Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I congratulate Tunisia on the occasion of her 45th year of independence. Tunisia is a constitutional democracy striving to create a more open political society, diversify its economy, attract foreign investment, and improve its diplomatic ties with both the European Union and United States. I am pleased to be a member of the Hannibal Club USA whose mission is to improve the political and economic ties between the United States and Tunisia. I am hopeful that a mutually beneficial relationship between our two countries will continue to grow in the years ahead.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the principal sponsors of this bill, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for their leadership and for their perseverance. This day has been a long time coming, but the time has finally come for campaign finance reform. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill as it was reintroduced at the beginning of this Congress in January. I am convinced it is time for the Senate to take action to reform the way Federal election campaigns are financed which are, in effect, overwhelmingly dominated by the huge amounts of unregulated and undisclosed money being spent by organizations, unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence the outcome of Federal election campaigns. It is time to ensure that those who do try to influence the outcome of Federal elections will have to report their expenditures so the general public will know who is trying to influence the outcome of political campaigns and how they are spending their money to do so. I also commend the Senate leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, for scheduling the debate on this bill so the Senate has an opportunity to work its will. Amendments can be offered by any Senator, with ample time for debate and consideration of any suggestions for changing or improving this legislation. This bill, S. 27, in my view, strikes the right balance that we are trying to accomplish. I may support some of the amendments that are offered. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful that I will be able to offer an amendment of my own to strengthen the disclosure requirements. I think it will improve the bill as it now stands. I think the public has a right to know clearly who is spending the money that affects the outcome of Federal elections and how they are spending it. We all see the ads. We are overwhelmed by the total number of television ads and other mailings that are sent out during a political campaign these days in House races, in Senate races, and even the Presidential election this past year. Voters have to be confused. Who is running the ads? It says ``The Good Government Committee,'' but who is that? Or it says something else that sounds really good, as though they are on the side of right and justice and right thinking. So they put the ad up that suggests or insinuates that one or the other of the candidates isn't on the right track, either on one subject or just generally speaking, it isn't good for the State or the district or the country, or suggests that there may be something in the background of the candidate that is suspicious, that needs to be looked at very carefully. The insinuation, the misleading tone, the negative aspect of political campaigns is fueled by the huge amounts, the juggernaut, an almost imperceptible amount of influence being brought to bear on these campaigns by who knows what source, who knows who is behind the spending. I am hopeful we will work hard to get a bill reported out and passed by the Senate. We have a wonderful opportunity to do so. The time to act is now. Some of the raising and spending of the money, I am prepared to suggest, looks more like money laundering operations than aboveboard political campaigns that would reflect credit on the political system of our country. That needs to be changed. This is the vehicle to change it. I am hopeful the Senate will work its will and pass this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 5 minutes would be ample.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act of 2001. It is a bill which makes changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to students in elementary and secondary schools, 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. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students: academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity; flexibility in thinking; sensitivity to language; and a better ear for listening and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's understanding of their native language, increases creativity, helps students get better SAT scores, and increases 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. In 1999, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching in preschool through twelfth 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 offered foreign language instruction, only 21 percent had 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 picture hasn't changed dramatically in the last two years. Last year, I chaired hearings of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services which examined the relationship between foreign language preparedness and national security. These are some of the things we learned about foreign language learning at those hearings: The most attainable skill students can acquire for likely college admission is foreign language proficiency; The best predictor of foreign language proficiency in college is previous foreign language training, even if in another language; There are not enough foreign language teachers. