Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for his kindness. Mr. President, I am fortunate enough to know both of these gentlemen: Adm. Bob Natter, an extraordinary naval officer who has been confirmed as a four-star admiral; and, most particularly, I am pleased that my colleagues have confirmed the nomination of Col. Daniel Kaufman to be a brigadier general in the U.S. Army and dean of the Academic Board at West Point. I have known Dan Kaufman for over 30 years. I was a plebe at West Point in Company C-2 when he was a first classman in the summer 1967. He is an extraordinary individual, a great soldier, a distinguished scholar. I also recognize the gentleman whom he is succeeding, Gen. Fletcher Lamkin, who is the current dean. General Lamkin has done an outstanding job at West Point. I thank him for his service. But I am delighted to be able to stand here in the well of the Senate to commend Dan Kaufman. He is a soldier first, a soldier of war above everything else. After graduating from West Point in 1968, he volunteered for training as an Army ranger. He sought an assignment as an armor officer. He was a platoon leader with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam. He received a Bronze Star for valor in action and received two Purple Hearts leading his platoon in Vietnam. He returned to the Army in the United States and pursued his graduate education at the Kennedy School at Harvard, and once again Dan Kaufman and I were together. After he received his master's degree at Harvard, and subsequent service with the 82nd Airborne Division, he received a Ph.D. in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He combines these two virtues and values: A soldier's soldier and a scholar's scholar. He is the ideal choice for the deanship at West Point today, for a school in transformation, for an Army in transformation. As a soldier, he has seen war. He understands that one of the greatest privileges an American can ever have is the privilege of leading American soldiers. Also, one of the greatest honors an American can have is to lead those soldiers well. He has won such an honor. He is also someone who is in touch with the greater Army. He is someone that has been actively involved in numerous issues that deal with the Army, not just academically but very much in its day-to-day activities. He is not an ivory tower scholar. He is an actively engaged soldier. He will instill in the cadets vital skills: the ability to analyze a changing world; and a zest to learn throughout their careers, and to help the Army and move it forward. He is also a family man. His wife Kathryn, his son David, his daughter Emily--they all serve too, and serve the Army extraordinarily well. The mission at West Point is to train young men and women of character for a career of selfless service to the Army and the Nation. Dan Kaufman will expand that mission and move it forward for a generation of West Point cadets who will enter our Army and will do so better prepared, as soldiers who are able to lead as thoughtful members of our military forces. And something else. Because of his example, because of the choices he will make, their hearts and their lives will march to a very simple but profound cadence: Duty, honor, country. I thank the majority leader and yield back my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like at this time to pay my respects to FBI Special Agent John Joseph Truslow. John Truslow, an FBI agent stationed in Providence, was more than ``just an agent.'' He was a brave man, a Rhode Islander who cherished his home state and served its people with courage and distinction. John grew up in Central Falls, Rhode Island and attended the University of Rhode Island, receiving a bachelor's degree in 1972 and a master's degree in 1978. In 1980, he joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York, where he was assigned for eleven years. In 1991, John Truslow transferred back home to Rhode Island, with his wife, Diane, and their two children, Catherine and David. During the next nine years with the Bureau, John Truslow distinguished himself by leading several federal probes that attacked corruption in our cities and towns. In 1996, when the North Cape barge ran aground at Moonstone Beach, spilling over 800,000 gallons of home heating oil into Narragansett Bay and killing millions of fish and wildlife, John Truslow was hard at work. Throughout that year and the next, he led a methodical investigation, which uncovered the corporate negligence that contributed to the disaster. Because of his work, a groundbreaking agreement was reached in which the owner of the North Cape agreed to pay $9.5 million in criminal damages. Today, despite one of the worst environmental accidents in Rhode Island's history, Narragansett Bay is recovering, due, large part, to the work of Mr. Truslow. Described by friends and co-workers as a man of substance and a man of honor, John continued to report to work each day, even after having been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in August 1999. In fact, on April 5, one day after his twentieth anniversary with the FBI and after months of being physically ravaged by cancer and the effects of chemotherapy, John testified before a federal grand jury to present evidence which lead to the indictment on bankruptcy fraud charges of a Rhode Island traffic court judge. Twelve days later, on April 17, he was in court for that indictment. John was a dedicated agent, working up until his final days. We are humbled by his courage, allegiance to duty and his perseverance in the face of adversity. He served with honor and