is shocking. As the collective heart of Missouri mourns the loss of a leader, this is a time for unity and common purpose in Missouri. We, as both a State and Nation, join together to mourn the loss of Governor Carnahan--a committed public servant. Although we were competing for the same office, Governor Carnahan and I had a unique relationship united by the common bonds of public service and respect for the people of Missouri. We both were honored to be sons of educators. We both loved time spent with our families on our farms. Governor Carnahan and I also shared a commitment to the greatest promise for our Nation's future: the education of our children. We committed to the commonsense idea that to continue our prosperity, we should invest part of the Federal surplus in educating America's children. That is a theme which I will pursue with intensity here in the Senate. Governor Carnahan has always been present and accounted for when duty called. He served as a member of the United States Air Force. He was a municipal judge. As a member of the State House of Representatives, he served as majority flood leader. He was elected State Treasurer in 1980, Lieutenant Governor in 1988, and Governor in 1992. He was highly respected and the State prospered during his time as Governor. As we absorb the blow of this tragedy, we should be reminded of what truly is important in life--commitment to God, to family, and to our fellow citizens. These were the commitments of Mel Carnahan. He served the people of Missouri with dignity and honor for more than four decades. I will remember him, and all of Missouri will remember him, for his dedication to his family--as a husband, a father, and a grandfather. We are all grateful that Mel Carnahan was willing to spend his life serving the people and the State of Missouri. I again extend my deepest sympathies to Governor Carnahan's wife, Jean, and to his family. Our prayers are with them in this time of great loss. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to honor John T. Pierpont for his outstanding service as Sheriff of Greene County, Missouri. I want to extend my personal appreciation and heartfelt thanks to John for his dedication and hard work. There are few careers more noble than those spent in public service. Sheriff Pierpont's twenty years of service with the Greene County Sheriff's Office have meant a great deal to the people he has served. Prior to being elected Sheriff of Greene County, Mr. Pierpont served as U.S. Marshal for the Western District of Missouri for eight years. His service has extended well beyond the Sheriff's office and law enforcement to community and charitable organizations across Greene County and throughout our state. Sheriff Pierpont has represented the state of Missouri and the Sheriff's Department with dignity, integrity, and professionalism. His commitment to the enforcement of Missouri law and the protection of our residents is to be commended. I am delighted to honor my friend and fellow Greene County resident, John Pierpont. May God richly bless John and his family as they begin this next chapter in their lives.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report, which we will vote on today. This bill contains over $78 billion in funding (and more than $3.5 billion in emergency assistance for farmers). And it contains important initiatives I have been pushing-- doubling the payment limit for LDPs (from $75,000 to $150,000) and lifting embargoes on food and medicine. I extend my sincere gratitude to the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, my friend from Mississippi, who has crafted a bill that gives America's farmers the assistance they need in the short term--and keeps a promise we made to open more markets in which to sell their products overseas. This bill culminates an almost 2-year effort on my part to open overseas markets to American farmers by ending U.S. food and medicine embargoes. We talk a lot about foreign trade barriers, and rightly so. We must continue to be vigilant to remove those barriers, such as the EU ban on U.S. beef. However, it is hypocritical of the U.S. government to target foreign barriers without removing our own barriers. That's exactly what food embargoes are--U.S. barriers against U.S. farmers. A policy shift in this area is long overdue, and I am pleased that this Conference Report reflects that shift. While the final product before us is not perfect, it does change substantially U.S. policy on embargoes of agriculture and medicine. We know that sanctions hurt farmers. The currently-embargoed market for our food products is estimated by some at about $6 billion. Cuba alone could purchase about $1.6 billion worth of food and medicine each year. Jim Guest, the President of the Missouri Pork Producers said: ``With 11 million people who enjoy pork, Cuba will become an important U.S. pork export market. In 1998, the last year for which statistics are available, Cuba imported about 10,000 metric tons of pork from Canada, Mexico and the European Union.'' This sanctions reform proposal covers more countries than just Cuba. There are four other countries affected by this legislation that could present substantial opportunities for U.S. producers of wheat, soybeans, beef, corn, etc. Furthermore, this provision reforms sanctions policy for the future. The President will not be able to impose new sanctions without Congressional involvement. Food embargo reform can be summed up as a big ``win'': a win to the U.S. economy, a win for U.S. jobs, a win in foreign policy, and a win for those hungry and hurting in foreign countries. My goal that I set out to reach years ago--giving the U.S. the opportunity to export more food and medicine--has been achieved in the bill we are voting on today. The Food and Medicine for the World Act, which I introduced in 1999, and which is the basis for the agreement in this Ag. Approps. Conference Report, separates out food and medicine from all other products when it comes to sanctions policy. Current embargos against agriculture and medicine will be lifted, and there will be no embargoes in the future unless the President first receives Congressional approval. This proposal of mine has remained in place throughout the Senate and House negotiations. It is the underlying basis for real sanctions reform because it does not focus on any one country. Instead, it is a new framework for U.S. policy in general. The differences between my original proposal and this final agreement are merely details on HOW the exports of food and medicine will be facilitated. We made progress in some areas, and in others, we must monitor the effectiveness toward reaching our goal. Let me explain briefly those differences. On the issue of how the exports will be allowed, there are two things I would like to cover-- licensing and financing. On licensing--we have gone much further than the Administration plan put in place last year, which has two substantial limitations. First, the Administration plan requires case-by-case licensing, whereas, the language before us in the Conference Report ensures that a least restrictive licensing system is set up--to cover a 2 year span instead of being case-by-case. Second, current U.S. policy requires tight restrictions on the end recipient of the food (those to whom we could sell our farm products). However, the bill we are voting on today allows exporters to sell to countries broadly, whoever wants to buy their products. On financing--all sales to these countries can be freely financed by U.S. banks, but the House added a restriction that will prohibit U.S. banks from being the primary financial institution in any sales to Cuba. U.S. banks will be able to facilitate transactions, but they won't be allowed to assume the risk of the Cuban buyers. While this policy is not my preference, I will point out that it is not a step backward. It simply keeps in place the current restrictions that exist in U.S. law. One final note on financing, particularly U.S. government financing-- under the bill before us, U.S. government credits will be available to help finance exports of agricultural products if the President determines that it is in the humanitarian or national security interest to extend the credits. All along, I have been committed to real sanctions reform in a final bill--and that is what we have accomplished. As with any major reform of U.S. policy, our proposal may not be perfect, but we can address any roadblocks that arise when they are brought to our attention by the farming community and humanitarian organizations. I welcome the recognition by a sizable majority of Congress that the time has come to reform this nation's obsolete and hurtful policy that allows using food and medicine in embargoes. And I look forward to sending this embargo reform bill to the President's desk so America's farmers are given increased freedom to market. Mr. President, I would like to insert in the Record a letter addressed to me from Charlie Kruse, the President of the Missouri Farm Bureau. Also, I would like to insert a statement from the Missouri Pork Producers. Finally, I would like to insert a letter signed by 15 agriculture organizations supporting this sanctions reform proposal and the Conference Report. Let me just say that this effort--reforming our nation's policy on food embargoes--has been a cooperative effort. The farm organizations that have signed these letters have shown tremendous leadership in getting us where we are today. I extend my sincere appreciation for their support throughout this entire process. I would like to address one final point, Mr. President, with regard to the intent of those that have drafted this sanctions reform proposal. Senator Hagel and I, as the drafters of the underlying sanctions reform bill, are submitting a statement of intent on how this proposal should be implemented by the Administration. I ask for unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Well, I thank the Chairman for taking the time to answer my questions and the hard work he has done to get a bill passed this year.