Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I will certainly yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. They are categorical programs that have no relationship to a local school district's needs, instead of giving the school district and parents the flexibility to make the choices they want. And four, the Republican proposal suggests that parents and schools should have the ability to take action when a school is failing year in and year out. This is opposed by the other side of the aisle. Good education proposals are being put forward in this Congress. They are being put forward by those of us on this side of the aisle who see the need to help special education, who see the need to empower parents, who see the need to give teachers the opportunity to learn and expand their abilities, but also to recognize if the teacher is not doing their job, there should be action taken. These are good initiatives. This education debate is going to be about the difference in opinions. We are looking forward to that debate. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for one additional minute.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the leaders for their courtesy and thanking the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I want to respond to some of the points the Democratic leader has made relative to the education issue and talk about some of the agenda items about which we as Republicans are talking. I have not seen the Democratic leader's sense of the Senate, but as I understand it, it is basically a castigation of the Republican majority for our position on education and promotion of the Democrat position on education, which would not be too surprising coming from the Democratic leader. But let me make a couple of points that I think underlie this whole debate. The first is this: There is no amendment on the floor, there is no proposal on the floor, dealing with funding for education. It is my understanding the appropriations subcommittee, of which I happen to be a member, which deals with education funding, is going to be funding the Head Start at a very aggressive level and is going to be funding other education accounts at very aggressive levels. Those levels will be significant. The second point to make: the Democratic membership has come forward with a whole series of new initiatives, most of them put forth by the President. They include class size initiative, afterschool initiative, building of new schoolroom initiatives. All of these are extremely expensive items. What they have not come forward with, however, is a commitment to support the already expensive items which the Federal Government has forced the local communities and the States to spend money on--specifically, special education. On our side of the aisle, we have taken the position that it is much better for the Federal Government to fund already-existing programs, which it requires the local communities to spend money on, than to start up new programs, to force the local communities to spend new money on programs when they are not even getting reimbursed for the programs for which we already asked them to pay. Special education is probably the single biggest drain on the costs of running your local school districts. You can go across this country and I suspect you will not find any school district in this country where the principals and the superintendents, and even the teachers, and especially the parents, do not tell you that if the Federal Government would simply pay its fair share of the cost of special education, then the local schools could do the things they need to do in other areas; whether it happens to be reducing the class size, building buildings, adding computers, adding foreign language courses, or adding new athletic programs. But because the Federal Government has refused to pay its fair share of the cost of special education when the Federal Government originally committed to pay 40 percent for each child in special ed, and today only pays about 10.5 percent, because the Federal Government has failed to fulfill its commitment in this area of paying the full 40 percent, local school districts have had to take school dollars raised at the local level and apply those dollars to satisfy the Federal obligation, to pay for the Federal obligation. That has skewed dramatically the ability of the local school districts to effectively manage their own budgets and to take care of local education. What has been the administration's response to this? Has the administration said that is wrong? We put on the books a law that said we were going to help the special needs child--a very appropriate law-- and the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the cost of the special needs child, and we are not doing it. We are only paying 10.5 percent. Has this administration said let's take care of that problem, let's address that problem? No. They have totally ignored the special needs child in their budgets. In fact, were it not for the Senate Republicans and for the leadership of Senator Lott, special education, the special education commitment of the Federal Government, would still be around 6 percent. Over the last 3 years, because of Senator Lott's support and because of efforts of other Senators such as myself, we have been able to move that number up fairly significantly so we are now supporting about 10.5 percent. We have essentially doubled, in many States, the amount of money coming from the Federal Government, but we are still far short of the dollars that should be going back to local communities to help them with special education. This has had a series of insidious impacts, this failure to fund special education, especially the failure of this administration to step up to the bar and fund special education. What this administration does is it creates or proposes all these new programs, whether it is a new building program or class size program or afterschool program, and it says to the local school district: OK, we are going to send you money for this program--call it a building program for their local school district. Then it says to the local school district, but to get this money you may have to have some sort of match. So the local school district finds itself in an impossible position because the Federal Government, instead of sending it the money it needs for special education, is saying to them: We are not going to send you the money we already told you we were going to send you for special education cases; we are going to take the money we told you we would send you for special education and create a new program; and we are going to tell you that you have to take this new program in order to get the money which you should have gotten in the first place from the special ed dollars. The local school districts are left in the impossible situation of, first, using their local dollars to pay the Federal share of special education, and then in order to get the dollars coming to them for special education from the Federal Government, they have to create a new program and do something they do not want to do; where if the Federal Government did what it was supposed to do in the first place-- which is pay for its fair share of special education--they would be freeing up the dollars at the local level that have been used to subsidize the Federal Government, and the local school district can make a decision: Do we need a new building? Do we need more teachers? Do we need afterschool programs? Do we need a foreign language program? Do we need new computers? The local school districts can make those decisions. The Democratic leadership in this Congress and the President do not like that idea. Why do they not like that idea? Because they do not get to call the shots. The education bureaucracy in Washington does not get to make the decisions for the local school districts. That is what this is about. This is not about funding. This is not about adequate resources being sent to support the local school districts. The Republican proposals have put more money into special education than the Democratic proposals ever even thought of doing. We committed more than adequate funding for areas such as Head Start. But what we do not do--and this is what really galls the education establishment; this is what galls the teachers' unions that happen to dominate this city's liberal left and especially the Democratic Party in this city in the White House--is we do not tell them how to spend the money. We return to the States the money we said we would pay them in the first place for special education, and we let the States, then, make their decisions and the communities make the decisions and the parents make the decisions as to how they are going to spend their own dollars--whether they are going to add a classroom, add a teacher, add a foreign language program, add a computer program--instead of saying to them, as this President would have us do and as the proposal from the Democratic leader would have us do: We are going to tell you how to spend the money we send you, and you have to do it our way or you do not get the money. Isn't it about time we, as a government, as a Federal Government, live up to our obligations when we say to local communities we are going to send you 40 percent of the cost of a special ed student's education, we should be sending them the money to pay for that special ed student's education? We require that education under Federal law. We should, obviously, fund it. This administration does not