distinction, for the people of his home state of Rhode Island as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, John lost his battle with cancer on May 5. To his family, I offer my sincerest condolences. I need not tell them that they can be proud of John; they already know that. But, I would like them to know what John's work meant to so many in our state. He made a difference in our criminal justice system and has left a lasting impression on friends, co-workers and colleagues in law enforcement. While he is gone, John's legacy of duty and courage lives on, and his record of service to his country and Rhode Island will not soon be forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Providence Journal- Bulletin on the life of Mr. Truslow be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the conference report on H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. This conference report has two major components: a crop insurance reform bill and a major farm relief package. I want to comment briefly on each of these. I support the crop insurance reform bill because it will increase premium subsidies for farmers who buy more comprehensive coverage and support research of new crop insurance policies for currently non- insurable specialty crops that are important in Rhode Island and other states in the Northeast. It is an important step forward in a long-term bipartisan effort to encourage farmers across the country to obtain more crop insurance coverage and reduce income losses due to natural disasters. I was disappointed that the Senate bill's risk management pilot project was dropped in conference with the House. The pilot project would have allowed farmers to choose between traditional crop insurance and a direct payment for adopting new risk management practices such as farm diversification, futures contracts and options, creation of conservation buffers, soil erosion control, and irrigation management. I believe we should continue to explore ways to offer increased income to farmers for whom crop insurance has not worked well, while encouraging producers to adopt new risk management strategies that are good for the environment. I am pleased that this crop insurance bill removes the ``area trigger'' for the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, also known as NAP. I believe broader NAP eligibility is one of the most effective ways to assist farmers in the eastern United States who face severe production losses due to drought, floods, or other disasters. Currently, NAP crops are eligible for assistance when: (1) expected ``Area Yield'' for the crop is reduced by more than 35 percent because of natural disaster; and (2) individual crop losses are in excess of 50 percent of the individual's approved yield, or the producer is prevented from planting more than 35 percent of the acreage intended for the eligible crop. These criteria have proven to be unworkable in many eastern states, both in terms of program accessibility and timeliness of payments. For individual growers of specialty crops, typically grown on small acreage, a loss of as little as 20 percent can be devastating, especially given the high per-acre value of these crops. Moreover, the process of verifying area yield reductions is cumbersome and exceedingly time-consuming, resulting in waiting periods of several months or, in some cases, more than a year for payment. Giving the Secretary of Agriculture broader discretion over delivery of NAP program funds will streamline the approval process and make direct assistance available to thousands of farmers whose substantial losses do not meet NAP criteria under the current area trigger. I am also pleased that the bill includes $50 million for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost-share assistance to farmers in states with low historical participation in traditional crop insurance programs. These funds will be targeted to farmers who pursue innovative conservation and risk management techniques, including: streambank repairs and reconstruction; integrated pest management tools; construction or improvement of watershed management structures; transition to organic farming, particularly among dairy farmers; and futures, hedging or options contracts to help reduce production, price or revenue risks. Substantial funds are also included for crop insurance education and information programs for states with low levels of federal crop insurance participation and availability. Combining expanded outreach programs like these with increased research into new policies for specialty crops is the best way to get more farmers into the program and hopefully reduce the need for farm disaster legislation. With regard to the farm relief component of the conference report before us today, I am disappointed that the entire $5.5 billion of the package's FY2000 funds, fully 77% of the $7.1 billion provided in this farm assistance package, consists of additional AMTA or ``Freedom to Farm'' payments. Only a very small proportion of farmers in my state and in other Northeastern states will benefit from these payments. Meanwhile, additional AMTA payments will be made to many other farmers regardless of whether they have experienced substantial losses during the current crop year. I and many of my colleagues from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic opposed the farm disaster bill passed by the Senate last year because it did not provide adequate relief to farmers in our region who were hit by the terrible drought conditions of 1999. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that four states in the Northeast, including Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, experienced the driest growing season in their histories. From April through July, Rhode Island was the driest it has been in 105 years of record-keeping by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. Forecasters at the National Weather Service are predicting continued drought conditions this year, because we are starting out with a deficit of rainfall and, even with the snowstorms of January, winter precipitation was 3.5 inches below normal for our region. Fortunately, the removal of the NAP area trigger I described earlier will help if disaster strikes again this year. In addition, the farm relief package includes $200 million for purchases of specialty crops for low prices in 1998 and 1999, including apples, cranberries, black- eyed peas, cherries, citrus, onions, melons, peaches, and potatoes. Manager language is included to direct the Secretary of Agriculture, to the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers or agricultural co-ops. Another $5 million is provided by the farm relief package for apple producers that are suffering economic loss as a result of low prices. $35 million is provided for Loan Deficiency Payments for non-AMTA farms for the 2000 crop year, and $50 million is provided for the Farmland Protection Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, both of which are important to my state and the Northeastern region of the country. Finally, the farm relief package requires the Department of Agriculture to purchase specialty crop farm products for the school lunch program, again with manager language included to direct the Secretary, to the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers or agricultural co-ops. With the passage of this legislation we will give farmers the tools they need to manage their risk more effectively, and possibly reduce the need for Congress to pass massive farm disaster packages year after year. At the same time, I believe we are beginning to recognize the contributions and needs of farmers in every region of the country, farmers who not only feed the world but preserve a way of life that makes our Nation stronger and protects our precious open spaces from the encroachment of development and urban sprawl. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to accompany the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. submitting changes to h. con. res. 290 pursuant to section 216

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, and still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of just some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago on May 19, 20, and 21. May 19, 1999: Clarence Arnold, 32, Knoxville, TN Troy Blando, 39, Houston, TX Don T. Huey, 32, Houston, TX David Johnson, 31, Houston, TX Booker Miles, 27, Louisville, KY James Nash, 40, Atlanta, GA Leon Pickett, Detroit, MI Mark Thompson, 31, Baltimore, MD Willie D. Watts, 39, Gary, IN Cedric White, 19, Atlanta, GA May 20, 1999: Eric Michael Allen, 30, Detroit, MI Roderick R. Brown, 27, Memphis, TN John Cosgrove, 71, Miami-Dade County, FL Paul Davis, 28, Chicago, IL Stephen Entsminger, 49, Davenport, IA Maria Josefina Eslava, 23, Houston, TX Curtis O. Green, 17, Chicago, IL Travis Johnson, 20, Rockford, IL Demarcus Kelly, 26, Atlanta, GA Aaron Murphy, Jr., 40, Macon, GA Kevin Stokes, 27, Atlanta, GA Male, 56, Honolulu, HI May 21, 1999: James Alberts, 35, Bridgeport, CT Quan Bell, 28, Detroit, MI Edward Belton, 18, St. Louis, MO Richard Daniels, 27, Fort Worth, TX Anthony Houston, 21, Detroit, MI Michelle Jackson, 21, St. Louis, MO Steven Jupiter, 19, Baltimore MD Werner Muense, 81, Minneapolis, MN John Minaya, 19, Providence, RI Karl Paul Pitts, 22, Detroit, MI Michael Marion Raymond, 22, Washington, DC Osualdo Rodriquez, 23, Houston, TX Sheri Thielen, 40, Minneapolis, MN May 19, 1999 (Houston, Texas): Police Officer Troy Blando was fatally shot while attempting to arrest an auto theft suspect. Jeffery Demond Williams pulled into a parking lot in a stolen Lexus, and the 39-year-old Blando, working on the auto theft task force, was undercover in an unmarked vehicle. Blando approached Williams after he had run a check on the license plate and discovered the vehicle had been stolen. A struggle ensued, and Blando put away his gun as he tried to handcuff the suspect's wrists. At that point, Williams pulled out a gun and shot the police officer, who was pronounced dead later that evening after doctors were unable to save him. Police Officer Troy Blando is survived by his widow who suffers from multiple sclerosis, and his 14-year-old son. Williams has been convicted and sentenced to die. May 20, 1999 (Conyers, Georgia): As students mingled before class at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia, on May 20, 1999, fifteen-year-old Thomas Solomon pulled out a rifle and a handgun and began to open fire. Six students were injured and an assistant principal had to talk Solomon out of killing himself after he put a gun in his mouth. This incident took place exactly one month after Littleton, Colorado. May 21, 1999 (Providence, Rhode Island): Twenty-four-year-old John Minaya was accosted and fatally shot outside a busy Dairy Queen ice cream shop in Providence's West End early on the evening of May 21, 1999. Officers found Minaya lying on the pavement in the parking lot shortly after 7:00 p.m. He had been hit more than once, and people were ministering to him. He was taken to Rhode Island Hospital, but he died within minutes. Though it was still springtime, Minaya was Providence's 13th homicide victim of 1999, a year in which there were ultimately 26 murders in the city, up from 15 in 1998 and 13 in 1997. The majority of these killings were committed with firearms, and most of these were handguns. The children and families who witnessed the shooting of John Minaya in broad daylight at a Dairy Queen in Providence will carry the horrific memory of that day with them for as long as they live. We should do our part to ensure that fewer Americans experience gun violence by passing common sense gun legislation without further delay.