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with Senator McCain the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Yesterday, the Senate took an important step forward in improving our nation's motor vehicle safety laws. One of the most important aspects of that bill was a provision to require Department of Transportation to upgrade the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for tires for the first time in nearly 30 years. Because it has been so long since the standards have been revised, they do not apply to tires used on sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In fact, SUVs weren't even around when these standards were last developed. Given the relationship of tires to the rollover propensity of SUVs, I would expect that the Department should first upgrade the standards for those tires used on SUVs. In addition, since the tire standard was put in place technology for the construction and design of tires has improved dramatically. For example, nylon ply caps can significantly improve the performance of tires. The types vehicles on the road has also changed as more and more people choose to drive sport utility vehicles. Chairman McCain would you agree that the Department should consider new technologies that would improve tire safety as they establish the new tire standard and that they should also consider the different mix of vehicles on the road as they set their priorities for implementing the new standard.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, over the past two weeks, the Middle East has been in a state of grave turmoil and violence. With almost 100 people reported dead, Israel is dangerously close to internal war between the Jews and Palestinians. Even this morning, two Israeli soldiers were brutally murdered in Ramallah in connection with this ongoing violence. Although there are some reports of a decrease in violence, this conflict demonstrates how complex and difficult it will be to have real peace for the people of the Middle East. Throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and even Arab towns inside Israel proper, Palestinians have taken to the streets. They are demanding Israeli capitulation and withdrawal of Israel troops from Arab regions. Although the Palestinian Authority has claimed that the flashpoint for the violence was a visit to the Temple Mount by Israeli political leader Ariel Sharon, the violence's widespread and intense nature of the violence, along with Palestinian reaction, indicates that the violence may not be a simple and uncoordinated reaction. Since the initial incident, the violence has rapidly spread with incredible fervor. According to published reports, ``The internal riots stunned Israeli police officials by their size and intensity.'' A simple incident was radically and almost instantaneously transformed into a dire situation that threatens the entire Middle East peace process. Although this outrageous reaction may appear isolated, Mr. Arafat has threatened over the years to cross out the peace accords and unleash a new uprising against Israel. He has often described the peace accords as simply a temporary truce. Mr. Arafat's response to the recent situation raises many concerns. It appears he has done little to nothing to quell the violence. The Palestinian Authority's official media arm, the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, has consistently broadcast incitement against Israel, including a children's program where martyrdom as ``suicide warriors'' is glorified. Palestinian television is also running a story about an alleged brutal killing of a Palestinian by Jewish settlers. The audience is told that the 40-year-old man's skull was crushed, his bones broken and his body burned by the settlers. Pictures of a charred and mutilated body are being used continually to incite already combative protesters and mourners. Although Israeli officials have stated that the man, Isam Hamad, 36, died in a car crash north of Ramallah and that the Palestinians chose to exploit the terrible condition of his body, Palestinian officials have refused to investigate the real cause of death and instead some have stated that the killing justifies an ``open season on settlers.'' Hassan Asfour, a Palestinian cabinet minister, told the Reuters News Service that, ``The settlers must now be a target by every Palestinian in order to stop their terrorism and they must be uprooted from our Palestinian occupied lands.'' These are not the words of a leadership that wants peace. Mr. President, we must continually remember that Israel is in one of the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world. Since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, Israel has lost more than 280 of its citizens to terrorist violence (a portion of the Israeli population comparable to 15,000 Americans) in over 1,000 terrorist attacks. That death toll is worse than in the 15 years prior to Oslo. Rather than eradicate terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian territory, the Palestinian Authority apparently has maintained its revolving door policy in detaining terrorists. Over 20 prominent terrorists have been released since President Clinton's visit to Gaza in December 1998. Israeli reaction to violence must be seen in this context. During this current situation, President Clinton has failed to stand firm with our long-time friend and ally, Israel. Although I appreciate the President's interest in bringing about peace in the Middle East, his desire to play the role of the ``honest broker'' is sadly misguided. Until Mr. Arafat begins to demonstrate otherwise, it appears clear that the Palestinian Authority is simply not an ``honest player''. Mr. President, it is time to stand with Israel in the effort to find real and lasting peace. We must continue to work with our friends and allies around the world, including moderate Arab countries, to bring the Palestinian Authority into line with appropriate international behavior that will contribute to the process of peace, not to war. I call on Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat to honestly work towards an end to this latest violence and come back to the negotiating table with the goal of reaching a workable and lasting peace. middle east tragedy

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today's final passage of the Defense Authorization Conference Report is a significant achievement. It fulfills past commitments, provides the necessary funds for our present obligations, and makes significant investments toward a secure future. I want to commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the tremendous job they have done providing for our national defense. This bill authorizes $310 billion for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's defense related activities. This is $4.5 billion more than requested by President Clinton, and represents the first real increase in defense spending in 14 years. One provision in the Defense Authorization bill of particular importance to the people of Missouri is that of military retiree health care. For generations, our military's career men and women have dedicated their lives to the protection of freedom and prosperity in America. One of the promises this country made to these men and women was a pledge that career members of the Armed Forces, their spouses, and dependents would have health care benefits on active duty and in retirement. While these benefits were not authorized by Congress, they were promised by the United States government, specifically, by the Department of Defense and its recruiters. Promises made need to be kept. Career members of the Armed Forces acted in good faith and relied on the statements of their government's representatives. Mr. President, until recently, military retirees were provided with health care in military facilities here and abroad. However, due to major changes in the military health care program, multiple base closings, and a risky downsizing of the military by the current Administration, too many military retirees have been shut out of military facilities. Many have sought Medicare coverage or private insurance, or have been forced to do without access to care. In Missouri, where we have 76,439 military retirees, retiree family members, and survivors, this is a significant problem. Although we are fortunate to have Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base close at hand in Missouri, and Scott Air Force Base in Illinois and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, both nearby, many military retirees in Missouri have told me that it is virtually impossible to get an appointment at these bases for a routine physical, let alone for critical care. It is clear that Washington is not keeping its promise to these patriotic men and women. Through the strong and dedicated leadership of Senator Warner, America's military retirees will again have access to quality health care, as promised. This Defense authorization bill includes a provision to expand the popular TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration project. It eliminates the current restrictions that require military retirees to lose their military health care benefits under the CHAMPUS and TRICARE programs after they reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare. Military retirees will not be able to receive TRICARE Senior Prime, or ``TRICARE-for-life''--an HMO-type coverage plan for retirees that includes partial payment of the costs from Medicare. This program will finally ensure that all military retirees have access to quality health care