want to do it. Why? It is very simple. It is purely an issue of power. They want to control local education from Washington. They do not like the idea the local school district might have its local dollars freed up so it can make a decision, so a parent can go into a school and say: Listen, we don't happen to have enough books in the library; that's what we need. They do not like the idea that a parent might have that much power with the local dollars. They want to take those local dollars and control them by underfunding the Federal obligation. Then they want to come up with new Federal programs which may have absolutely no need in the local community and which, as a practical matter, really skews the ability of the local community to fund its local education activities. Let's also talk about the merits of some of these programs they are proposing and are going to force down the throats of the local school districts, the towns, and the cities. Let's talk about their teacher program, their class size program. The theory is, if you do not have an 18-to-1 ratio, you do not meet the class-size obligations the Federal Government is setting up, and therefore you must take this money to spend it on additional teachers. First off, 42 of the 50 States already meet the 18-to-1 ratio. So it is almost a meaningless proposal. Secondly, there happens to be very little statistical support for the idea that a class size of 18 to 1 is better than 20 to 1 or better than 15 to 1. It is not the size of the class when you get into those levels of ratio; it is the teacher. Do you have a good teacher? It is the person who is actually standing in that classroom that makes the difference. If you have a terrible teacher in a failing school who has taught there for a long time, you are going to turn out poorly prepared students whether you have 5 to 1, 10 to 1, or 25 to 1. What the Federal Government refuses to do is say to the failing school that has failed year after year: Stop it; stop; just stop; stop it; don't teach our kids poorly any longer. Why not? Because the teachers' unions have such a control over the positions of this administration and the Department of Education that there is trepidation about confronting the failing school and the failing teacher in the failing school. The Republicans have a better idea. We say essentially this. We say if a school has failed for 2 years on standards set by the State, not set in Washington--we are not going to tell the State and local communities how to set the standards, but if it has failed for 2 years so the kids are not getting a good education, then we say the States have to come into that school and direct that school to do a better job with its kids. If after 4 years of failure--and that means almost half a generation of kids going through that school, if it is an elementary school going up to grade 8--if it is still failing and it is not producing results, and the kids coming out of that school cannot read and cannot do math-- very basic things; we are not asking them to teach rocket science; we are asking them to teach the basics of American education--if after 4 years this school still cannot cut it under standards set by the State, then we suggest that it is time to give the parents of the kids in those schools a chance to get their kids out of those schools. We say to the school systems that the dollars that were going to that school system will instead follow the child to another school, to whatever school that parent wants to send that child to so that child has an opportunity to get into a school where they can actually learn and, thus, participate in the American dream. It is unconscionable that the proposals coming from the other side essentially take the attitude that we will continue to support failing schools year after year and, thus, basically deny the kids going through those schools a shot at the American dream because you cannot participate in the American dream if you are not educated. Yet that is the position. That is the position of the President. Why does he take that position? Very simply because there is an education lobby in Washington which refuses to face up to the fact that there are failing schools because they recognize that once they admit that, and once they admit that parents should have the right to take their kids out of those schools, they are admitting that parents should have choice and have a chance to participate in the system of educating their kids. That is something that is an anathema, the idea that parents should actually have some role in choosing where their kids go to school and having the opportunity of making sure their kids get a decent education as a result of having some choice. That is an anathema to the education lobby in Washington. The proposal brought forward by the President, one, shortchanges the special needs child dramatically. It doesn't do anything to help fund the special needs child. Two, it skews the ability of the local school system of the opportunity to use local dollars where they think they should go, whether it is a new building, whether it is a new library, whether it is another teacher, or whether it is a new language program. It makes it impossible for them to make that choice because they are not given the dollars necessary to make that choice and the dollars are taken instead to support the special education obligations the Federal Government requires them to make. Three, they are putting in place categorical programs. The President wants categorical programs which have no relationship, in many instances, to the needs of the local school district.

Mr. GREGG. Do I have 15 minutes?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 15 would be nice.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. The Senator knows the President has not signed all the bills. The Senator also knows this Senate has committed significant dollars to, and I suspect the Senator voted for, the agriculture emergency. That takes out the onbudget surplus. So I think the Senator can say: Yes, the President has not signed the bills; therefore, the money has not been spent. The fact is, the Congress has spent the money. It is just that the President hasn't agreed to it.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the Senator from Minnesota. I think we are all concerned about what has happened with veterans. I certainly congratulate the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri for their excellent effort to try, in the context of a strict budget structure, to do the most that is available for us for veterans. But I do think in a philosophical discussion here we need to make something clear. ``Caps'' is not some euphemism that just gets thrown out and has no meaning to it. It is not just a term of art. In substance, it is a statement of the difference between spending money that we raise from revenues in the general fund versus spending money that is raised by taxes paid to the Social Security fund. If we exceed the caps--and I am not going to argue the point; I think the Senator from Minnesota and a lot of other folks in this body are intent upon exceeding the caps, either with emergency spending in agriculture or with emergency spending for Kosovo or with advance funding gimmickry or with, possibly, in this case, an amendment that significantly increases funding under this bill over the caps that are available to it. But I think it has to be pointed out that when that occurs, that money comes from the Social Security trust fund. There is no other place for it to come from. Every dollar the caps are exceeded in this budget cycle--this may not be true next year--but every dollar that the caps are exceeded by in this budget cycle is going to be dollars that come out of the Social Security trust fund because we have already spent the onbudget surplus for emergency funds, emergency obligations. Those are already committed. So there are not really any onbudget surplus funds available to us. So when these amendments come forward like this, I think there has to be some integrity in the debate. There has to be some statement of what the implications are of these types of amendments. The implication of this amendment is that the Social Security trust fund and Social Security itself will be hit for the amount this amendment exceeds the caps because the onbudget surplus that is non-Social Security has already been spent. That is the way it is. It is easy to come to the floor and say we have to get rid of the caps because ``caps'' is a term of art nobody really understands. What that really means, a more honest statement would be, we have to take money out of the Social Security trust fund. We have to take money out of the Social Security trust fund. We have to take money out of the Social Security trust fund. That is the proposal. That is where we are. This Congress, this Senate, is going to have to make that decision. Right now, there is a lot of effort to try to avoid that, and I am strongly committed to trying to avoid that event. I chaired a subcommittee, and I had the same problem the chairman of this subcommittee had. We were able, as was Chairman Bond, to bring in a bill that was under the caps, as the Presiding Officer now presiding over the Senate was also able to do with his bill on military construction. We brought it in at the cap level or under the cap level. It was difficult, very difficult, because we had the census in our bill. That was new spending which we had not really any money to pay for. So we have the same problem. But the reality is that ``caps'' is not some arbitrary event here. It is not some term of art that has no meaning. There is significant meaning to the event ``breaking the caps.'' If we are going to have integrity in the debate, instead of using this term ``breaking the caps,'' we ought to say what the event is. The event is using the Social Security trust fund to fund whatever amendments are proposed to break the caps. That is the way it stands because there is not any onbudget surplus available beyond what has now already been committed for emergency funds, primarily to agriculture. So we are left only with Social Security surplus money. So, yes, it pits this amendment against Social Security recipients. That is a public policy decision this Congress is going to have to make though, because on all these amendments that come forward that are not cap related, that are exceeding the cap, what we are basically doing is invading the Social Security trust fund. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I rise today to talk about the recent clemency decision, pardon decision by the President, relative to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists. This occurred on September 10. There has been a lot of discussion in the newspapers and amongst people generally as to the reasons for this, as to the background of why this occurred, and as to the political implications within the election cycle as to what were the real causes. But that is not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the effect of this action by the President on our domestic terrorism policy and our preparedness to deal with domestic terrorism. The committee that I chair, the Commerce- State-Justice Committee, has spent a great deal of time trying to build an infrastructure to address the threat of terrorism. Regrettably, we know as a nation that some time in the coming years we will be subjected to another terrorist attack. That is the nature of the times that we live in. Regrettably, it is even possible that such an attack may be a chemical or biological attack or an even more threatening attack. We have attempted over the last 3 years to develop a coherent, thoughtful strategy for how to get ready for, to anticipate, and to hopefully interdict an attack and, should an attack occur, to respond to such a terrorist event. We have set up a system of developing a policy of addressing the issue of terrorism as a result of that. The decision by the President to free these terrorists who were jailed for terrorist activity has fundamentally undermined this effort at reforming and preparing for the terrorist threat in the United States. Stated simply, the question has to be: How can you claim you are being tough on terrorism if you free terrorists from your jails? Today, we held a hearing in my committee, in the committee that I chair. We heard from the director at the FBI, Neil Gallagher, the director of the bureau dealing with terrorism. He is their expert on it. And we heard from Patrick Fitzgerald, the head of the terrorism bureau in the U.S. attorney's office in the city of New York. These two individuals talked about the policy implications and the effect of the decision by this President to free these terrorists. I want to review a little bit of what the testimony was because it was startling and it was serious, and it shows that the implications of this decision by the President could have a very broad-reaching impact on the lives of Americans. First off, we discussed the issue of what type of terrorist act these folks participated in relative to the decision for clemency. The decision for clemency has been represented in the press by the White House public spokespersons as having been made because these people were not actually involved in a violent act or, if they were involved in a violent act, they were not charged with participating in a violent act; therefore, they really were not that bad is essentially the defense that the administration makes for giving clemency to these 16 terrorists. First off, it should be pointed out the FBI agent recited that these individuals participated in activities which led to the death of five different individuals as a result of bombings and terrorist attacks, which also led to the injury of 83 individuals, many of them U.S. service people who were directly attacked by the organization, the FALN, that also represented millions of dollars of property damage and spanned a period of approximately 10 years of violent action against the United States, citizens of the United States, and military and police personnel of the United States, leading to the death and the maiming of American citizens by the actions which were participated in by these 16 individuals. Yes, they were charged and convicted, in most instances, of something less than actually pulling the trigger--no question about that. So I asked the U.S. attorney from New York, what was Sheik Abdul- Rahman, who was the orchestrater of the World Trade Center bombing, charged with? Was he present at the scene? Did he pull the trigger? Did he light the fuse that blew up the World Trade Center? Of course, the U.S. attorney said, no, he was not there. He is blind. He was charged with seditious conspiracy--the same thing that the Puerto Rican terrorists from the FALN were charged with. Then I asked him: What was Terry Nichols charged with, who was not at the scene of the explosion in Oklahoma City where so many Americans were killed but, rather, who aided the individual who undertook that specific act? And he said he was charged with seditious conspiracy. Then I asked, if we bring to trial Osama bin Laden--and an indictment has been brought back against Osama bin Laden--who perpetrated the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Dar es Salaam--and that indictment is not for lighting the fuse or being at the scene of the crime but for conspiracy to participate in the crime--all of these major terrorists who have caused huge harm to American citizens and to the American institution of Government, to our free democratic form of government were not on the scene of the crime any more than were the Puerto Rican terrorists, at least as they were charged and convicted. Rather, they were all, with the exception of Bin Laden because he wasn't American, he wasn't on American soil. But the tenor of the charges being, they were all essentially charged with seditious conspiracy--all 16, I believe, FALN members, the sheik, Mr. Nichols, and Bin Laden. So if the logic of the White House is--the logic of the President is--well, these aren't such bad people because they weren't convicted of actually killing the police officers, of actually maiming the police officers, of actually undertaking the heist of the armored cars, of actually attacking the U.S. Navy personnel and killing them, of actually killing the individual, Mr. Connor, in Chicago, of actually maiming the 83 other people who had been injured by these folks, because they weren't actually charged and convicted of that, and therefore they should be given clemency because their charge is a lesser charge, then the White House and the President are going to have to explain why the White House, why the President, is not giving clemency to Sheik Abdul-Rahman, Terry Nichols, and why they are even going forward with the prosecution of Bin Laden. The defense of the White House on that point simply does not stand. These people participated in acts of terrorism, orchestrated acts of terrorism, and should not be let out early as a result of having not been convicted of actually being physically on the site of the terrorist event any more than we should let out Sheik Abdul-Rahman, Terry Nichols, or Bin Laden should we be successful in prosecuting and convicting him. That was the first point. But it flows into the second point, which is, What is the effect of these clemencies on our ability as a nation to defend ourselves against other terrorist acts? The U.S. attorney from New York made a lot of excellent points. He said they are going to keep working hard, they are going to keep trying to prosecute, and they will aggressively prosecute to the fullest extent of their ability any terrorist they can charge and convict. And I congratulate them for that. But he also made the point, he said, you know, their decision could be misconstrued in foreign capitals around the world, and this decision for clemency could have an impact on how trials are undertaken of terrorists in our country. So I followed that up. I asked Agent Gallagher: What impact will this have on our ability to deal with foreign countries? A great deal of our capacity to be successful in terrorism interdiction requires that our FBI agents overseas--and we have been expanding our FBI presence overseas, and our CIA and our State activities overseas--have the confidence of the countries they are dealing with--the police officers in those states, the law enforcement agencies in those states--that when they are given information which may lead to them having the capacity to act against a terrorist group by bringing them to trial and maybe extraditing them to the United States, that foreign official or country has the confidence that our legal system and our political system is going to handle this terrorist aggressively and they aren't going to let that person out so that someday they may come back to that country and take retribution for having had that country assist us in capturing them. This is a huge issue for our law enforcement agencies because