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding the time. I rise in support of Senator Daschle's resolution to commend the participants in the Million Mom March, and to also call on Congress to pass meaningful gun safety legislation. Senator Daschle, as we all know, has been a long-time advocate and leader on the issue of gun control. I thank him for taking this issue on. I would prefer, frankly, to be speaking about real legislation. I find it ironic that Members of the Senate would be bemoaning the fact that we don't have real legislation before us when, in fact, legislation is bottled up in a conference committee because of a gun lobby in the NRA. We all would prefer to be speaking about real legislation that would do something. This is a resolution that follows another resolution I sponsored just a few weeks ago on the budget that would have called for the conferees to meet and to discharge and send to us a conference report including all the provisions, including the Lautenberg-Kerrey gun show provision that we passed almost a year ago. That resolution passed 53-47 on a bipartisan basis. It is quite clear that these measures should return to us in the form of the juvenile justice conference report that will be passed by this Senate. What that caused is the gun lobby and the NRA to do all they can to ensure that conference report stays locked up in the conference. We are here today because we want to move forward on an agenda of sensible gun control. We want to respond to the thousands and thousands of mothers who came to Washington last weekend and who asked us to act responsibly to protect the children of this country. A vast majority of Americans support us. They support these measures, and they, in fact, are insistent that we take action. If there is any reason today why we are talking about another resolution on a military construction appropriations, it is because the gun lobby has dug themselves in to prevent consideration of real legislation. We have to overcome that opposition. We have to overcome it by word and by deed. Last Sunday, the mothers of America marched. Now it is our responsibility to act today at least by passing this resolution. We also know the real sticking point in this legislative battle is the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment with respect to gun shows. What we want to do and what I think the American people want to do is apply the same rules of the Brady background checks to all sales at gun shows. The Brady bill gives law enforcement authority up to 72 hours--brief as it is--to conduct a background check on a prospective purchaser of a firearm. What happened was in the development of the original Brady law there was a loophole created which would allow unlicensed dealers at gun shows to avoid these background checks. Interestingly enough, three of the weapons used by the Columbine killers were acquired at a gun show because even these young men knew that they could go to a gun show and avoid a background check, and that they could, in cohort with another, purchase arms without a background check. We want to close it. I hope we can. This is also the case throughout the country where this is not just a Democratic-Republican issue. The Governor of Colorado, Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, recently signed a petition to place a gun show initiative with a 3-day background check on the ballot in his home State of Colorado. It is sensible, and it is long overdue. The opponents of this measure are suggesting that this is a mandatory waiting period--it is a 3-day waiting period--that a waiting period would destroy the gun shows. That is not the case. In fact, if you look at what is happening, it is because of technology. Because of the national instant check system, the FBI can clear 72 percent of gun buyers within 30 seconds. Another 23 percent are cleared within 2 hours. Ninety-five percent of those individuals who wish to purchase a firearm in this country have their background checks completed in 2 hours. What about the other 5 percent? The other 5 percent found out they are 20 times more likely to have prohibitive information in their files which will restrict their access to a firearm. Here is what is happening: The gun lobby and the NRA protect 5 percent of gun purchasers who are much more likely to be prohibited from owning firearms, are willing to sabotage the closing of this loophole, are willing to jeopardize, if you will, the safety of Americans. I don't think that is right. What we can and should apply the Brady law across the board to all sales of gun shows. I don't think it will interfere materially in any way with the rights of a law-abiding citizen to acquire a firearm. In fact, I think it will contribute to the public safety and to the sense that the mothers in America tried so vividly to create last weekend: That this country, with all of its violence, has to do something different and has to do something better. I hope we can move forward with real legislation, not another resolution. I hope we can recognize what hundreds of thousands of Americans were saying to their