throughout their life. This bill will also establish a military health care trust fund to ensure that retiree health care remains solvent for years to come. This valuable retiree health care provision is endorsed by most of the major veteran and military retiree organizations, and I support its inclusion in this legislation. In addition to ``TRICARE-for-life,'' the Defense Authorization bill also extends to military retirees access to prescription drugs, by restoring the full DoD Prescription drug benefit, including mail order and retail pharmacy, to all Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries. These break-through provisions for military retirees are not the only important provisions of the Defense Authorization bill. This bill includes several critical active-duty provisions including measures to bring our military families off the food-stamp roles, provide a well- deserved 3.7% pay increase, and eliminates the statutory requirement that service-members incur out-of-pocket housing costs, thus permitting the Deputy of Defense to increase housing allowances immediately. This will eliminate out-of-pocket cost for housing by October 1, 2004. This bill also makes significant progress towards ensuring a strong defense for our country in the years to come. The legislation includes authorizations for additional F-15s and a new Extended-Range Cruise Missiles, as well as provides $63 billion dollars for other new weapons procurements. Furthermore, the bill provides an additional $1 billion in funding for key readiness accounts. These amounts are necessary to ensure our military is not only ready to fight today, but will remain ready for any challenges our country may face in the future. Again, I want to thank Senator Warner for his leadership in the area of national defense. I urge the Senate to support this bill, and to support our men and women in uniform, especially those who gave their lives in service today on the U.S.S. Cole, in far away Yemen. We extend our thoughts and prayers to their families and friends.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to offer my strong support for the conference report on H.R. 3244, a bill that will strengthen our laws in order to protect women, children and all victims of domestic violence. The conference report that we will vote on today includes several sections, each of which provides additional protections for vulnerable members of society. First, the bill contains the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, legislation that has been the passion of the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. This legislation will combat sexual trafficking of women and children--the deepest violation of human dignity and an unspeakable tragedy. Second, the conference report contains a bill that we have heard a lot about in the last several weeks--the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act--to provide funding for programs to combat domestic violence and assist victims of domestic violence--both male and female. The original Violence Against Women Act authorization expired on October 1, 2000, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the reauthorization bill sponsored by Senators Hatch and Biden (S. 2787). The third main section of the bill contains anti-crime measures including provisions to encourage States to incarcerate, for long prison terms, individuals convicted of murder, rape, and dangerous sexual offenses. Together, these provisions form a comprehensive approach to fighting abuse against the most vulnerable members of society. It is tragic that as we stand on the brink of the 21st Century the world is still haunted by the practice of international trafficking of women and children for sex, forced labor and for other purposes that violate basic human rights. The frequency of these practices is frightening. For example, an estimated 10,000 women from the former Soviet Union have been forced into prostitution in Israel; two million children are forced into prostitution every year, half of them in Asia; and more than 50,000 women are trafficked into the United States every year. Unfortunately, existing laws in the United States and other countries are inadequate to deter trafficking, primarily because they do not reflect the gravity of the offenses involved. Where countries do have laws against sexual trafficking, there is too often no enforcement. For example, in 1995, the Netherlands prosecuted 155 cases of forced prostitution, and only four resulted in the conviction of the traffickers. In some countries, enforcement against traffickers is hindered by indifference, corruption, and even official participation. The conference report before us seeks to improve the lives of women and children around the world by providing severe punishment for persons convicted of operating trafficking enterprises within the United States and the possibility of severe economic penalties against traffickers located in other countries. In addition, it provides assistance and protection for victims, including authorization of grants to shelters and rehabilitation programs, and a limited provision for relief from deportation for victims who would face retribution or other hardships if deported. The bill also creates an Interagency Task Force to monitor and combat trafficking, in order to facilitate and evaluate progress in trafficking prevention, victim assistance, and the prosecution of traffickers. I would like to thank the Senator from Kansas for his tireless work on this issue, and am pleased to support this legislation. The second main section of this conference report, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2000, reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act through Fiscal Year 2005. VAWA contains a number of grant programs, including the STOP grants, Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and three programs for victims of child abuse, including the court-appointed special advocate program (CASA). In addition, there are targeted improvements to the original language that have been made, such as providing funding for transitional housing assistance, expanding several of the key grant programs to cover violence that arises in dating relationships, and authorizing grants for legal assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. There is another issue that has been raised recently and that is the eligibility of men to receive benefits and services under the original Violence Against Women Act and under this bill. It was the original intent of this legislation to direct federal funds toward the most pressing problem--that of domestic violence against women, and violence against women in particular, since the statistics show that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated against women. But although women are more often victims of such violence than men, it does not mean that men are never victims, or that the problems of domestic violence when men are victims should be ignored. It was not, and is not, the intent of Congress to exclude men who have suffered domestic abuse or sexual assaults from receiving benefits and services under the Violence Against Women Act. Maybe the bill should be renamed the ``Stop Domestic Violence Act'' in order to more accurately reflect the purposes of this bill. The Act defines such key terms as ``domestic violence'' and ``sexual assault,'' which are used to determine eligibility under several of the grant programs, in gender-neutral language. Men who have suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under current law to apply for services and benefits that are funded under the original Act--and they will remain eligible under the Violence Against Women Act of 2000--whether it be for shelter space under the Family Violence Protection and Services Act, or counseling by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, or legal assistance in obtaining a protection order under the Legal Assistance for Victims program. I am pleased that this clarification was added to this bill. I am committed to confronting domestic violence because I believe that all forms of violence and crime destroy lives, hopes, and opportunities. All citizens should be safe from violence at home, in their neighborhoods and at schools. Protecting public safety is a fundamental duty of government, and we must make it clear to criminals that if they commit crime and violence, they will be punished swiftly and severely. Domestic violence has been a problem in the State of Missouri. In 1999, according to data from the Highway Patrol Criminal Records Division, there were 754 incidents for every 100,000 Missourians. This number is too high, despite the fact that it has been falling from a high of 815/100,000 in 1997. The early nineties saw a disturbing rise in domestic violence reports, from 657 per 100,000 Missourians in 1993 to the high in 1997. I have worked aggressively in the past, while in service to the state of Missouri, to confront domestic violence. As Governor, I established a special Task Force on Domestic Violence. This task force conducted a comprehensive review of domestic violence in Missouri and researched the efficiency of various programs and services for victims of abuse. Additionally, I supported the Adult Abuse Act of 1989, which provided new protection against domestic violence as well as new services for victims. