Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the time the Senate is taking this morning to pay tribute to Senator Bob Kerrey, and to recognize his contribution during our war in Vietnam, and the recognition that he received as a Medal of Honor winner as a result of his sacrifice and his heroic actions during that conflict. I am certainly not, in any way, sad that we didn't spend the time that we had earlier set aside for the Missile Defense Act. I am very glad the Senate acted as it did to make this very important statement about his service and his contribution during that period in our country's history. He has certainly earned the respect not only of the Senate for his service but of the American people as well. I am glad to join with those who pay tribute to him this morning.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for the weekly party conferences to meet between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 257, the missile defense bill, under the provisions of the unanimous consent agreement reached earlier today.

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Kerrey resolution be considered under a 1-hour time limitation, divided between Senators Hagel and Edwards, and that there be no amendments in order to the resolution or preamble.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 16. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved and the Senate then begin consideration of a resolution commending Senator Kerrey on the 30th anniversary of the events leading to his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. and begin 1 hour of debate on a resolution commending Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. Following that debate, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the missile defense bill with a Cochran amendment pending regarding clarification of funding. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour for debate on the amendment equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons, and immediately upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m. will proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Cochran amendment. Further rollcall votes are expected throughout tomorrow's session in relation to the missile defense bill in the hope of making progress on this important legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 38, H.R. 540.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 609, which was introduced earlier by Senator Murkowski, is at the desk. I ask that it be read the first time.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, the leader has asked that we announce that the next rollcall vote will occur in the Senate at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, March 16.

Mr. COCHRAN. Seeing no other Senators seeking recognition on the floor at this time, in behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the pending missile defense bill at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday and at that time there be 1 hour for debate on the pending Cochran amendment, with a vote to occur on or in relation to that amendment No. 69 at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday and that no other amendments be in order prior to that vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first let me thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for her remarks on the bill and other Senators who have spoken today on both sides of the aisle on this subject. I think we have a better understanding now of this issue. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be extended to John Rood and Gordon Behr, who are legislative fellows from the staff of Senator John Kyl.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is interesting to hear the comments of my good friend from Michigan. It reminds me, though, of someone who has heard what this bill is about but really hasn't read the fine print yet. That is one reason why when the bill was reported I was hopeful that we could start off by reading the bill. It is very short. Unlike the legislation that was debated last year in the Senate, this bill has really a very small operative section. It is so small and clear and concise that I could almost recite it. I am sure I would leave out something. But the operative words are that it will be the policy upon the passage of this legislation for the United States to deploy a missile defense system--an effective missile defense system--that would be capable of defending the United States against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as technologically possible, and that that attack would include missiles that were launched either intentionally, accidentally or unauthorized. That is the bill that we are debating here. The suggestion that we are insisting on the passage of this bill that the administration immediately deploy a system that may not be workable, that may not be operationally effective, ignores the clear wording of the legislation. It describes the missile defense system that we are directing be deployed as an effective ballistic missile system. So that is taken care of. The amendment that has been submitted, which I hope will be adopted by the Senate on a voice vote--it certainly is not controversial or it should not be controversial--says that the deployment would be subject to the authorization of appropriations and the appropriation of funds by the committees of jurisdiction of the Congress. Like any other defense system or new acquisition of weapons system by the Department of Defense, the deployment of a national missile defense system will be subject to the review of the committees with jurisdiction over that subject in the Congress, and bills to authorize the deployment and to fund the deployment will have to be passed and they will have to be signed by the President. The suggestion that the passage of this bill is the final step in the process misses the point completely. It is the first step in the process. We are trying to correct an outdated, outmoded, irrelevant policy of wait and see--wait and see if a threat to the security interests of the United States develops from ballistic missiles. We have