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia schools have an agreement with the Education Ministry in Spain, which provided at least five Spanish language teachers last year. In Mississippi, it is not unusual to be taught French or German by distance learning, using live video transmission in classrooms around the state. The earlier one begins to learn any language, the quicker he or she will become proficient and sound like a native speaker. And, as to how foreign language acquisition relates to national security, it was clear from the testimony of representatives from the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and the State Department, that: There is a continuing need for highly proficient speakers of many languages for surveillance, reconnaissance, negotiations and other defense and intelligence gathering activities; The federal government spends up to $70,000 to train one person in a language as common as Spanish; Recruiting for language specialists includes attracting current teachers; Language learning, especially in sensitive government positions, best includes experience in the mother tongue country. This enhances cultural understanding, colloquialisms and other language usage that cannot be approximated in a classroom. Another fact is that America's businesses need foreign language speakers. According to a USA TODAY survey, top executives cited 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. It 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. I am happy that we've been successful in raising the funding for this program from $5 million in 1998 to $14 million in FY 2001. However, the section of this law providing grants to schools that already 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. The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act 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 The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act of 2001. It is a bill which makes changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that encourage and make possible the teaching of a second language to students in elementary and secondary schools, 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. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., the early study of a second language offers many benefits for students: academic achievement, positive attitudes toward diversity; flexibility in thinking; sensitivity to language; and a better ear for listening and pronunciation. Foreign language study also improves children's understanding of their native language, increases creativity, helps students get better SAT scores, and increases 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. In 1999, the Center for Applied Linguistics released the results of a U.S. Department of Education funded survey of foreign language teaching in preschool through twelfth 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 offered foreign language instruction, only 21 percent had 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 picture hasn't changed dramatically in the last two years. Last year, I chaired hearings of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services which examined the relationship between foreign language preparedness and national security. These are some of the things we learned about foreign language learning at those hearings: The most attainable skill students can acquire for likely college admission is foreign language proficiency; The best predictor of foreign language proficiency in college is previous foreign language training, even if in another language; There are not enough foreign language teachers. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia schools have an agreement with the Education Ministry in Spain, which provided at least five Spanish language teachers last year. In Mississippi, it is not unusual to be taught French or German by distance learning, using live video transmission in classrooms around the state. The earlier one begins to learn any language, the quicker he or she will become proficient and sound like a native speaker. And, as to how foreign language acquisition relates to national security, it was clear from the testimony of representatives from the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and the State Department, that: There is a continuing need for highly proficient speakers of many languages for surveillance, reconnaissance, negotiations and other defense and intelligence gathering activities; The federal government spends up to $70,000 to train one person in a language as common as Spanish; Recruiting for language specialists includes attracting current teachers; Language learning, especially in sensitive government positions, best includes experience in the mother tongue country. This enhances cultural understanding, colloquialisms and other language usage that cannot be approximated in a classroom. Another fact is that America's businesses need foreign language speakers. According to a USA TODAY survey, top executives cited 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. It 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. I am happy that we've been successful in raising the funding for this program from $5 million in 1998 to $14 million in FY 2001. However, the section of this law providing grants to schools that already 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. The Foreign Language Acquisition and Proficiency Improvement Act 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, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate resolution to designate March 2001, and March 2002, as ``Arts Education Month.'' Last year, the Senate approved a similar resolution, marking for the first time, Congressional recognition of the annual celebration of music, art, dance and theatre programs in American schools. There is growing awareness that arts education can help ensure America's arts traditions and lead to higher I.Q.'s, better SAT scores, better math and language skills, less juvenile delinquency, and improve chances of higher education and as well as increased job opportunities. According to a study by the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, students involved in the arts outscored students who were not exposed to arts on standardized tests. Among 10th graders, for example, 47.5 percent of low-arts-involved students scored in the top half of standardized tests while 65.7 percent of high-arts-involved students scored above the test median. The study also found that students who consistently act in plays and musicals, join drama clubs or taking acting lessons showed gains in reading proficiency, self-concept and motivation. By the 12th grade, those consistently involved with instrumental music scored significantly higher on math tests. The findings held true for students regardless of parents' income, occupation or level of education, researchers said. I hope that by designating March as Arts Education Month, more schools and communities will engage in activities that showcase, celebrate, reward and provide new arts experiences for students of all ages. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring Arts Education Month.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Education for Democracy Act. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, has joined me as a cosponsor to reauthorize and improve existing federally supported civic education programs. ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution,'' has proven to be a successful program for teaching the principles of the Constitution. Since 1985, the Center for Civic Education has administered the program. It is a rigorous course designed for high school civics classes that provides teacher training using a national network of professionals as well as community and business leaders. The most visible component of We the People, is the simulated Congressional hearings which are competitions at local, state and national levels. The final round of this annual competition is held in an actual United States Senate or House of Representatives hearing room, here in the Nation's Capital. I am proud that Ocean Springs High School will be representing Mississippi at this year's competition in April. The 32nd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of 2000 indicated that preparing students to become responsible citizens was one of the most important purposes of public schools. The popularity of We the People is demonstrated by the 82,000 teachers and the 26.5 million students who have participated since its beginning. Studies by the Education Testing Service have repeatedly indicated that We the People participants outperform other students in every area tested. In one, We the People high school students outscored university sophomore and junior political science students in every topic. A Stanford University study showed that these students develop a stronger attachment to political beliefs, attitudes and values essential to a functioning democracy than most adults and other students. Other studies reveal that We the People students are more likely to register to vote and more likely to assume roles of leadership, responsibility and demonstrate civic virtue. In addition to We the People, this bill reauthorizes the Civitas International Civic Education Exchange Program, which links American civic educators with counterparts in Eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. This program is highly effective in building a community with a common understanding of teaching and improving the state of democracy education, worldwide. Last year, Mississippi became the latest state to participate in this important international exchange program. Ms. Susie Burroughs, Mississippi's Civic Education program director, joined the exchange program to Hungary and helped train Hungarian teachers in lessons of democracy. Under Ms. Burroughs direction, more Mississippi teachers than ever began participation in the We the People program. We the People and Civitas are preparing America's students and teachers to live and lead in the world by the standards and ideals set by our Founding Fathers. I invite other Senators to cosponsor and support the Education for Democracy Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Education for Democracy Act. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, has joined me as a cosponsor to reauthorize and improve existing federally supported civic education programs. ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution,'' has proven to be a successful program for teaching the principles of the Constitution. Since 1985, the Center for Civic Education has administered the program. It is a rigorous course designed for high school civics classes that provides teacher training using a national network of professionals as well as community and business leaders. The most visible component of We the People, is the simulated Congressional hearings which are competitions at local, state and national levels. The final round of this annual competition is held in an actual United States Senate or House of Representatives hearing room, here in the Nation's Capital. I am proud that Ocean Springs High School will be representing Mississippi at this year's competition in April. The 32nd Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of 2000 indicated that preparing students to become responsible citizens was one of the most important purposes of public schools. The popularity of We the People is demonstrated by the 82,000 teachers and the 26.5 million students who have participated since its beginning. Studies by the Education Testing Service have repeatedly indicated that We the People participants outperform other students in every area tested. In one, We the People high school students outscored university sophomore and junior political science students in every topic. A Stanford University study showed that these students develop a stronger attachment to political beliefs, attitudes and values essential to a functioning democracy than most adults and other students. Other studies reveal that We the People students are more likely to register to vote and more likely to assume roles of leadership, responsibility and demonstrate civic virtue. In addition to We the People, this bill reauthorizes the Civitas International Civic Education Exchange Program, which links American civic educators with counterparts in Eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. This program is highly effective in building a community with a common understanding of teaching and improving the state of democracy education, worldwide. Last year, Mississippi became the latest state to participate in this important international exchange program. Ms. Susie Burroughs, Mississippi's Civic Education program director, joined the exchange program to Hungary and helped train Hungarian teachers in lessons of democracy. Under Ms. Burroughs direction, more Mississippi teachers than ever began participation in the We the People program. We the People and Civitas are preparing America's students and teachers to live and lead in the world by the standards and ideals set by our Founding Fathers. I invite other Senators to cosponsor and support the Education for Democracy Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr President, today, I am introducing legislation reauthorizing the National Writing Project, the only Federal program to improve the teaching of writing in America's classrooms. Literacy is at the foundation of school and workplace success, of citizenship in a democracy, and of learning in all disciplines. The National Writing Project has been instrumental in helping teachers develop better teaching skills so they can help our children improve their ability to read, write, and think. The National Writing Project is a twenty-seven-year old national network of university-based teacher training programs designed to improve