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I would like to enter into the Record an article by Doctor Hank Clever, a well-known pediatrician in St. Charles, Missouri. This article appeared in The St. Charles County Post, on October 2, 2000. Dr. Clever outlines the severity of the problem of domestic violence and provides a checklist of behaviors that may help one distinguish if you or someone you know is being abused. The conference report we are voting on today provides real tools to combat violence against women and children, here in the United States and around the world, as well as new resources to curb domestic violence of all types. I support this conference report and thank Senator Brownback for his leadership in the fight against sex- trafficking, Senators Hatch and Biden for their work in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and the other members of the Conference Committee for their success in fashioning such strong legislation. There being no objections, this article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows. [From the St. Charles County (MO) Post, Oct. 2, 2000] Domestic Violence, in All Forms, Is the Leading Cause of Injury for Women Ages 15-44 (By Dr. Hank Clever) Hank Clever is a well-known pediatrician in St. Charles. Since retiring from private practice in 1998, Dr. Clever has continued to speak to community groups and organizations about a variety of health-related topics. The Doctor Is In column runs each Monday in the St. Charles County Post. Send questions for Dr. Clever to the Doctor Is In, c/o Public Relations Department, St. Joseph Health Center, 300 First Capitol Drive, St. Charles, Mo. 63301. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Before you think, ``Oh, that doesn't affect me,'' think again. Domestic violence affects everyone in the community-- abuser, victim, children, family, employers, co-workers and friends. The U.S. surgeon general says domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 15-44. Domestic violence is more common than rapes, muggings and auto accidents combined. Domestic violence isn't limited by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, age, education, employment status, physical ability or marital status. And, although some men are abused by women, the majority of domestic violence victims are female, making domestic violence one of the most serious public health issues facing women today. Cathy Blair is with the AWARE program. AWARE stands for Assisting Women with Advocacy, Resources and Education. She is working with the staff at SSM St. Joseph Health Center, SSM St. Joseph Hospital West and the Catholic Community Services of St. Charles County to present a program called ``Strengthening Our Response: The Role of Health Care Provider in Ending Domestic Violence'' on Thursday, Oct. 12, at St. Joseph Health Center. ``Health care providers are often on the front lines to recognize abuse. Their response to the victim and the abuser can be crucial to proper treatment not only of the immediate trauma, but also long-term problem of abuse,'' Blair told me. When most people think of domestic violence, they think of battered women. However, domestic violence can take many forms, including psychological abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse, sexual abuse and even legal abuse when a women tries to leave an unhealthy relationship. ``Recognizing what behaviors are part of domestic violence is not always easy, even for victims themselves,'' Blair said. ``This is in part because domestic violence is much more than physical abuse.'' Blair offers the following checklist of behaviors that may help you distinguish if you or someone you know is being abused: Does your partner use emotional and psychological control-- call you names, yell, put you down, constantly criticize or undermine you and your abilities, behave in an overprotective way, become extremely jealous, make it difficult for you to see family or friends, bad-mouth you to family and friends, prevent you from going where you want to, or humiliate and embarrass you in front of other people? Does your partner use economic control--deny you access to family assets such as bank accounts, credit cards or car, control all the finances, make you account for what you spend, or take your money, prevent you from getting or keeping a job or from going to school, limit your access to health, prescription or dental insurance? Does your partner make threats--make you afraid by using looks, actions or gestures, threaten to report you to the authorities for something you didn't do, threaten to harm or kidnap the children, display weapons as a way of making you afraid, use his anger as a threat to get what he wants? Does your partner commit acts of physical violence--carry out threats to you, your children, pets, family members, friends, or himself, destroy personal property or throw things around, grab, push, hit, punch, slap, kick, choke, or bite you, force you to have sex when you don't want to, engage in sexual acts that you don't want to do, prevent you from taking medications or getting medical care, deny you access to foods, fluids or sleep? If any of these things are happening in your relationship, Blair wants you to know that you are not alone and you have a right to be safe. ``Millions of women are abused by their partners every year,'' she said. ``For free, safe and confidential services, call AWARE at 314-362-9273.'' In addition to AWARE, many other domestic violence resources, including shelters, support services and legal services are available. The AWARE staff will be happy to give you that information. Physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, students and Allied Health professionals who would like to learn more about domestic violence and the important role they can play in identifying and stopping it, should plan to attend the program. The conference is free and includes complimentary parking and lunch, but registration in required. Call 636- 947-5621 for more information and to register.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation. This bill continues my effort to help working parents balance the demands between work and family. Over the past five years, we have been talking about the difficulty that parents have balancing work and family obligations. I do not think there are two values that are more highly or intensely admired in America than these. The first one is the value we place on our families. We understand that more than anything else the family is an institution where important things are learned, not just knowledge imparted but wisdom is obtained and understood in a family which teaches us not just how to do something but teaches us how to live. The second value which is a strong value in America and reflects our heritage is the value of work. Americans admire and respect work. The difficult issue that face us as a nation, is how are we going to resolve these tensions? I think that is one of the jobs, that we have to try and make sure we build a framework where people can resolve those tensions. Since 1965, the amount of time parents spend with their children has dropped 40 percent and a 1993 study that found that 66 percent of adults surveyed nationwide wanted to spend more time with their children. This tension between the workplace and the home place, juxtaposed or set in a framework of laws created in the 1930's that does not allow us flexibility, is a problem. For example, you might be asked to do overtime over and over and over again, and you do overtime, and then you are paid time and a half. But at some point, you would rather have the time than the money. If the employer agreed to it voluntarily--both parties--we ought to let that happen. Right now, it is against the law. According to a number of surveys, this is what Americans want. For example, a poll by Money magazine found that 64 percent of the American people--and 68 percent of women--would rather have their overtime in the form of time off, than in cash wages. Eighty-two percent said they supported the Republican's plan to give working men and women more control over their hard-earned time. Money magazine, May 1997. In an attempt to address these work and family tensions, in each of the last three Congresses, I have introduced legislation. Each of these bills provide flexible working arrangements--or ``flex-time,'' and compensatory time off--or ``comp time.'' The comp time provisions in the Family Friendly Workplace Act (S. 1241) would permit employees to choose, if the employer agreed, to be compensated with time-and-a-half compensatory time off for overtime hours worked in lieu of time-and-a-half pay--whenever time is more valuable than financial compensation to the employee. This gives hourly employees the ability to meet their family obligations while still taking home a full paycheck. The flex time provisions would allow private sector hourly employees to work biweekly work schedules the same as federal employees have been able to since 1978. Rather than being limited to 40 hours in a seven- day period, private sector workers could schedule 80 hours over a two- week period in any combination if their employers agree. Overtime would have to be paid for any hours ordered by the employer in excess of those in the designated biweekly work schedule. For example, if an employer asked an employee to work 45 hours in a week when the employee was scheduled to work only 35 hours under the biweekly work schedule, the employer would be required to pay the employee 10 hours of overtime compensation. This is true even though absent the agreement, the employer would only be required to pay the employee five hours of overtime. When these provisions were developed, I took seriously the concerns raised by my constituents that adequate protections had to be contained in the bill to make sure this was a real choice made by employees--not employers. Both of the provisions were designed to do just that. In the Family Friendly Workplace Act employers cannot require accepting compensatory time off in lieu of over time pay as a condition of employment. Nor can they require employees to work flex time as a condition of employment. In addition, such agreements to work these alternative work schedules have to be in writing, signed by the employee. Coercion