without that sort of confidence, they can't get the cooperation they need in order to get the intelligence they need in order to capture these people before they act against us, against our country. The U.S. attorney, supported essentially by Agent Gallagher of the FBI, said essentially many countries may misread this decision on clemency--a generous way to say it. What they were really saying was: Yes, this has now created a problem for us; when our agents go overseas to try to interdict terrorists, we are going to have to deal with that foreign government, with that foreign official saying to us: Why should we cooperate with you? Your President frees terrorists for political reasons. Why should we cooperate with you and put our political system at risk by maybe having that terrorist return to our streets as a result of your President's clemency action? Then the U.S. attorney made another point: In the trial of terrorists, I do expect that the defense attorneys will use this decision on clemency in their defense of their clients, which is only reasonable. If you were a trial attorney and you were representing Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, or you were representing Terry Nichols, or you were about to try the Bin Laden case, you would say they were charged with the same crime for which the President just released 16 people. So why should my client have to go to jail when the President just let 16 of these people out for the same crime, seditious conspiracy? Although it may not be definitive, it will certainly have an impact on the trial activity. And this point was made rather bluntly. Another question that comes to mind is: When the decision was made to proceed with clemency, since these folks had not been convicted of actually pulling the trigger which killed the 5 individuals involved here, or maimed the 83 others, or caused the robbery of the armored car, or did the other millions of dollars' worth of damage to places such as the Fraunces Tavern that they blew up--I think there were 70 different incidents of bombings--before these people were released, did the White House have the courtesy to come to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency and say: Hey, we are going to give these folks clemency, but why don't you go talk to them and find out what really happened and who really is responsible. And if there is anybody out there on the street we should be picking up and arresting for the actual event, is there anybody we missed? Is there any intelligence we could gain? This is very typical. This is not an unusual situation. Before you release someone on parole, you expect that person to be cooperative. There is usually a quid pro quo in a parole situation. Since clemency is a much broader event of freedom than parole, you don't answer to anyone in any instance of clemency. I am not sure what the rules were which were set down on this, but I suspect there is very little oversight, considering how the White House handled these individuals. Shouldn't they have at least afforded the FBI and the other law enforcement agencies the opportunity to talk to these individuals before they freed them, so the FBI would have the opportunity to find out the intelligence necessary to go after some of the other people who were bad actors? For example, there is a fellow named Morales--I think that is his name--who escaped from jail, who was part of their group and showed up at the rally, supposedly, in Puerto Rico to celebrate their return and in between went to Mexico and allegedly killed someone in Mexico. One wonders, if the FBI had been given an opportunity to try to track this fellow down through some information from these folks, whether that wouldn't have been helpful to the cause of law enforcement. Much more information could also have been obtained by the FBI if they had a chance to talk to these people maybe a little bit before the clemency occurred, which one would think is just good elementary law enforcement. Although the FBI did not specifically answer this question because they felt it was a matter of executive privilege, communications with the White House specifically stated that they had not interviewed these felons, these terrorists; since the time of their incarceration, the terrorists had not agreed to talk to them and they had therefore not been able to talk to them. So one assumes that the opportunity was not afforded by this White House to talk to these people and try to find out a little bit more about what was going on--a little information that might help save a few American lives down the road when we get another terrorist from this group, or their ancillary groups. In fact, it is discouraging. Another point that Agent Gallagher made was that on September 13, 3 days after clemency was ordered for these people, the FBI received a communication from another activist-independence group in Puerto Rico that an individual, whose name I have forgotten, unfortunately, said essentially that they were going to turn to armed activity to make their point relative to the military base--I think earlier being discussed here--on an island off Puerto Rico unless they got their way. So within 3 days of clemency, you actually have the threat of further terrorist action occurring by a sister or brother organization of the FALN. The threat was directed not only against the military but against the FBI. The President was able to buy 3 days of peace with this clemency decision and at the same time turn 16 people loose who had participated in the most heinous crimes against American citizens. I asked what the standard of pardon petitions was in making this decision. Unfortunately, these folks do not specialize in this. They wouldn't know the answer to that question. But I want to read into the Record that Presidential pardons are subject to a certain standard. There is a set standard for them. Under section 1-2.112 of the Standards for Considering Pardon Petitions, there is a sentence that says: In the case of a prominent individual or a notorious crime, the likely effect of the pardon on law enforcement interests or upon the general public should be taken into account. I asked these folks if they felt it was taking into account the effect on law enforcement interests to not advise law enforcement or not give the law enforcement community the ability to interview these individuals. Obviously, it wasn't. Obviously, that standard of pardon was clearly not met--probably wasn't even considered. It didn't have anything to do with politics. But the most devastating statement made this morning--and I know it took courage to say this because there probably will be some reaction to it, but I think it was a very appropriate thing for Agent Gallagher to say because it is his job to protect us. And when he sees the American people at risk, or when the FBI sees the American people at risk, I think they have to speak up, even if it may affront the sensibilities of the President and the White House. His summation of the present status of the FALN was: ``As of today, they represent a threat to the United States.'' ``Today they represent a threat to the United States.'' And more importantly, or equally important, the action of this President in granting pardons to these 16 terrorists has impacted our policy on terrorism and fighting terrorism dramatically. It has literally shredded that policy. We find ourselves now with a terrorism policy which has two standards: Once you are convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is the key offense in terrorism, you may be freed if you have political friends; you will stay in jail if you don't have political friends. If you are a terrorist, go out and find some political friends. It means foreign countries will no longer have the confidence to deal with our law enforcement agencies in releasing information or even physically releasing terrorists to our control for prosecution because they will believe that person could potentially be returned to their shores. It means trials of terrorists will now be tainted--when the charge of seditious conspiracy is included--by a clemency for 16 people who committed violent acts against the United States and were charged with seditious conspiracy. It has undermined the morale of those who work on our front lines to protect us from terrorism. And all for what purpose? I see none that can justify this action. I think we should condemn it. I hope we, as a nation, do not have to pay a dear price because of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his courtesy in yielding to me.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. U.S. Route 2 is an important travel and commerce thoroughfare in the New Hampshire North Country that runs through New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. On January 11, 1999, the New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont Senate delegation sent a joint letter to Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater. In this letter the delegation asked Secretary Slater to give consideration to a $13 million joint state grant application funded through TEA-21's National Corridor Planning and Development Program (NCPD) and Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) for U.S. Route 2. The joint New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont application received a total of only $1.5 million in funding for U.S. Route 2. I am sure that the Senator from Alabama would agree that this funding level for U.S. Route 2 is completely inadequate. I ask the Senator from Alabama to join me in urging the Secretary of Transportation to allocate more funding through the NCPD and CBI for U.S. Route