the teaching of writing and student achievement in writing and has had federal support since 1991. Successful writing teachers attend Invitational Summer Institutes at their local universities. During the school year these teachers provide workshops for other teachers in the schools. At 167 sites in 49 states, the National Writing Project trains over 100,000 teachers every year. The program has become a national model for other disciplines and is now recognized by the Department of Education as an important part of national education policy. The program also generates an average of $6.32 in private, state, and local funds for every federal dollar appropriated. The National Writing Project is making teachers better at their jobs. I introduced the National Writing Project Act for the first time in 1990. Since then, I have worked with other Senators to ensure that it has remained a program that supports states and local schools in their efforts to have better teachers. Last Congress when I introduced this bill, it was cosponsored by 52 Senators. I hope it will receive even greater support in the 107th Congress. I invite other Senators to join me in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr President, today, I am introducing legislation reauthorizing the National Writing Project, the only Federal program to improve the teaching of writing in America's classrooms. Literacy is at the foundation of school and workplace success, of citizenship in a democracy, and of learning in all disciplines. The National Writing Project has been instrumental in helping teachers develop better teaching skills so they can help our children improve their ability to read, write, and think. The National Writing Project is a twenty-seven-year old national network of university-based teacher training programs designed to improve the teaching of writing and student achievement in writing and has had federal support since 1991. Successful writing teachers attend Invitational Summer Institutes at their local universities. During the school year these teachers provide workshops for other teachers in the schools. At 167 sites in 49 states, the National Writing Project trains over 100,000 teachers every year. The program has become a national model for other disciplines and is now recognized by the Department of Education as an important part of national education policy. The program also generates an average of $6.32 in private, state, and local funds for every federal dollar appropriated. The National Writing Project is making teachers better at their jobs. I introduced the National Writing Project Act for the first time in 1990. Since then, I have worked with other Senators to ensure that it has remained a program that supports states and local schools in their efforts to have better teachers. Last Congress when I introduced this bill, it was cosponsored by 52 Senators. I hope it will receive even greater support in the 107th Congress. I invite other Senators to join me in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I take this time to respond to those who are suggesting we put off, or even cancel, the deployment of a national missile defense system. One reason the critics of the program are giving for delay is the alleged opposition of our allies, particularly those in Europe. Earlier this month at the Munich Conference on International Security, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a forceful case for deployment of a defense against strategic ballistic missiles. He explained the rationale for our missile defense program, and he also made it clear that this administration intends to deploy such a system as soon as possible. He told those attending the conference that deploying a missile defense system was a moral issue because ``no U.S. President can responsibly say his defense policy is calculated and designed to leave the American people undefended against threats that are known to exist.'' Former Secretary of State Kissinger, who negotiated the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, also spoke at the conference. He said a U.S. President cannot allow a situation in which ``extinction of civilized life is one's only strategy.'' The response from our European allies was very encouraging. For months, critics have been saying that our allies firmly oppose our plans to deploy missile defenses and would never go along with them. But the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, said: Now the Europeans have to accept that the Americans really intend to go ahead. . . . Now that the question of ``whether'' it's going to happen has been settled, I want an engagement inside NATO between the Americans and other allies about the ``how'' and the ``when.'' With respect to the threat, Secretary General Robertson said: The interesting point is that there is now a recognition by leaders--American, European, and even Russian--that there is a new threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles that has got to be dealt with. The Americans have said how they're going to deal with it. The Europeans are being offered a chance to share in that. Robertson also added: The concept of mutually assured destruction is obsolete. The old equation no longer works out: Russia and the United States in a balance of terror. Now there are groups and States acquiring missile technology and warheads with great facility. We are living in a dangerous new world. Germany's views are also changing. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, addressing fellow Social Democratic Party members, said recently, ``We should be under no illusions that that there will be no difference of opinion with the new American leadership under President George W. Bush. First and foremost, it won't be about the planned National Missile Defense program but about trade policy issues. Differences over NMD are not the decisive factor in the German-American relationship.'' German Foreign Minister Fischer said that NMD ``above all is a national decision for the United States.'' In Moscow this week, he said, ``in the end, the Russians are going to accept it somehow.'' Here in Washington last week, Britain's Foreign Secretary said, ``On the question of what happens if national missile defense proceeds; if it means the U.S., feels more secure and therefore feels more able to assert itself in international areas of concern to us, we would regard that as a net gain in security.'' And the Prime Minister of Canada, who just a few months ago had joined Russian President Putin in calling for