into these programs--or even attempted coercion--is strictly prohibited and contain severe penalties. Due to the nature of comp time, there also are protections specific to that program. Employers would be prohibited from coercing, or attempting to coerce, employees into using or not using their comp time. The bill requires employers to cash-out their employees' comp time bank at the end of each year or in the alternative, within thirty days of their employees' request. These cash-out provisions serve two important purposes. First, it ensures that employers who offer the option of comp time do not do so with the belief that it will give them ability to avoid paying overtime. Second, it also structures comp time programs with a built-in incentive for employers to allow employees to use their comp time when it is needed by the employee. Today, I am introducing legislation to provide these superior protections to state and local government workers. First, it will prohibit the practice of requiring employees to accept comp time as a condition of employment. It also will require state and local governments to cash-out comp time banks at the end of each year or within thirty days of request by the employees. Finally, it will specifically prohibit state and local governments from forcing employees to use their accumulated comp time against their wishes. It is those workers who are giving up time with their families--they should be able to use it to spend time with their families. These protections will impact 290,405 workers in Missouri, or approximately twelve percent of the workforce. No doubt, state and local governments will be concerned about the cost of cashing out these comp time banks or changing their scheduling patterns in order to allow workers to use their accumulated comp time. As a former Governor, I understand these concerns. However, I have to take seriously the practice that can no longer be called isolated incidents. Forcing employees to work over time takes away time from their families. Our police officers, fire fighters, corrections' officers, and other state and local government workers should have the choice whether that time should be compensated with time or money. They know what best fits their needs and should not be forced--with the blessings of the federal government--into giving up that choice.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend the Senate's passage of S. 662, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, which provides low-income, uninsured women with access to the treatment they need to battle these two potentially devastating diseases. In 1990, Congress created a program, administered by the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, to provide breast and cervical cancer screening for low-income, uninsured women. While this program's goal was to reduce mortality rates from these two diseases, the fact many women diagnosed under the program had no funds for treatment left our goal largely unfulfilled. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act moves this Federal commitment forward to the next logical step, by providing Medicaid funds to treat these women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the CDC screening program. Under this important legislation, American women will be able to receive the treatment they need to win the fight against breast cancer or cervical cancer. As we are in the waning days of this legislative session, I am glad to join my Senate colleagues in passing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, which will provide new resources and hope to low-income women with breast or cervical cancer. As the House has already passed a similar bill, it is my hope that Congress will present final legislation to the President for enactment this year.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute greatly to society. I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Dorothy and Eddie Karnes, who on October 7, 2000, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Karnes' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today in support of the conference report on the energy and water appropriations bill. This is a very important bill, for it contains a provision that will protect the citizens of Missouri from a risky Administration scheme to flood the Missouri River Basin. Section 103 of this bill is a provision that is necessary for the millions of Americans who live and work along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This is the section of the bill that was subject to an amendment to strike when the Senate considered this legislation on September 7, 2000. The Senate defeated the attempt to strike at that time, and I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator Domenici, for maintaining Section 103 in the conference report now before us. Madam President, as you know, the use of the Missouri River is governed by what is known as the Missouri River Master Manual. Right now, there is an effort underway to update that manual. The specific issue that is at the crux of the debate over Section 103 is what is called a spring rise. A spring rise, in this case, is a release of huge amounts of water from above Gavins Point Dam on the Nebraska-South Dakota border during the flood-prone spring months. In an effort to protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, the least tern, and the piping plover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an ultimatum to the Army Corps of Engineers insisting that the Corps immediately agree to its demand for a spring rise. The Corps was given one week to respond to the request of Fish and Wildlife for immediate implementation of a spring rise. The Corps' response was a rejection of the spring rise proposal, and they called for further study of the effect of the spring rise. The language in section 103 will allow for the studies the Corps recommends. Section 103, inserted in the bill during the subcommittee markup, is a commonsense provision that states in its entirety: None of the funds made available in this act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such provisions provide for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam. This policy--this exact language--has been included in the last four energy and water appropriations bills, all of which the President signed without opposition. Let's look at the support that the Energy and Water appropriations bills, with the exact same language, have enjoyed in the past. In October, 1995, the Senate agreed to the energy and water appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 89-6. In September, 1996, the Senate agreed to the energy and water appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 92-8. In September, 1998, the Senate agreed to the energy and water appropriations conference report by unanimous consent. In September, 1999, the Senate agreed to the energy and water appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 96-3. In addition, this year, the Senate voted 93-1 in favor of final passage of the energy and water appropriations bill on September 7, 2000, following the defeat of the amendment to strike Section 103. This lengthy record of support is part of the reason I am shocked and astounded to report that last week, the President's Chief of Staff, John Podesta, sent a letter to the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee chairman stating that the President would veto this bill if section 103 is included. In other words, the Clinton-Gore administration is threatening to veto the entire energy and water appropriations bill if it contains language to protect the lives and property of all citizens living and working along the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. If the President follows through with a veto of the bill, after having signed this provision four times previously, he will be sending a very clear message to the citizens of the Midwest. It is very easy to understand. Unfortunately, it would be very hard to digest and accommodate. But the message would be this: The Clinton-Gore administration is willing to flood downstream communities as part of an unscientific, risky scheme that will hurt, not help, the endangered species it seeks to protect. If that is the message, I wouldn't want to be the messenger. The President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Podesta, made a number of interesting, yet untrue, claims in his veto threat letter. We have corrected and clarified these points before, but allow me to do so again, in the hope that the administration will reconsider its position when confronted with the real facts on this issue. First, the administration claims in its veto letter that section 103 would, ``prevent the Corps from carrying out a necessary element of any reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the endangered least tern, pallid sturgeon, and the piping plover.'' This statement is false. Under section 103, alternatives can be studied and all alternatives can be implemented--with the exception of a spring rise. What is ironic is that spring flooding could hurt the wildlife more than it will protect them. And it will do so in a way that will increase the risks of downstream flooding and interferes with the shipment of cargo on our nation's highways. Dr. Joe Engeln, assistant director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, stated in a June 24 letter that there are several major problems with the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed plan that may have the perverse effect of harming the targeted species rather than helping them. In his letter, he writes that, ``the higher reservoir levels [that would result from a spring rise] would also reduce the habitat for the terns and plovers that nest along the shorelines of the reservoirs.'' Dr. Engeln