waited, and we have seen. We have seen the testing of a multistage rocket by North Korea which they said was launched for the purpose of putting a satellite in orbit. Our analysts have been reported as saying that missile system used a solid fuel in its last stage. It would be capable of striking the territory of Hawaii and Alaska, and the last time I checked, they were part of the United States. At the present time, we have no defense against such a ballistic missile attack from a rocket like that or from a missile. The design or possible uses are virtually the same. We are also puzzled over the fact that the Senator seems to suggest in his statement that our relationship with Russia is going to be put at risk if we adopt this bill, the first step in a process to correct an outdated policy. This is our policy. This is our policy to defend the security interests of the United States and American citizens who might be at risk from a ballistic missile attack and weapons of mass destruction that could be delivered by long-range, speedier missiles. We have known for some time that our administration has been trying to negotiate a so-called demarcation agreement with Russia, distinguishing between theater missile defense capability and other kinds of missile defense capabilities. It has been an excruciating process to watch, and we basically have watched in the Congress as the administration has reached agreements or suggestions of agreements reduced to memoranda of understanding, not submitted to the Senate for ratification as amendments to the ABM Treaty, but changes, nonetheless, in the definition of what is permissible and possible for us to do as a matter of our own national security interests with respect to theater defensive missiles. It limits the speed at which our interceptors can be tested against targets. The point of this is, this administration has gone to great lengths to try to manage the relationship with Russia so as not to ruffle any feathers, not to upset Russia. Ask Mr. Primakov when he comes to the United States why hasn't his government, his government parliamentarians, ratified START II. This is an effort to reach an agreement and an arrangement with Russia to reduce and limit strategic arms, missiles systems and nuclear weapons capabilities. We ratified that agreement 3 years ago in the Senate. Russia has not kept its part of the bargain by ratifying that agreement. My point in saying this is that the relationship between the Russians and the United States is of great importance to us, to me, to this Senate. We cannot ignore the fact that Russia remains heavily armed with nuclear weapons and missile capabilities like no other country in the world, other than the United States. We do have concerns about that relationship. We should take care to try to reach understandings with the Russians on these matters, and I think we will continue to work closely with our administration officials as they negotiate, discuss and try to reach understandings about what are our intentions. We are not trying to upset the strategic balance between the United States and Russia on missile capability or nuclear weapons or the like. We are trying to change a policy about our relationship with other States that are developing weapons that are capable of threatening our security where we do not have a history of much success. North Korea is an example. There are other nation states that are now engaged in developing missile capabilities where their missiles can go much farther and much faster than they have in the past, and we have to take that into account. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not. We think this administration is behind the curve on the policy decisions with respect to ballistic missile defense, and it is putting the security interests of the United States at risk. That is what we are trying to correct. We are not trying to answer every question that can be raised or every issue involved in ballistic missile defense in this one bill. It just cannot be done. But that is the test that my good friend is trying to measure this bill against. Does it answer every question? Does it answer the question of whether or not a system will be adequately tested? No. But before the Congress will authorize the deployment of a system, it is bound to insist that there be some indication that it is workable, that it is effective. That is why we use the phrase ``effective ballistic missile defense system'' in this bill. We also want to make sure it is ``technologically feasible or possible'' for us to field a system. And that is why we use that phrase in this bill. What we are hoping to accomplish is to make this administration recognize that there is a legitimate concern. The threat exists today to the security interests because of developments we have seen over the last several years. Senators will remember that our subcommittee had 2 years of hearings analyzing the problems of proliferation of missile technology, other technologies, computer technology, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the easy access that some countries have to information here in the United States, over the Internet, at universities, at laboratories--we have heard a lot about that recently--at laboratories here in the United States. You can get information from those sources, and you can use them then if you are a country that needs to upgrade its missile capability or nuclear weapons capability. There are suggestions that that has been happening. Are we to just close our eyes to that? Are we to ignore that and say, ``Well, let's wait and see what happens''? We have been waiting, and we have seen what has happened in North Korea, in Iran, in China, in other countries as well. All of these facts now convince us, the authors and the sponsors of this legislation, that it is time to change our policy. That is what the passage of this bill will do. It will put an end to the outdated wait- and-see policy of the Clinton administration on this issue, and it will say that as a matter of national policy we will deploy an effective ballistic missile defense system as soon as technologically possible to defend our country