preservation of the ABM Treaty, said last week after consulting with President Bush, ``Perhaps we are in a different era.'' The Australian Foreign Minister noted last week that until now, A lot of the debate has been directed at the United States. I frankly think an awful lot of the debate should instead be directed not only toward those countries that have got or are developing these missile systems but the countries that have been transferring that missile technology to others. . . . If there were no missiles, there would be no need for a missile defense system. Dr. Javier Solana of Spain, former Secretary-General of NATO and now the director of foreign policy for the European Union, said ``The United States has the right to deploy'' an NMD system. Of the ABM Treaty, the so-called ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' Dr. Solana said, ``It is not the Bible.'' The words we now hear from our European and other important allies are signaling changed attitudes. I think they have been influenced by the Bush administration's willingness to confront the NMD issue squarely, to consult fully with our allies, and to make clear a determination to protect this nation and its allies from long-range ballistic missile attack. The best ally is a strong one, and the actions of the Bush administration are an overdue reassurance that the United States will indeed be a strong alliance partner. Of course, not every nation welcomes our NMD plans. France still has not embraced the concept, and Russia and China continue their opposition. But this shouldn't change our plans to deploy missile defenses. Our action threatens no nation, although it will create an obstacle for those who would threaten the U.S. Those who mean us no harm have nothing to fear from this purely defensive system; those who do mean us harm will learn that the United States will no longer commit itself to continuing vulnerability. Another reason for proceeding as soon as possible to deploy missile defenses to protect the United States was highlighted last week in testimony presented to the Senate by the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. He said, ``we cannot underestimate the catalytic role that foreign assistance has played in advancing . . . missile and WMD programs, shortening the development times, and aiding production.'' He noted that it is increasingly difficult to predict those timelines, saying ``The missile and WMD proliferation problem continues to change in ways that make it harder to monitor and control, increasing the risks of substantial surprise.'' Director Tenet went on to say, ``It is that foreign assistance piece that you have to have that very precise intelligence to understand, and sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't.'' Because of the difficulty monitoring foreign assistance, Director Tenet added that ``these time lines all become illusory.'' He also noted that it is a mistake to think of nations who aspire to obtain missiles as technologically unsophisticated: ``We are not talking about unsophisticated countries. When you talk about Iraq and Iran, people need to understand these are countries with sophisticated capabilities, sophisticated technology, digital communications.'' And the danger does not stop when one of these nations acquires the technology that is now so freely available. Mr. Tenet warned about what he termed ``secondary proliferation'': There is also great potential for secondary proliferation, for maturing state-sponsored programs such as those in Pakistan, Iran and India. Add to this group the private companies, scientists and engineers in Russia, China and India who may be increasing their involvement in these activities taking advantage of weak or unenforceable national export controls and the growing availability of technologies. These trends have continued, and in some cases have accelerated over the past year. The Director of Central Intelligence added, ``So you know, the kind of technology flows that we see from big states to smaller states and then the inclination of those people who do the secondary proliferation I think is what's most worrisome to me.'' Some who oppose missile defense deployment point to diplomatic initiatives and political change as evidence that the threat is diminishing. For example, they point to recent efforts by North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il to present a more open face to the world. But according to the Director of Central Intelligence, little has actually changed with respect to North Korea's proliferation activities. For example, he testified, Pyongyang's bold diplomatic outreach to the international community and engagement with South Korea reflect a significant change in strategy. The strategy is designed to assure the continued survival of Kim Jong Il by ending Pyongyang's political isolation and fixing the North's failing economy by attracting more aid. We do not know how far Kim will go in opening the North, but I can report to you that we have not yet seen a significant diminution of the threat from North to American and South Korean interests. Pyongyang still believes that a strong military, capable of projecting power in the region, is an essential element of national power. Pyongyang's declared military-first policy requires massive investment in the armed forces, even at the expense of other national objectives . . . [T]he North Korean military appears, for now, to have halted its near decade- long slide in military capabilities. In addition to the North's longer-range missile threat to us, Pyongyang is also expanding its short- and medium-range missile inventory, putting our allies at risk. Similar claims about diminishing threats have been made about Iran. A year ago, those who oppose missile defense were suggesting that because of the election of reform-minded leaders we need no longer worry about that country obtaining more capable missiles. Here is what the Director of Central Intelligence had to say about Iran in his testimony last week: Iran has one of the largest and most capable ballistic missile programs in the Middle East. It's public statements suggest that it plans to develop longer-range rockets for use in a space-launch program. But Tehran could follow the North Korean pattern and test an ICBM capable of delivering a light payload to the United States in the next few years . . . Events in the past year have been discouraging for positive change in Iran. . . . Prospects for near-term political reform in the near term are fading. Opponents of reform