also points out that because the plan calls for a significant drop in flow during the summer, predators will be able to reach the islands upon which the terns and plovers nest, giving them access to the young still in the nests. Second, the administration claims that the Missouri Master Manual is outdated and, ``does not provide and appropriate balance among the competing interests, both commercial and recreational, of the many people who seek to use this great American river.'' This, also, is untrue. This administration's plan for ``controlled flood'' or spring rise places every citizen who lives or works downstream from the point of release in jeopardy by disturbing the balance at a time when downstream citizens are most vulnerable to flooding. Section 103 protects citizens of Missouri and other states from dangerous flooding while allowing for cost efficient transportation of grain and cargo. Section 103 is supported by bipartisan group representing farmers, manufacturers, labor unions, shippers, citizens and port authorities from 15 Midwest states. Also supporting Section 103 are major national organizations including the American Farm Bureau, American Waterways associations, National Grange, and the National Soybean Association. The strong support for Section 103 and against the spring rise undermines the administration's claim that the Master Manual must be immediately changed. In addition to the illusory argument that the spring rise is necessary to protect endangered species, some advocates of the spring rise claim that this plan is a return to more ``natural flow conditions'' and that the river should be returned to its condition at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Not only is this unrealistic because the Midwest was barely habitable because of the erratic flooding conditions at that time, according to Dr. Engeln of the Missouri DNR, the proposal would benefit artificial reservoirs at the expense of the river and create flow conditions that have never existed along the river in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. Over 90 organizations representing farmers, shippers, cities, labor unions, and port authorities recently sent a letter to Congress saying: ``The spring rise demanded by the Fish and Wildlife Service is based on the premise that we should `replicate the natural hydrograph' that was responsible for devastating and deadly floods as well as summertime droughts and even dustbowls.'' I think it is pretty clear that there is not sound science to support some protection of these species. There is a clear disagreement among scientists, and a strong argument that the implementation of this plan would, in fact, damage the capacity of some of these species to continue. I urge the Senate to support this conference report. I ask the President to rethink his threatened veto and side with the bipartisan consensus to protect the citizens living and working in the lower Missouri River Basin from the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan to flood the region.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on the occasion of the beginning of Rosh Hashanah and the High Holy Day season, Janet and I are pleased to offer our best wishes to Missouri's Jewish community, and to our Jewish friends throughout the United States and the world. As the High Holiday Machzor, or prayerbook, states, ``On Rosh Hashanah it is written and on Yom Kippur it is sealed,'' what will be our fates for the year to come. With this in mind, it is my sincere hope that this year will bring to all of us: peace throughout the world, peace in Israel, and everlasting peace in a united Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. During this time of year, your days of awe, know that I join with you in the sanctity of your celebration. May this period's spirit of reconciliation and renewal remind all Missourians, of all faiths, of our shared responsibilities, toward families, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Once again, Janet joins me in sending our best wishes to Jews everywhere for the year 5761, and in saying, L'Shana Tova Tekateivu-- may you be inscribed in the Book of Life for a good year.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will reaffirm the vital role parents play in the lives of their children. My legislation, the Putting Parents First Act, will guarantee that parents have the opportunity to be involved in one of their children's most important and life-affecting decisions--whether or not to have an abortion. The American people have long understood the unique and essential role the family plays in our culture. It is the institution through which we best inculcate and pass down our most cherished values. As is frequently the case, President Reagan said it best. Within the American family, Reagan said, ``the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public virtue first nourished. Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers the values that will shape our private lives and public citizenship.'' The Putting Parents First Act establishes something that ought to be self-evident, but tragically is not: that mothers and fathers should be allowed to be involved in a child's decision whether or not to have a major, life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening, surgical procedure--an abortion. This seems so simple. In many states, school officials cannot give a child an aspirin for a headache without parental consent. But doctors can perform abortions on children without parental consent or even notification. This defies logic. The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit any individual from performing an abortion upon a minor under the age of 18 unless that individual has secured the informed written consent of the minor and a parent or guardian. In accordance with Supreme Court decisions concerning state-passed parental consent laws, the Putting Parents First Act allows a minor to forego the parental involvement requirement in cases where a court has issued a waiver certifying that the process of obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian is not in the best interests of the minor or that the minor is emancipated. For too long, the issue of abortion has polarized the American people. To some extent, this is the inevitable result of vastly different views of when life begins and ends, what `choices' are involved, and who has the ability to determine these answers for others. Many including myself, view abortion as the destruction of innocent human life that should be an option in only the most extreme situations, such as rape, incest, or when the very life of the mother is at stake. Others, including a majority of current Supreme Court Justices, view abortion as a constitutionally-protected alternative for pregnant women that should almost always be available. I think that all sides would agree that abortion involves a serious decision and a medical procedure that is not risk-free. Thankfully, there are areas of common ground in the abortion debate on which both sides, and the Supreme Court, can agree. One such area of agreement is that, whenever possible, parents should be informed and involved when their young daughters are faced with a decision as serious as abortion. A recent CBS/New York Times survey found that 78 percent of Americans support requiring parental consent before an abortion is performed on a girl under age 18. Even those who do not view an abortion as a taking of human life recognize it as a momentous, indeed a life-changing, decision that a minor should not be left to make alone. The fact that nearly 80 percent of the states have passed laws requiring doctors to notify or seek the consent of a minor's parents before performing an abortion also demonstrates the consensus in favor of parental involvement. The instruction and guidance about which President Reagan spoke are needed most when our children are dealing with important life decisions. It is hard to imagine a decision more important than whether or not a child should have a child of her own. We recognize, as fundamental to our understanding of freedom, that parents have unique rights and responsibilities to control the education and upbringing of their children--rights that absent a compelling interest, neither government nor other individuals should supercede. When a young woman finds herself in a crisis situation, ideally she should be able to turn to her parents for assistance and guidance. This may not always happen, and may not be reality for some young women, but at the very least, we should make sure that our policies support good parenting, not undercut parents. Sadly, another reason to encourage young women to include a parent in the decision to undergo an abortion is because of adverse health consequences that can arise after an abortion. Abortion is a surgical procedure that can and sometimes does result in complications. Young women have died of internal bleeding and infections because their parents were unaware of the medical procedures that they had undergone, and did not recognize post-abortion complications. Unfortunately, parental involvement laws are only enforced in about half of the 39 states that have them. Some states have enacted laws that have been struck down in state or federal courts; in other states, the executive branch has chosen not to enforce the legislature's will. As a result, just over 20 states have parental consent laws in effect today. In the remaining 30 states, parents are often excluded from taking part in their minor children's most fundamental decisions. Moreover, in those states where laws requiring parental consent are on the books and being enforced, those laws are frequently circumvented by pregnant minors who cross state lines to avoid the laws' requirements. Often, a pregnant minor is taken to a