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, New Hampshire is a place where community spirit and volunteerism is still a big part of our culture and it is partly for that reason that our state is consistently ranked as one of the most livable places in the United States. One of the reasons why our state remains one of the best places to live is that we try to limit the amount of government intrusion into our lives. Unfortunately that message has not gotten through to some people who work in the Forest Service in New Hampshire. The White Mountain National Forest, which is overseen by the U.S. Forest Service, provides outdoor recreation and economic opportunities for thousands of people who live and work nearby. Preserving this national forest takes a lot of dedication and hard work and many people contribute to keeping the forest in good shape by volunteering their time to clear trails of debris and pick up trash. In fact, over the summer, two retirees, Frank Barilone, 67, and Ted Matte, 66, both of Ellsworth, were cleaning up Ellsworth Park Beach, which had become littered with an old bob house, rotted rowboats, and assorted cans and bottles and other trash. They had been coming to the area for over 30 years and had both recently decided to retire to the area. They took the initiative to discuss the trash problem with the local Forest Service office in Holderness which told them to go ahead and clean it up which they did. As a reward for their hard work, the Forest Service fined them $150 for ``maintaining the national forest without a permit,'' which happens to be a federal offense. It seems to me that the Forest Service has it all backwards. Instead of thanking Mr. Barilone and Mr. Matte for their hard work, the Forest Service gave them a slap in the face in the form of a ticket and a $150 fine. Most people expect the Forest Service to ticket people who pollute the forest, not people who try to clean it up. The Forest Service's decision to fine these two retirees $150 for cleaning up Ellsworth Park will discourage, not encourage, the public to take a greater role in the protection of our state's natural resources. So on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I thank Mr. Barilone and Mr. Matte for volunteering their time to help clean up our national forest. Their can-do attitude is what makes New Hampshire such a great place to live. Keep up the good work!

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to make clear that, while I was not able to vote on S.J. Res. 33, I am very much in favor of this resolution and I am pleased that it passed today. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of it. It is important for the Senate to voice its concerns about the President's actions when they infringe on our Nation's best interests. Given the long and disturbing history of the FALN terrorists who were recently released, I believe that this President's actions with regard to those terrorists did, in fact, undermine our Nation's policies against terrorism. On January 24, 1975, a New York city tavern was ripped apart by a bomb that killed 4 people and injured more than 50 others. A radical Puerto Rican nationalist group known as the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN) claimed responsibility for the act and was later implicated in more than 100 bombings across the United States. Several detectives were maimed as a result of these bombings and suffer to this day from the terrorism perpetrated by FALN. Sixteen FALN terrorists were eventually convicted in the 1980's for violent offenses related to the bombings, including armed robbery, weapons violations, and seditious conspiracy, a rarely invoked but powerful criminal charge reserved for people whose intent is to undermine the Government of the United States. Their history makes it clear that FALN was a dangerous terrorist faction whose members deserved the punishment they received. It is for these reasons that I was appalled when President Clinton offered to give these terrorists an early release from prison, ignoring unanimous opposition from federal law enforcement professionals and siding with liberal human rights activists and Puerto Rican nationals. Eleven FALN terrorists were released from federal prison last Friday. As you know, Mr. President, I chair the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, which funds the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that are responsible for our Nation's counterrorism strategy. Over the last few years we have significantly increased the resources available to law enforcement and now have in place for the first time a coordinated, government wide strategy to deter and respond to terrorism. Releasing convicted terrorists before they serve their full sentence sends the wrong message about how our Nation will deal with people who use violence to achieve their political objectives. There is no question that the President has the authority under the Constitution to grant pardons and reprieves for offenses against the United States. Once a pardon or clemency offer is official, no one can reverse or overturn the decision, not even the Congress or the Supreme Court. Given the magnitude of this power, the question that should be asked is why the President would use it to give convicted terrorists an early release from prison, especially the fact that President Clinton has reduced sentences in only 3 out of 3,042 prior cases. Hearings will be held in this body and in the House of Representatives in the next few weeks, and they should aggressively question the administration's reasons for this act. These hearing should explore how the clemency offer supports the State Department's antiterrorism policy which states that the United States shall ``make no concessions and strike no deals and will bring terrorists to justice for their crimes.'' The primary argument for clemency appears to be that none of the 16 FALN members were directly involved in any of the bombings. However, almost all of them were convicted for seditious conspiracy--the purpose of which was to wage a campaign of terror against the United States Government. Osama bin Laden may not have lit the fuse that detonated the bomb, but his participation in a conspiracy to commit these acts would be enough to incarcerate him for life. In addition, the Clinton administration contradicts its tough stance on gun violence by releasing these terrorists, almost all of whom were convicted of various gun violations, including armed robbery. Another explanation floated by the administration is that the sentences are too stiff. The President's early release certainly changes that. Eleven of the convicted FALN members are now free. Two others will serve additional time, and three others will be released from paying the remainder of their criminal fines. However, the sentencing judge's decision to order maximum prison terms was based on the evidence in the case and the fact that none of the FALN members showed any remorse for their acts at the time of sentencing. One sentencing judge indicated that he would have ordered the death penalty for one of the terrorists who showed no regret for his acts, but it was unavailable as an option. It is presumptuous for the President to grant clemency on the grounds that the federal judge who heard the testimony and saw the evidence firsthand imposed a sentence that was too severe. In fact, Oscar Lopez-Rivera, one of the FALN terrorists that President Clinton offered to release early, had this to say in an interview with the Associated Press last year, I have no regrets for what I've done in the Puerto Rico independence movement . . . This onus is not on us. The crime is colonialism. . . . If Puerto Rico was not a colony of the United States, I would have had a totally different life. Mr. Lopez-Rivera was convicted of numerous charges, including weapons violations and conspiracy to transport explosives with intent to destroy government property. Our judicial system also provides an absolute right of appeal for criminal convictions. Superseding the judicial system should be reserved for cases in which the facts are clear and the benefits of release outweigh the dangers. That balancing test is not met in this case. Many people have speculated that the President's decision was an effort to woo the large Puerto Rican constituency in New York where Mrs. Clinton is likely to run for the U.S. Senate. It is not too much to imagine that the Clinton administration would jeopardize our national security to court potential voters based on their record of politicizing federal agencies, so I believe it should be examined during congressional hearings as a possible motivating factor. One of our government's primary responsibilities is to safeguard the freedom and liberty of its people. Given the growing terrorist threat around the world, now is not the time to go easy on convicted terrorists. Over 700 people died last year and more than 6,000 were wounded from the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania last year. The World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing are fresh reminders of the violence that can be wrought by terrorists. Releasing terrorists before they serve their full sentence sends the wrong message and undermines our nation's tough stance against terrorism. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask my fellow senators to join me in offering congratulations to John W. Smart of Nashua, New Hampshire, who is to be installed this month as National Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in this the 100th Anniversary of the organization's founding. John Smart's election to this position is only the latest in a long and distinguished career in service to our country and to his fellow veterans. Mr. Smart served in the United States Army from October 1970 to April 1973, in Vietnam, where he was assigned to the 176th Assault Helicopter Company (American Division) at Chu Lai. His meritorious service was recognized with the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, a Vietnam Service Medal with four stars and a Presidential Unit Citation. While serving in Vietnam, he joined VFW Post #2181 in Exeter, New Hampshire. Following his return from military service in 1973, he moved quickly through the VFW Department of New Hampshire chairs and earned recognition as an All-American Department Commander during the 1981-82 year. In 1983 he served as Chairman of the National Youth Activities Committee and from 1991-1993 as Chairman of the National Buddy Poppy Committee. In 1995 he was appointed to the position of National Chief of Staff. Mr. Smart served his community of Nashua as a firefighter, retiring after 21 years. He has served as VFW New Hampshire Department Adjutant/ Quartermaster since 1985. He is a Life Member of VFW Post #483 in Nashua and in addition to his service to the VFW he holds membership in the Military Order of the Cooties, American Legion, Elks, Retired Firefighters Association and the US Army Association. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Managers of the New Hampshire Veterans Home since 1987 and has served as a New Hampshire State Representative. John Smart is the first member of the Department of New Hampshire Veterans of Foreign Wars to be elected to the office of National Commander-in-Chief. I can think of no New Hampshire citizen more dedicated to his country and to the cause of assisting his fellow veterans. His wife, Mary, his two children, John R. and Cheryl, and his five grandchildren have reason for great pride in this husband, father and grandfather who has so ably contributed his time and efforts toward the service of others. I have been honored to work with John Smart over my years here in the Senate, while serving as Governor in New Hampshire and earlier in the House of Representatives. I commend him to the Senate and know you will join me in extending to him and his family our congratulations, our thanks for his past accomplishments and continuing service and our best wishes during his year of service as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today marks the sixth anniversary of the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This act, as my colleagues will recall, was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented through three separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired three weeks ago, there are those in Congress and the administration who choose to ignore those problems and instead push for imposition of the law on even smaller businesses and for purposes well beyond those judged by Congress to be the most critical. These proponents of expansion will refer to a report issued by the U.S. Commission on Leave which failed to find significant problems associated with the act. However, the fact of the matter is, the Commission on Leave's report was issued well before the final implementing regulations were in place--regulations which are in fact the source of much of the concern over the act's implementation. Mr. President, to consider expansion at this time is not just irresponsible, it is unconscionable. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toe nails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well documented problems with the act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed changes to clarify the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore the original congressional intent. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of The Society for Human Resource Management and close to 300 leading companies and associations who make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be printed in the Record. This broad based coalition shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA-- corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own Committee Report on what types of medical conditions (such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc) were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment (including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist)--such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to give employers the right to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (in case of first impression in 7th Circuit, court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her postion''). Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. Despite the common belief that leave under the FMLA is necessarily unpaid, employers having generous sick leave policies, or who have worked out employee-friendly sick leave programs with unions in collective bargaining agreements, are being penalized by the FMLA. In fact, for many companies, most FMLA leave has become paid leave. According to the U.S. Commission on Leave, 66.3 percent of FMLA leave is paid (46.7 percent fully paid). This existing paid leave sandwiched on top of the broad, yet vague, FMLA definitions has resulted in employees requesting or characterizing a variety of minor situations as FMLA leave. Mr. President, the FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the hundreds of concerns that have been raised about the act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. In the spirit of the FMLA I urge my colleagues to mark it's anniversary by restoring the Family and Medical Leave Act to its original congressional intent. I asked that the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today marks the sixth anniversary of the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This act, as my colleagues will recall, was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.'' Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the act. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented through three separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired three weeks ago, there are those in Congress and the administration who choose to ignore those problems and instead push for imposition of the law on even smaller businesses and for purposes well beyond those judged by Congress to be the most critical. These proponents of expansion will refer to a report issued by the U.S. Commission on Leave which failed to find significant problems associated with the act. However, the fact of the matter is, the Commission on Leave's report was issued well before the final implementing regulations were in place--regulations which are in fact the source of much of the concern over the act's implementation. Mr. President, to consider expansion at this time is not just irresponsible, it is unconscionable. The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toe nails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well documented problems with the act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed changes to clarify the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore the original congressional intent. The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of The Society for Human Resource Management and close to 300 leading companies and associations who make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be printed in the Record. This broad based coalition shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA-- corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the act. The bill I am introducing today does several important things: First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own Committee Report on what types of medical conditions (such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc) were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment (including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist)--such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days. Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to give employers the right to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures. Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice. Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (in case of first impression in 7th Circuit, court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her postion''). Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements. Despite the common belief that leave under the FMLA is necessarily unpaid, employers having generous sick leave policies, or who have worked out employee-friendly sick leave programs with unions in collective bargaining agreements, are being penalized by the FMLA. In fact, for many companies, most FMLA leave has become paid leave. According to the U.S. Commission on Leave, 66.3 percent of FMLA leave is paid (46.7 percent fully paid). This existing paid leave sandwiched on top of the broad, yet vague, FMLA definitions has resulted in employees requesting or characterizing a variety of minor situations as FMLA leave. Mr. President, the FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the hundreds of concerns that have been raised about the act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. In the spirit of the FMLA I urge my colleagues to mark it's anniversary by restoring the Family and Medical Leave Act to its original congressional intent. I asked that the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Arizona and appreciate the opportunity to join him on this amendment which is one of those amendments that comes to the floor of the Senate supported by logic, common sense, and good economics, but is opposed, regrettably, by the forces who wish to take advantage of the farm program for the purposes of promoting a product in a noncompetitive, nonmarket-type process. The Senator from Arizona has outlined some of the harm that is done by the President's sugar program. Most of that harm is directed at the American consumer who ends up paying $1.4 billion in taxes for all intents and purposes because it is a fee, a cost of sugar, they now incur which exceeds the market price of sugar they end up paying--a $1.4 billion surcharge on the American consumer in order to keep in place a sugar industry which is totally noncompetitive. If you were to describe the sugar industry, you would think you were describing the Cuban sugar industry, not the American sugar industry. The sugar industry sets the price. The price is at least twice the cost of sugar on the world market. And then essentially it guarantees that the sugar grower and the processors will be able to realize that price. Who pays the burden? The consumer. They end up paying twice as much for sugar as sugar is worth on the open market. What does that describe? That describes a nonmarket system of selling a product. That describes essentially a socialist system of selling a product. That describes a system that might have worked in Eastern Europe 15 years ago or might have been used in Eastern Europe 15 years ago--it obviously didn't work--or a system which may still be in place today in Cuba. But it certainly doesn't describe a system one would expect the United States, the force for a free market economy in the world, would be putting forward for the purposes of producing a commodity such as sugar. The effect, however, goes well beyond the fact that consumers in America are paying this $1.4 billion in extra cost, which is essentially a tax on them. This sugar program stifles competition. Seventeen growers get 38 percent of the benefit of this program, 17 growers. Why is that? Because there isn't any competition in the system. It discourages international trade. We look at our Caribbean neighbors and we say: How can we help you? Then we essentially invade Haiti and spend literally hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to try to stabilize that economy to no avail, where at the same time we are saying to Haiti and all the other Caribbean nations who are capable of producing sugar, no, we are not going to purchase your sugar because we are going to subsidize our sugar, and we are going to essentially close you out of our markets. It harms the environment. As has been pointed out by the Senator from Arizona, the sugar cane growing in Florida has had a serious impact on the quality of the environment of the Everglades, a key area of natural regeneration in the southern Florida area. It affects jobs. Why does it affect jobs? Because if you don't have a competitive industry, you don't have a marketplace approach, you are essentially putting in a straitjacket the production capabilities of the American economy. Why is America the most productive country in the world? Because we are the most free market country in the world. That free market creates jobs. People have the opportunity to compete. People have the opportunity to grow their industries. In the sugar industry, we have no competition because we have a process which is essentially a socialized system, and it requires unnecessary government involvement in the production of a commodity. Why should the American people have to depend on the Federal Government to price the product of sugar? It makes absolutely no sense. Why shouldn't the marketplace price the product of sugar? That is what we do with everything else. If you go out and you buy a Ford car, the Federal Government doesn't say to Ford: It doesn't matter how many cars you sell or who you sell them to, we are going to pay you $20,000 per car; and if you only sell the cars for $17,000, it doesn't matter because we are going to pay you $20,000 anyway. We don't say it to Apple Computer. We don't say it to Microsoft. We don't say it to the housing industry. But we do say it to the sugar producers in this country. It doesn't matter how much sugar you produce; it doesn't matter if your production costs are twice what they may be in the world market; it doesn't matter. We are going to set the price. We are going to pay you the price and the price is going to have no relation to demand. It is going to have no relation to competition. The only thing it is going to have a relation to is the amount of revenue that is going to fall into the pockets of a very small number of growers in this country today who benefit from this program. It is interesting, as we look at the farm programs in this country, there is only sugar left that has this sort of a protection. It is able to accomplish this because it has diffused the issue of the maintenance of this outrageous subsidy across the entire American consumer base. Rather than having it flow directly out of the American Treasury into the growers' pockets, this program has been structured so that it flows directly out of the consumer into the growers' pockets. Because of that, there has been a winking at this program; this program has sort of slipped through the cracks, where the rest of the farm commodities in this country have been forced to have some relationship, under Freedom to Farm, of having their product production tied to the product demand. Sugar has not been subjected to that test at all. So we have a program that should never have been put in place in the first instance because it is so atypical to a marketplace economy. But clearly, with the passing of Eastern Europe and the concept of a socialized marketplace, it clearly should not be surviving today, yet it does survive. I think the Senator from Arizona may have touched the reason. It is political influence. It is the capacity of the grower community to assert its influence within the legislative process. But it still is not fair, and it is not right. It is not appropriate to ask the American consumer to spend $1.4 billion of their hard-earned money on a commodity simply to benefit a small group of growers--17 growers getting 38 percent of the benefit. That $1.4 billion could go a long way towards educating children, towards getting better child care, towards improving the lifestyle, the health care, even the nutrition of the people who are paying that price. Yet that money is not going to go to those purposes. Instead, that money is going to flow simply to support an industry which has totally separated itself from the free market. I strongly endorse this amendment. I have offered it in the past myself. I hope this time the Congress will step up and recognize that it should vote on behalf of the consumers and abolish this outrageous tax and put to rest this last vestige of Eastern European economics in the United States. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr President, today I am joined with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Collins, Brownback, Hagel, Coverdell, Gorton, Mack, Voinovich and Sessions in introducing the Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA). This Act is similar to H.R. 1995 which recently passed the House. The bill provides a little over $2 billion annually over 5 years by consolidating funds for Title II of ESEA, GOALS 2000 and Classroom Size into one flexible funding stream for the purposes of increasing teacher quality and the number of high quality teachers in our schools. Over 300 studies have found that the number one contributor to student achievement is a highly qualified teacher. Outside of parental involvement, no other factor has as much impact on determining whether a student will succeed or fail in school. Unfortunately, we know that over 25% of those who enter the teacher workforce are poorly qualified to teach. Furthermore, we know that many teachers who are already in the classroom lack necessary skills or do not possess adequate knowledge of the subject area in which they teach. Since teacher quality is the most significant determinant to student success and there is a shortage of high quality teachers in our schools, it is readily apparent that we need to focus our efforts on increasing teacher quality. Nothing else will improve our public schools or lead to increased student achievement as much as increasing the number of high quality teachers in our schools. TEA improves teacher quality by requiring that professional development activities increase teacher knowledge and skills as well as student achievement. TEA builds upon extensive research on what type of professional development activities improve teacher knowledge and skills. First and foremost high quality professional development activities must be directly related to the curriculum and subject area in which the teacher provides instruction. Second, they must be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact. TEA only funds those professional activities that meet these requirements and only if the activities are tied to challenging State content and student performance standards. Not only does