have not only muzzled the open press, they have also arrested prominent activists and blunted the legislature's powers. Over the summer, supreme leader Khamenei ordered the new legislature not to ease press restrictions, a key reformist pursuit, that signaled the narrow borders within which he would allow the legislature to operate. I hope that reformers do make gains in Iran, although senior CIA officials have testified that Iranian ``reformers''--such as President Khatemi--are enthusiastic about acquiring ballistic missiles. I hope Iran will one day be a thriving democracy. But that day has not arrived, and our security policy cannot be based on hope. We need missile defense not just because of the capabilities of particular countries, but because of the larger problem: The proliferation of missile technology has created a world in which we can no longer afford to leave ourselves vulnerable to an entire class of weapons. Remaining vulnerable only guarantees that some nation will seize upon this vulnerability and take the United States and our allies by surprise. The Bush administration's resolve to deploy missile defenses is an essential first step in modernizing our national security assets. Because of the neglect our missile defense program has suffered over the last eight years, we now face a threat against which we will have no defense for several years. Because of decisions made by the previous administration, the only long-range missile defense we have in the near-term will be the ground-based system planned for initial deployment in Alaska. Additional resources must be provided so that other technologies and basing modes can be developed and tested. But now, we must move forward as fast as we can with the technology we have today. We must not prolong our vulnerability by waiting for newer and better technology. Therefore, it is important that the administration immediately begin construction of the NMD radar at Shemya, AK. Construction of the national missile defense radar at Shemya, AK, should begin immediately. Construction of this radar was to have begun this May, but last September President Clinton postponed the decision to proceed, citing delays with other elements of the system and a lack of progress in convincing Russia to modernize the ABM Treaty to permit NMB deployment. However, construction of the Shemya radar is the so-called ``long- lead'' item in deployment of the NMD system; it is the step that takes the longest and must begin the soonest. Delaying construction of the NMD radar means delaying deployment of the entire system, and we cannot afford more unnecessary delays in this program. There is still time to recover from the delays caused by President Clinton's postponement last fall. The radar design is complete, the funds have been appropriated, and any missile defense system we build will have to begin with an X-band radar at Shemy. So we should get on with it. Beginning construction of the Shemya radar will be a demonstration of the determination of our government to fulfill its first constitutional duty, which is to provide for the security of our Nation. It will send an unmistakable signal to all--friend or potential foe--that the United States will not remain vulnerable any longer to those who threaten us with ballistic missiles.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate joint resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, are cosponsors. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recommended Dr. Walter E. Massey for appointment to the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents. I ask unanimous consent that the biography of the nominee and the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate joint resolution appointing a citizen regent to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian Institution Regents, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, are cosponsors. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recommended Dr. Walter E. Massey for appointment to the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents. I ask unanimous consent that the biography of the nominee and the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. He is well qualified for the job, having served as attorney general of Missouri, as Governor of Missouri, and with distinction as United States Senator. I first met John Ashcroft in 1992 at the Missouri Republican Convention in Springfield, MO, when I was a surrogate for the campaign of President George Bush. Two years later, John invited me and our colleague from New Mexico, Pete Domenici, to come to Missouri and campaign with him when he was a candidate for the Senate. I was very impressed with John Ashcroft on both occasions. He was an articulate and intelligent advocate for commonsense solutions to our country's problems. He impressed me as a serious-minded, dedicated, and energetic force in shaping public opinion on issues that should be addressed by our Government. I enjoyed very much being a part of his campaign effort and I was delighted when he was elected to the Senate. In the Senate he has been very active in the legislative process. He has initiated reforms in trade sanctions policy and juvenile justice which I have been pleased to support and cosponsor. He is one of the most sincerely respected members of our Republican Conference, and I consider him to be one of my best friends in the Senate. I take issue with the critics who have questioned his candor and his character. There is no basis whatsoever for those charges. I am surprised and disappointed that he has been characterized so unfairly by some in this body. I am confident he will prove by his exemplary service as Attorney General that he is fair minded, thoughtful, and true to his word, and his oath, as he carries out his important duties. The President has selected a good man to be Attorney General. He has withstood the slings and arrows of his opponents, and he is still standing. When I was elected to Congress, I was given by my mother a poem by Josiah Gilbert Holland, which I have kept close to my desk for the past 28 years. It says in part: God give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands; whom the lust of office does not kill; whom the spoils of office cannot buy; who possess opinions and a will; who have honor; who will not lie; who can stand before a demagog and damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog, in public duty and in private thinking. That poem describes my friend and fellow Senator, John Ashcroft. I am proud of