against limited ballistic missile attack--whether unintentional, unauthorized, or deliberate. I suggest we keep in mind that we dedicated that proliferation report from our 2 years of hearings to the 28 U.S. servicemen who were killed in the gulf war with a Scud missile. That was several years ago. We have 8 years of experience to build on from that event. But that got the attention of the American people and the families of those soldiers who were killed that the United States is vulnerable and its service men and women and its citizens and its embassies all around the world are very vulnerable to missile attack and other attacks by weapons of mass destruction. This bill does not solve all those problems but it states as a matter of national policy that we are not going to sit back and wait and see any longer. We are going to move, and as quickly as technologically possible, we are going to deploy a national missile defense system. I am convinced that that is the right policy. We are not going to disregard our obligations to work toward improving relationships with Russia or China or other countries. That is a part of our responsibility, too. But neither are we going to sacrifice the security of our citizens to those relationships. We are, first of all, going to protect the security interests of this country. That is the highest priority we have as Members of this body. We have every reason to believe that there are clear and present dangers to the security of American citizens and our country. This is a step, a first step, toward changing that policy and doing what has to be done to fully protect our security interests. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I, likewise, ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, that Bill Adkins, a legislative fellow on his staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 257.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I will state for the Record that the cosponsors of the amendment are Senators Warner, Lieberman, and Inouye. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, to make it crystal clear that this legislation is a statement of policy and not an effort to circumvent legislative and appropriations committees of jurisdiction, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 will make it the policy of the United States to deploy an effective missile defense system to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack as soon as technologically possible. Today, American citizens are completely vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. Last year, when the Senate debated similar legislation, some suggested that our bill was premature, that there was not yet any reason to suspect that we were confronted with a ballistic missile threat. Now, however, there is no disagreement about the nature of the threat. Consider these recent developments: (1) In 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence said, ``Gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of when `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBMs.'' (2) Last year, both Pakistan and Iran successfully tested new medium- range missiles, each based in some degree on a newly deployed North Korean missile, the No Dong. (3) Also last year, in July, the bipartisan commission headed by the former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reported its unanimous conclusions that foreign assistance to missile programs was a pervasive fact and that new ICBM threats to the United States might appear with ``little or no warning.'' (4) A few weeks after the Rumsfeld report, North Korea launched the Taepo Dong 1, successfully demonstrating a multiple-staging capability, and using a solid-fuel third stage. According to the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Systems, instead of having the expected 2,000-kilometer range, the Taepo Dong 1 can attack targets up to 6,000 kilometers away, which puts Alaska and Hawaii within its range. The Taepo Dong 2 is expected to be able to reach the entire United States. (5) The Secretary of Defense announced in January that the ballistic missile threat to the United States was no longer in question. He said, ``We have crossed that threshold.'' These recent events have answered the question about the threat. The question today is whether we intend to defend ourselves against that threat. The National Missile Defense Act is the appropriate answer to that question. It will send a clear message--to our adversaries, our allies, and our own citizens--that the United States will not leave itself vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction delivered by long- range ballistic missiles. Some may suggest instead a continuation of our old policy of mutual assured destruction. That was the policy of deterrence we used to deal with the threat from the former Soviet Union. Former Defense Secretary William Perry warned us about using this policy with a new class of rogue states that may be ``undeterrable'' in the sense that we understand that concept. The fact is, we do not need to be at the mercy of a policy of mutual assured death or destruction. Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward Warner said in January, I believe that we are unlikely to turn back to the point where we will rely only on deterrence. I think over time we will rely on a combination of deterrence by threat of retaliation and this limited type of national missile defense. . . . The passage of this bill by the Senate will also send an important message to those who are working to develop our missile defenses. The development program has suffered from the lack of a commitment to deploy the system. No other acquisition program has been handled by the Defense Department without an endpoint of deployment to aim for and reach. The National Missile Defense Act will put an end to this uncertainty by telling the talented people building this system that it will be put in the field just as soon as they can get it ready. The NMD contractor's program manager testified in the Armed Services Committee last month that passage of this legislation would be a major motivation for those building the system, saying, ``It