bordering state by an adult male attempting to ``hide his crime'' of statutory rape and evade a state law requiring parental notification or consent. Sadly, nowhere is this problem more apparent than in my home state of Missouri. I was proud to have successfully defended Missouri's parental consent law before the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. Unfortunately, a study a few years ago in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of a minor traveling out of state for an abortion increased by over 50 percent after Missouri's parental consent law went into effect. There are ads in the St. Louis, Missouri, Yellow Pages luring young women to Illinois clinics with the words ``No Parental Consent Required'' in large type. The limited degree of enforcement and the ease with which state laws can be evaded demand a national solution. The importance of protecting the fundamental rights of parents demands a national solution. And the protection of life--both the life of the unborn child, and the life and health of the pregnant young woman--demands we take action. Requiring a parent's consent before a minor can receive an abortion is one way states have chosen to protect not only the role of parents and the health and safety of young women, but also, the lives of the unborn. Thus, enactment of a federal parental consent law will allow Congress to protect the guiding role of parents as it protects human life. The Putting Parents First Act is based on state statutes that have already been determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislation establishes a minimum level of involvement by parents that must be honored throughout this nation. It does not preempt state parental involvement laws that provide additional protections to the parents of pregnant minors. Mr. President, sound and sensible public policy requires that parents be involved in critical, life-shaping decisions involving their children. A young person whose life is in crisis may be highly anxious, and may want to take a fateful step without their parents' knowledge. But it is at these times of crisis that children need their parents most. They need the wisdom, love and guidance of a mother or a father, not policy statements of government bureaucrats, or uninvolved strangers. This legislation will strengthen the family and protect human life by keeping parents involved when children are making decisions that could shape the rest of their lives.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the past fourteen years, the men and women serving selflessly in the Reserve components of our Armed Forces, which includes the National Guard and federal Reserve, have been denied a sensible, fair, and morally right tax deduction. Today, I am introducing a bill that will correct this tax injustice. The Reservist Tax Relief Act of 2000 will allow Reservist and National Guardsmen and women, who are our nation's purest citizen- soldiers, to deduct travel expenses as a business expense, when they travel in connection with military service. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in quickly passing this legislation before the end of the 106th Congress. With the dramatic downsizing of the U.S. military over the past decade, the Reserve component has become an increasingly valuable aspect of our national defense. Traditionally geared to provide trained units and individuals to augment the Active components in time of war or national emergency, the Reserve component's role and responsibility has rapidly increased throughout the 1990s. During the Cold War, the Reserve component was rarely mobilized due to the robust nature of the Active Duty forces, however, with the 1/3 cut in Active Duty forces since 1990 there have been five presidential mobilizations of the Guard and Reserve beginning with the 1990-1991 Gulf War. The Guard and Reserve are heavily relied upon to provide support for smaller regional contingencies, peace-keeping and peace-making operations, and disaster relief. Although this level of mobilization is unprecedented during a time of peace, the men and women of the Guard and Reserve have performed a tremendous job in bridging the gap in our national security. For instance, more than 1,000 Missouri Army National Guard soldiers went to Honduras to help the country recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally, Missouri Air Force Reservists have defended the skies over Bosnia-Herzegovina. America's Reserve component is now essential to our every-day military operations. I strongly believe that our Active Duty forces should be provided additional resources to improve the readiness and overall capability of our national defense so America will not have to over-use its ``weekend warriors.'' But I also know that Congress should provide the necessary resources and support for the Reserve component to complement their new position in our security. Beyond providing the Reserve component with the resources, training, and equipment to be fully integrated into the military's ``Total Force'' concept, the Reserve component personnel should be provided targeted support to address their unique concerns. When a member of the Reserve component chooses to serve, these brave men and women give up at least several weeks a year for training. In return, they are provided only minimal pay. With this training, along with additional out of area deployments each lasting up to 179 days, the 866,000 Reserve troops have put in 12 to 13 million man--days in each of the last three years. This type of commitment often puts a tremendous strain on these men and women, their families, and their employers. They all deserve our deepest thanks and sense of gratitude, and also our full support. Mr. President, the Reservist Tax Relief Act of 2000 is one way we can actively support the contribution made by the Reserves to our national defense. This bill, endorsed by the Reserve Officers' Association of the United States, will provide a tax deduction to National Guard and Reserve members for travel expenses related to their military services, so that their travel costs in connection with Guard duty can be treated as a business expense. This provision was part of the federal tax code until it was removed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Estimates show that approximately 10 percent of Reserve members, or about 86,000 personnel, must travel over 150 miles each way from home in order to fulfil their military commitments. The expenses involved in traveling this distance at least ``one weekend a month and two weeks a year'' can become a tremendous burden for dedicated citizen-soldiers. It is time, with taxes at record levels in this country, to reinstate this tax deduction for military reservists, who give up more than just their time in service to this country. This tax relief bill is estimated to result in $291 million less tax dollars being collected by the Treasury over the next five years; the first year ``cost'' is $13 million. In the era of multi-billion dollar programs and surpluses this amount may seem small to Washington bureaucrats, but to the hard-working Reservists and Guardsmen in Missouri, this additional tax deduction will provide real financial help. Most Reservists and National Guardsmen and women do not enlist as a means to become a millionaire, but are motivated by a sense of duty to country. It is our responsibility to respond to their service with this simple tax correction. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and to support the men and women of our Reserve and Guard forces. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Children's Health Act of 2000 that will pass the Senate today. This legislation is the result of months of dedicated work by a number of Senators and House members. I believe the final language represents a comprehensive approach to promote physical and mental health for children, and protect them from dangerous, illegal drugs. I am a co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, a previous Senate version of the Children's Health Act (S. 2868), as well as the author of two key provisions contained in the package we are considering today. I rise today to speak in favor of this legislation and to thank the bill's sponsor, Senator Frist, for working with me to include two provisions that I believe are essential tools for advancing health and safety of America's children. The bill that will pass today, H.R. 4365, contains three main sections: (1) the text of S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, a bill I introduced last year that previously passed the Senate and has been approved by the House Judiciary Committee for consideration by the House of Representatives; (2) the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, which reauthorizes programs within the jurisdiction of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to improve mental health and substance abuse services for children and adolescents and allows the Charitable Choice concept, which I first authored in the 104th Congress, to be applied to the programs covered by this Act and (3) the Children's Health Act, which amends the Public Health Services Act to revise, extend, and establish programs with respect to children's health research, health promotion and disease prevention activities conducted through Federal public health agencies. Mr. President, let me touch briefly on each of these three main sections. First, this bill includes the text of S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, a bill I introduced in February 25, 1999 in response to the growing problem of methamphetamine production and use in my home state of Missouri, throughout the Midwest and in many other states as well. Unfortunately, the problem of methamphetamine has only gotten worse in the past year and a half. This anti-meth measure I authored will help fight meth in Missouri and the U.S. with $55 million in new resources for enforcement, cleanup, school- and community-based prevention efforts, and rehabilitation services. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act will bolster the fight against meth through stiffer penalties for drug criminals; more money for law enforcement, education, and prevention; and a wider ban on meth paraphernalia. The bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to raise its guidelines for sentencing meth offenders. It requires mandatory reimbursement for the costs incurred by federal, state and local governments for the cleanup associated with meth labs. It authorizes $5.5 million in funding for DEA programs to train State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth investigations and staff mobile training teams which provide State and local law enforcement with advanced training in conducting lab investigations. It also provides $15 million in funding to combat the trafficking of meth in counties designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This legislation also provides for further research into the use of meth; authorizes $15 million in funds for community- and school-based anti-meth education programs; and includes an additional $10 million in resources for treatment of meth addiction. It directs HHS to include its annual National Household Survey on Drug Abuse prevalence data on the consumption of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs in rural, metropolitan, and consolidated metropolitan areas and requires the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Institute of Medicine, to conduct a study on the development of medications for the treatment of addiction to methamphetamine. The nation's lead anti-drug agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has thrown its support behind the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. In endorsing this bill, DEA Administrator Donnie Marshall said this bill is ``landmark methamphetamine legislation.'' Marshall stated: ``I believe this bill (the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act) will prove instrumental in the Drug Enforcement Administration's efforts to bring to a halt the continued spread of methamphetamine across our country.'' Mr. President, I am sad that Missouri is notorious as a national center of meth production and distribution. Methamphetamine, for those who are lucky enough not to have a meth problem in their areas, is a highly addictive synthetic drug that is typically made in illegal clandestine ``labs.'' Missouri and California lead the nation in seizures of such labs. In Missouri, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and state and local law enforcement officers seized only two such labs in 1992, 14 in 1994, and a record 679 in 1998. This number jumped to 920 in 1999, setting a new record. The second section of this bill is the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, which reauthorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This section addresses the issue of drug abuse in our nation's youth which has dramatically increased this decade. It creates new programs to provide additional funding for youth-targeted treatment and early intervention services. Under this bill, states will receive more flexibility in the use of block grant funds and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have more flexibility to respond to the needs of young people who need mental health and substance abuse services. I am especially pleased that included in the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act is an expansion of the Charitable Choice provision, which will allow federally-funded substance abuse services to be open to faith-based providers. Under Charitable Choice, which was first enacted into law in 1996 as part of the welfare reform law, churches and other faith-based providers are able to compete on an equal footing with other non-governmental organizations in providing services to disadvantaged Americans. Since its enactment, Charitable Choice has been expanded from job training and related services for welfare clients to include the Community Services Block Grant program, which is used for a variety of anti-poverty activities, such as improving job and educational opportunities and providing financial management and emergency assistance. This latest expansion will apply Charitable Choice to federal drug treatment programs that will total $1.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. My home state of Missouri is slated to receive $24.46 million in substance abuse block grant funding for the coming fiscal year. Charitable Choice calls our nation to its highest and best in our effort to help those in need. It meets the tests of compassion and common sense that count for so much in Missouri. When people of faith extend compassionate help to those in need, the results can be stunningly successful. Where too many traditional substance abuse treatment programs have failed to help those in need, faith-based programs have succeeded. For example, Teen Challenge has show that 86% of its graduates remain drug-free. San Antonio's Victory Fellowship boasts of a success rate of over 80%. This is the test of common sense: America needs to create a vibrant partnership that succeeds where other approaches have failed. Mr. President, the bipartisan support for Charitable Choice is overwhelming in Congress. In additional, both Presidential candidates-- Governor Bush and Vice President Gore--strongly support the program. It is my hope that this broad national consensus will continue to grow and that soon will be able to enact a comprehensive expansion of Charitable Choice to all federally-funded social services programs. Third, the Children's Public Health Act has four overriding themes represented in its four titles: Injury Prevention, Maternal and Infant Health, Pediatric Health Promotion, and Pediatric Research. This legislation focuses federal research efforts in these areas and provides a comprehensive approach to children's health. For example, the bill includes authorization for research to prevent traumatic brain injuries, provides federal grants for comprehensive asthma services to children, and establishes a National Center for Birth Defects and Development Disabilities within the CDC. The bill also includes childhood obesity prevention programs, childhood lead prevention programs, and a groundbreaking pediatric research initiative within NIH to ensure the realization of expanding opportunities for advancement in scientific investigations and care for children. This legislation also includes support for pediatric graduate medical education in children's hospitals, an issue that has been a high priority of mine for years. I am hopeful, that with passage of this landmark legislation, we can improve the lives of America's children. By funding research for many childhood diseases and disabilities, expanding programs to assist youth with addiction and mental health problems through faith-based providers, and drastically increasing the war against meth, this bill is an important step in the right direction. I thank all those who worked on this legislation, and urge the President to sign this bill to help secure a safer and healthier future for the next generation.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, tomorrow will be a special day for the State of Missouri. Tomorrow, President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will hold a ceremony to officially rename the U.S. State Department Headquarters as The Harry S Truman Federal Building. I am pleased to have played a role in the renaming of the State Department in honor of one of Missouri's most famous sons--President Truman. Last spring, I introduced a bill, S. 2416, to designate the headquarters for the Department of State, as the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building''. The House's companion legislation, H.R. 3639, sponsored by Missouri Congressmen Ike Skelton and Roy Blunt, passed the Senate on June 8th and was signed by the President on June 20, 2000. Secretary of State Albright was supportive of this effort from the beginning, and I thank her. In addition, I would like to thank the Senators who cosponsored this bill, Senators Bond, Boxer, Byrd, DeWine, Hagel, Moynihan, Roberts, and Warner. Born in Lamar, Missouri, Harry S Truman was a farmer, a national guardsman, a World War I veteran, a local postmaster, a road overseer, and a small business owner before turning to politics. Through these traditional experiences, he gained the courage, honesty, and dedication to freedom required of a great leader. Joining the Senate in 1935, Truman fought against government waste and saved the U.S. Government $15 billion as Chairman of the Senate War Investigating committee. Ten years later, Harry S Truman became Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President. Four short months later, Truman assumed the presidency after Roosevelt's untimely death, and remarked to reporters: ``I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me.'' Although Truman might have felt unprepared, he rose to the challenge with typical Missourian resolve and changed the face of history. President Truman went on to become one of the most influential presidents of the modern era. His leadership and character, especially in the area of foreign policy, have earned him well-deserved praise and respect throughout the world. The life, character, and freedom-loving values of this great Missourian are honored by countless millions. Mr. President, naming the State Department Headquarters building after President Truman is a befitting tribute to his life and his legacy. This is truly a proud moment for the Truman family, the people of Missouri, and all Americans.