his service in the Senate, and I am confident he will make me just as proud as he serves our Nation as Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends from Arizona and from Wisconsin in introducing the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill today. They have worked very hard and very effectively to bring the attention of not only the Senate but the American people to bear on this issue and this important need for reform. I am convinced that we are well advised to take this legislation up at an early date in this session of the Congress. The impressions of the last election are fresh on everybody's mind. One that sticks with me very strongly is that candidates were overwhelmed in this process by the expenditures of soft money by groups buying ads, some attacking candidates, supporting others, without the American public knowing who these groups were, what their goals and intentions were, where the money was coming from, or how it was being spent. That has to be corrected, and it ought to be corrected. The purpose of the campaign finance laws was to let the American people know from where the money was coming, how it was being used, how much money was being raised by the candidates and spent by the candidates. We have now lost the right to know because of the loopholes that have been developed and perfected by those who are involving themselves in the election process. I am not against freedom of speech. We want everybody to be able to have their say, but we have a right to know how much they are spending and from where the money is coming. I think that is a fundamental part of this legislation, and I hope the Senate will take it up and pass it in the near future.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends from Arizona and from Wisconsin in introducing the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill today. They have worked very hard and very effectively to bring the attention of not only the Senate but the American people to bear on this issue and this important need for reform. I am convinced that we are well advised to take this legislation up at an early date in this session of the Congress. The impressions of the last election are fresh on everybody's mind. One that sticks with me very strongly is that candidates were overwhelmed in this process by the expenditures of soft money by groups buying ads, some attacking candidates, supporting others, without the American public knowing who these groups were, what their goals and intentions were, where the money was coming from, or how it was being spent. That has to be corrected, and it ought to be corrected. The purpose of the campaign finance laws was to let the American people know from where the money was coming, how it was being used, how much money was being raised by the candidates and spent by the candidates. We have now lost the right to know because of the loopholes that have been developed and perfected by those who are involving themselves in the election process. I am not against freedom of speech. We want everybody to be able to have their say, but we have a right to know how much they are spending and from where the money is coming. I think that is a fundamental part of this legislation, and I hope the Senate will take it up and pass it in the near future.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate will be diminished considerably when one of my favorite U.S. Capitol Police Officers, Andy Anders, retires at the end of this month. When I first met Andy, the day I was sworn in as a Senator, he was one of the so-called Fearless Five. Those were the officers who were stationed just outside the entrance to the Senate chamber near the elevators. That was his post for 19 years. Even though he is called Andy, his real name is Oliver Anders. His hometown is Greer, South Carolina, and the first vote he ever cast was for Senator Strom Thurmond. As you can see, Andy is a man of very good judgment. For the last five years Andy has been assigned to the fourth floor of the Capitol outside the Senate Security spaces. He is one of the most trusted and dependable members of the U.S. Capitol Police force. He is also a well informed student of American history. When I learned he planned to visit my State during his vacation several years ago, I suggested some special sites for him to see in Vicksburg, Natchez and Jackson. My Administrative Assistant, at that time, Wiley Carter, who was also a great friend and admirer of Andy, went with him to the State Capitol and introduced him to the Speaker of the State House of Representatives and other officials and also arranged a tour of the Governor's Mansion. Of course, Andy enjoyed all of this special attention. But, he deserved it. We don't do enough in my opinion for those who work hard and faithfully every day to make the Senate a safe and secure place to work. Since he began his career with the U.S. Capitol Police on November 4, 1974, Oliver Anders has been one of those you could always count on to be at his post, carrying out his important responsibilities, with a smile and kind greeting for all Senators, and their constituents. We will miss him greatly, but we won't forget him or the excellent way he performed his duties. I wish him much happiness and satisfaction in the years ahead.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, our State officials, and we today, acknowledge that the Gulf Islands National Seashore should be preserved and protected as a place of relatively undeveloped natural beauty, and that does involve limitations on minerals development but not a reinterpretation by the Park Service of the ownership of these mineral rights. These rights are important to Mississippi and may offer our State in the future much needed income to address education, health care and other priorities for our citizens.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murkowski, Senator Craig Thomas, and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for reporting out and helping Senator Lott and me secure passage of Senate Bill 2638, the Cat Island authorization legislation. When Senator Lott and I introduced the legislation earlier this year, we sought to preserve the beautiful, natural treasure of Cat Island, Mississippi, and complete the vision of the Gulf Islands National Seashore begun nearly 30 years ago. The passage of this legislation begins this process by authorizing the National Park Service to acquire the island and save it for future generations.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.