would make them feel better about the mission they are being asked to carry out than any one thing I can think of [and that] people are much more motivated by knowing that the Government is truly behind this. . . .'' Finally, passage of this bill will tell America's citizens that its Government is meeting its first and most important constitutional duty--providing for the common defense. One legacy of the cold war may be the absence of a defense against a massive and deliberate strategic attack from the former Soviet Union. But vulnerability to attack by everyone who desires to threaten America does not have to continue, and our Government would be irresponsible if it were to let it continue. Madam President, there is no purpose in this bill other than to clearly establish, as a matter of policy, that the United States will deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system which is capable against limited threats. There are no ulterior motives, no hidden goals; there is only an intent to correct a defense policy that leaves us vulnerable to a serious and growing threat. On the subject of missile defense, there are other things the Senate could legislate, such as system architecture, schedule, costs, or ABM Treaty issues. These issues will have to be dealt with in due course. But none of them has to be resolved in this bill, and we should not let this legislation become an effort to answer all of the questions related to missile defense. The question this bill addresses is not a simplistic one, as suggested by an administration spokesman; it is more fundamental: Will we, or will we not, commit in a meaningful way to defending ourselves against limited ballistic missile attack? Will we tell the world the United States will not be subject to blackmail by ballistic missile? Will we tell our citizens they will not be hostages to the demands of those nations who seek to coerce the United States? We have heard many statements made to reassure us about the willingness of the United States to defend itself, but there is always an ``if'' attached--``if'' the threat appears, ``if'' we can afford it, ``if'' other nations give us their permission. With all of these ``ifs,'' these qualifiers, we should hardly be surprised that the world doubts the United States is serious about defending itself from ballistic missile attack. And no one should be surprised that, in the face of this doubt, the threat continues to grow. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 will put an end to those doubts. It will tell the world that there is no question of ``if,'' and as soon as it is able, the United States will deploy a system to defend itself against limited ballistic missile attack. I urge all Senators to support this bill. Amendment No. 69 (Purpose: To clarify that the deployment funding is subject to the annual authorization and appropriation process)

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Foreign Language Assistance Program which is administered under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Foreign Language Education Improvement Amendments of 1999 make changes that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to students in elementary and secondary schools with limited resources--in particular, those schools heavily impacted by the unique problems of educating a high population of disadvantaged students. My bill also provides schools an incentive to initiate foreign language programs, promotes technology, distance learning, and other innovative activities in the effective instruction of a foreign language. Recent research about the human brain and language acquisition, which we've heard a lot about in connection to the teaching of reading and early childhood development, revealed that the ability to learn new languages is highest between birth and age six. ``Windows of opportunity'' is how a February 3, 1997, Time article described this neurological function, which effectively is open and pliable during the early years of life and closes by the age of ten. We all know, from personal and other practical experience, that of course, people learn foreign languages beyond the age of ten. But, the enlightening fact of the research is that humans learn languages easier, and best at an early age. The National School Boards Association publication, School Board News, printed an article in July, 1997 that describes early foreign language programs, and the benefits of learning languages early: According to the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in Washington, D.C., the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students, including gains in academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity, increased flexibility in thinking, greater sensitivity to language, and a better ear for listening and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's understanding of their native language, increase creativity, helps students get better SAT scores, and increase their job opportunities. The evidence shows that children who learn foreign languages score higher in all academic subjects than those who speak only English. Most developed countries recognize this and, according to the National Foreign Language Center, the United States is alone in not teaching foreign languages routinely before the age of twelve. Congress recognized the need for foreign language study when it passed Goals 2000 in 1994, making foreign language acquisition an education priority. In February of this year, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching in preschool through 12th grade in the United States. The results show a rising awareness and increase in the teaching of foreign languages, but in the 31 percent of elementary schools that offer foreign language instruction, only 21 percent have proficiency as the goal of the program. Among the most frequently cited problems facing foreign language programs were inadequate funding, inadequate in-service teacher training, teacher shortages and a lack of sequencing from elementary to secondary school. This survey is a good snapshot of the state of the teaching of foreign languages K-12 in our country. It can be read