TEA improve teacher quality, but it gives school districts the ability to recruit and retain high quality teachers. Many school districts, especially inner city and rural school districts, are unable to either attract or retain high quality teachers. Blanket classroom size reduction proposals, which call for reduced class size at all costs, only exacerbate the situation. A recent Rand study found that California's classroom size initiative led to more uncredentialed, underqualifed teachers and an increase in teacher aides (rather than teachers) providing direct instruction to students. Inner city schools in Los Angeles actually witnessed a decrease in the number of qualified teachers, as many of those that were qualified left the inner city schools when jobs opened up in more affluent schools. Clearly, school districts must be given the resources to not only recruit, but also to retain, high quality teachers. TEA does this through a variety of measures. It permits school districts to award differential pay to retain and recruit teachers in high need subject areas, such as math and science. It permits schools to provide signing bonuses to retain their best teachers and reduce the rate of attrition. It permits school districts to establish incentive programs to attract and hire highly skilled and knowledgeable teachers. It permits schools to recruit individuals who have had careers outside of teaching but whose life experience provides a solid foundation for teaching. And, it permits schools to invest in teacher mentors and master teachers; studies and teacher polls have found that hiring master teachers who mentor new teachers improves both teacher quality and the likelihood that new teachers will stay and thrive at the school. In addition to promoting high quality professional development programs and to giving school districts the ability to retain, recruit and train high quality teachers, TEA also promotes a number of innovative common sense reforms, such as tenure reform, teacher testing, merit-based performance systems, teacher academies, and alternative certification programs. TEA also creates Teacher Opportunity Payments (TOPS), payments that would be provided directly to teachers so they can choose their own professional development. Teachers have reported that professional activities selected by the school districts are often not as helpful as those activities they might have selected themselves. Under TOPS, if a group of teachers is not satisfied with the professional opportunities offered by the school district, they could request that the LEA pay for them to attend a professional development program of their choice, provided the program met the professional activity requirements under the Act. This means that science teachers could attend a local university that has a reputation for intensive professional development programs in math and science; programs that they otherwise might not have had the opportunity to attend. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor TEA. TEA gives States and schools the resources and the flexibility to use those resources to retain, recruit, train and hire highly qualified teachers. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr President, today I am joined with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Collins, Brownback, Hagel, Coverdell, Gorton, Mack, Voinovich and Sessions in introducing the Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA). This Act is similar to H.R. 1995 which recently passed the House. The bill provides a little over $2 billion annually over 5 years by consolidating funds for Title II of ESEA, GOALS 2000 and Classroom Size into one flexible funding stream for the purposes of increasing teacher quality and the number of high quality teachers in our schools. Over 300 studies have found that the number one contributor to student achievement is a highly qualified teacher. Outside of parental involvement, no other factor has as much impact on determining whether a student will succeed or fail in school. Unfortunately, we know that over 25% of those who enter the teacher workforce are poorly qualified to teach. Furthermore, we know that many teachers who are already in the classroom lack necessary skills or do not possess adequate knowledge of the subject area in which they teach. Since teacher quality is the most significant determinant to student success and there is a shortage of high quality teachers in our schools, it is readily apparent that we need to focus our efforts on increasing teacher quality. Nothing else will improve our public schools or lead to increased student achievement as much as increasing the number of high quality teachers in our schools. TEA improves teacher quality by requiring that professional development activities increase teacher knowledge and skills as well as student achievement. TEA builds upon extensive research on what type of professional development activities improve teacher knowledge and skills. First and foremost high quality professional development activities must be directly related to the curriculum and subject area in which the teacher provides instruction. Second, they must be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact. TEA only funds those professional activities that meet these requirements and only if the activities are tied to challenging State content and student performance standards. Not only does TEA improve teacher quality, but it gives school districts the ability to recruit and retain high quality teachers. Many school districts, especially inner city and rural school districts, are unable to either attract or retain high quality teachers. Blanket classroom size reduction proposals, which call for reduced class size at all costs, only exacerbate the situation. A recent Rand study found that California's classroom size initiative led to more uncredentialed, underqualifed teachers and an increase in teacher aides (rather than teachers) providing direct instruction to students. Inner city schools in Los Angeles actually witnessed a decrease in the number of qualified teachers, as many of those that were qualified left the inner city schools when jobs opened up in more affluent schools. Clearly, school districts must be given the resources to not only recruit, but also to retain, high quality teachers. TEA does this through a variety of measures. It permits school districts to award differential pay to retain and recruit teachers in high need subject areas, such as math and science. It permits schools to provide signing bonuses to retain their best teachers and reduce the rate of attrition. It permits school districts to establish incentive programs to attract and hire highly skilled and knowledgeable teachers. It permits schools to recruit individuals who have had careers outside of teaching but whose life experience provides a solid foundation for teaching. And, it permits schools to invest in teacher mentors and master teachers; studies and teacher polls have found that hiring master teachers who mentor new teachers improves both teacher quality and the likelihood that new teachers will stay and thrive at the school. In addition to promoting high quality professional development programs and to giving school districts the ability to retain, recruit and train high quality teachers, TEA also promotes a number of innovative common sense reforms, such as tenure reform, teacher testing, merit-based performance systems, teacher academies, and alternative certification programs. TEA also creates Teacher Opportunity Payments (TOPS), payments that would be provided directly to teachers so they can choose their own professional development. Teachers have reported that professional activities selected by the school districts are often not as helpful as those activities they might have selected themselves. Under TOPS, if a group of teachers is not satisfied with the professional opportunities offered by the school district, they could request that the LEA pay for them to attend a professional development program of their choice, provided the program met the professional activity requirements under the Act. This means that science teachers could attend a local university that has a reputation for intensive professional development programs in math and science; programs that they otherwise might not have had the opportunity to attend. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor TEA. TEA gives States and schools the resources and the flexibility to use those resources to retain, recruit, train and hire highly qualified teachers. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is the stay-at-home-moms amendment. It basically extends the dependent care tax credit to stay-at-home moms. I note that the Senate voted 96-0 in a sense of the Senate for this proposal. It applies to the first year of the child's life and would apply the dependent care tax credit to that first year, so that mothers who stay at home and raise children are treated the same way as mothers who have to go to work and send their children to day care. I note that it is an amendment that is targeted at middle- and low- income families, with stay-at-home mothers in households with an average $38,000 in income and with two working parents with an average income of about $58,000. It is a proposal the Senate has spoken on relative to the sense of the Senate. Therefore, I hope the Senate supports this proposal. I ask for a voice vote. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its modification.