as encouraging: that we know we should be teaching languages earlier; that more schools are attempting to teach foreign languages; and that more languages are being taught. It also clearly shows where we need improvement: that we need to show accomplishment in teaching our students foreign languages; that more schools need to have the resources to offer the necessary course work for attaining this skill; and, that foreign languages should be a priority. The advantages of having foreign language ability range from greater opportunities for college admission to fulfilling national security needs. The National Council for Languages and International Studies found that the top attainable skill cited as a determining factor for likely college admission is foreign language proficiency. There are also social and cultural tolerance advantages that the National Council for Languages and International Studies and others cite, which most of us can appreciate. According to a February 1998, USA Today survey, top executives of America's businesses cited a need for and lack of foreign language skills twice as great as any other skill in demand. The National Foreign Language Center published a 1999 report titled, Language and National Security for the 21st Century: The Federal Role in Supporting National Language Capacity. This report is very compelling in its review of the need for military and civilian personnel with foreign language capability, and the lack thereof in our current and rising workforces. Here are some quotes from that report: For example, the admission of a DEA official in September, 1997 that the agency lacks sufficient Russian language expertise to combat organized crime in groups from the former Soviet Union indicates a shortfall in supply of such expertise. * * * * * The Foreign Service reports that only 60% of its billets requiring language are at present filled, with waivers applied to the other 35%. * * * * * Clearly, the academic system falls short in producing speakers minimally qualified to hold jobs requiring the use of foreign language, which is why the federal language programs exist and why the language training business in the private sector is so successful. The same report further explains that the language training business is estimated to be $20 billion internationally. That is money spent by our government, our businesses and individuals to teach adults a skill essential in the global relationships of industry, diplomacy, defense, and higher education. The evidence of need is great, and yet there is a lack of sufficient foreign language training at the K-12 level. We have one program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act aimed at providing incentives and giving grants to schools for this purpose. It is a program that is currently funded at just $5 million for a few matching grants in a handful of states. However, the section of this law providing a grant for schools that offer foreign language instruction programs has never been funded. A frustrating aspect of this good program is that the schools in the most need of the assistance can't afford the ante. My amendments establish a 50 percent set aside for schools serving the most disadvantaged students, and eliminates the matching share requirement for those schools. This bill also increases the annual authorization for the program from $55,000,000 to $75,000,000. I hope that we will give greater attention to this program when we make funding decisions, so that schools without the advantages of plentiful resources can provide their students with a high quality and competitive education. My amendments to the ESEA Foreign Language Assistance Program will provide new opportunities and encouragement to our school children, teachers, and parents, so we can better meet our global business challenges and national security needs.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Foreign Language Assistance Program which is administered under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Foreign Language Education Improvement Amendments of 1999 make changes that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to students in elementary and secondary schools with limited resources--in particular, those schools heavily impacted by the unique problems of educating a high population of disadvantaged students. My bill also provides schools an incentive to initiate foreign language programs, promotes technology, distance learning, and other innovative activities in the effective instruction of a foreign language. Recent research about the human brain and language acquisition, which we've heard a lot about in connection to the teaching of reading and early childhood development, revealed that the ability to learn new languages is highest between birth and age six. ``Windows of opportunity'' is how a February 3, 1997, Time article described this neurological function, which effectively is open and pliable during the early years of life and closes by the age of ten. We all know, from personal and other practical experience, that of course, people learn foreign languages beyond the age of ten. But, the enlightening fact of the research is that humans learn languages easier, and best at an early age. The National School Boards Association publication, School Board News, printed an article in July, 1997 that describes early foreign language programs, and the benefits of learning languages early: According to the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in Washington, D.C., the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students, including gains in academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity, increased flexibility in thinking, greater sensitivity to language, and a better ear for listening and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's understanding of their native language, increase creativity, helps students get better SAT scores, and increase their job opportunities. The evidence shows that children who learn foreign languages score higher in all academic subjects than those who speak only English. Most developed countries recognize this and, according to the National Foreign Language Center, the United States is alone in not teaching foreign languages routinely before the age of twelve. Congress recognized the need for foreign language study when it passed Goals 2000 in 1994, making foreign language acquisition an education priority. In February of this year, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching in preschool through 12th grade in the United States. The results show a rising awareness and increase in the teaching of foreign languages, but in the 31 percent of elementary schools that offer foreign language instruction, only 21 percent have proficiency as the goal of the program. Among the most frequently cited problems facing foreign language programs were inadequate funding, inadequate in-service teacher training, teacher shortages and a lack of sequencing from elementary to secondary school. This survey is a good snapshot of the state of the teaching of foreign languages K-12 in our country. It can be read as encouraging: that we know we should be teaching languages earlier; that more schools are attempting to teach foreign languages; and that more languages are being taught. It also clearly shows where we need improvement: that we need to show accomplishment in teaching our students foreign languages; that more schools need to have the resources to offer the necessary course work for attaining this skill; and, that foreign languages should be a priority. The advantages of having foreign language ability range from greater opportunities for college admission to fulfilling national security needs. The National Council for Languages and International Studies found that the top attainable skill cited as a determining factor for likely college admission is foreign language proficiency. There are also social and cultural tolerance advantages that the National Council for Languages and International Studies and others cite, which most of us can appreciate. According to a February 1998, USA Today survey, top executives of America's businesses cited a need for and lack of foreign language skills twice as great as any other skill in demand. The National Foreign Language Center published a 1999 report titled, Language and National Security for the 21st Century: The Federal Role in Supporting National Language Capacity. This report is very compelling in its review of the need for military and civilian personnel with foreign language capability, and the lack thereof in our current and rising workforces. Here are some quotes from that report: For example, the admission of a DEA official in September, 1997 that the agency lacks sufficient Russian language expertise to combat organized crime in groups from the former Soviet Union indicates a shortfall in supply of such expertise. * * * * * The Foreign Service reports that only 60% of its billets requiring language are at present filled, with waivers applied to the other 35%. * * * * * Clearly, the academic system falls short in producing speakers minimally qualified to hold jobs requiring the use of foreign language, which is why the federal language programs exist and why the language training business in the private sector is so successful. The same report further explains that the language training business is estimated to be $20 billion internationally. That is money spent by our government, our businesses and individuals to teach adults a skill essential in the global relationships of industry, diplomacy, defense, and higher education. The evidence of need is great, and yet there is a lack of sufficient foreign language training at the K-12 level. We have one program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act aimed at providing incentives and giving grants to schools for this purpose. It is a program that is currently funded at just $5 million for a few matching grants in a handful of states. However, the section of this law providing a grant for schools that offer foreign language instruction programs has never been funded. A frustrating aspect of this good program is that the schools in the most need of the assistance can't afford the ante. My amendments establish a 50 percent set aside for schools serving the most disadvantaged students, and eliminates the matching share requirement for those schools. This bill also increases the annual authorization for the program from $55,000,000 to $75,000,000. I hope that we will give greater attention to this program when we make funding decisions, so that schools without the advantages of plentiful resources can provide their students with a high quality and competitive education. My amendments to the ESEA Foreign Language Assistance Program will provide new opportunities and encouragement to our school children, teachers, and parents, so we can better meet our global business challenges and national security needs.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished majority leader for calling up the national missile defense bill and also compliment the Democratic leader for refraining from objecting to proceeding to consider this bill at this time. Senators may remember that this is the bill that was brought up on two occasions during the last session of the Senate and objections were made to considering the bill, a motion to proceed to consider the bill was filed, and then it was necessary to file a cloture motion to shut off debate to get to the bill. On both of those occasions we fell one vote short of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill. So this Senate has agreed to take up this legislation without objection. This is progress, and we are very proud to see this momentum to address this issue that is so important for the national security interests of the United States. For the information of Senators, the operative part of this legislation is simply a statement of policy as follows: It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate). I look forward to discussing questions that Senators might pose about this bill when we reconvene on Monday. The Armed Services Committee has considered it and reported it out without amendment, and we are ready to proceed to consider the bill. We look forward to discussing this important issue.