Government last Sunday: Pass sensible gun safety legislation. I commend the mothers and all the supporters who were on The Mall. I commend Senator Daschle for his efforts. I hope we will, before Memorial Day, be voting on the juvenile justice bill containing these measures which will protect all Americans, and particularly the children in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today for the second time in a month, the Senate of the United States has gone on record supporting sensible gun safety legislation. It has gone on record to say that we should close the gun show loophole; that we should ban the importation of large capacity ammunition clips; that we should require the use of child safety locks; that we should prohibit the possession of assault weapons by juveniles. This body could not be clearer on where it stands when it comes down to the issues. What is confusing is the fact that we are unable to reach these issues in a substantive, decisive way because the legislation is not on this floor but bottled up in a conference committee. We are responding to many things. Most recently, we were responding to hundreds of thousands of American men and women who came to this capital to ask their Senators to act. How do we act? We do it by debate and by voting. That is what we did this afternoon. It is difficult, sometimes, to achieve a vote because of the procedures of the Senate, but in consequence of that, there has always been the presumption that debate should be free ranging, should be open, and should be easy to obtain. Today, we should celebrate not only the victory--again, within a month--of what I think is reason over unreason, of sensible safety when it comes to guns, over a fascination with the proliferation of weapons in society, but we all should celebrate the fact that finally and ultimately we have gotten a chance to speak about this issue, speak for the hundreds of thousands of mothers who came last weekend to Washington to ask us to live up to our oaths and our duty and to protect their children and all Americans by enacting sensible gun safety legislation.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding his time. First, there are no more respected and trusted Members of the Senate than Senator Warner and Senator Byrd. When one approaches their amendment and their language with respect to Kosovo, it is with a position of both, as I mentioned, trust and respect. However, after examining the amendment, I must disagree with their conclusion and the amendment. Let me also say by way of an aside, I certainly do support the underlying provisions of the military construction appropriations bill and I commend both Senator Burns and Senator Murray for all their hard work. As I indicated, I am concerned about the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. The Byrd-Warner amendment provides for several things. First, section 2410 of the bill would prohibit the expenditure of funds for the continued deployment of ground troops after July 1, 2001, unless the President seeks and secures congressional authorization to continue the deployment beyond that date. This, I think, is one of the more central parts of their amendment. Essentially, it says our troops will come out by July 2001 unless the Congress acts affirmatively to keep them there. There has been some discussion throughout this debate about senatorial prerogative and roles of the Senate in forging policy with respect to deployment of our troops. I don't believe this debate is ultimately about, or should be about, senatorial prerogatives. It is quite clear, given the power of the purse, we can compel the extraction of our forces by simply cutting off the funds. That principle is clear. What is at stake here is the consequences of such an action, whether such an action would inure to our benefit or whether it would be a costly error. I believe it would not inure to our benefit. I believe the consequences would be detrimental not only to our position in the world, our position in NATO, but ultimately to the position of our forces within Kosovo. Let me suggest what I believe to be the consequences of the passage of this amendment. It would signal to those forces both within the Albanian Kosovars and the Serbian Kosovars that our commitment to staying in Kosovo is limited to a year. As a result, they will, for their own protection and also to advance their own particular plans after our departure, begin to rearm, begin to become much more provocative, begin to assault each other. Frankly, given the imbalance of population and forces within Kosovo, it is more likely that the Albanian Kosovars will try to seek a final remedy by displacement of Serbians out of Kosovo before, in their view, the departure of the summit forces, which would likely be accompanied by significant reduction, or certainly a diminution, of the international commitment to Kosovo. With this combination, we are creating a very destabilizing situation within Kosovo. That destabilized situation would, I think, jeopardize the safety of our forces there. As a result, we would have a situation where we were injecting the kind of uncertainty, the kind of instability, that would, I think, blow up in our faces in terms of our troops. I mention what the Albanian Kosovars might do. I think Milosevic, being shrewd, clever, and unyielding, would seek to regain through this action what he lost on the battlefield, would continue to accelerate the introduction of his forces back into Kosovo in the guise of civilians; would begin, if he could, to circumvent embargoes on weapons to bring weapons in, setting the stage for violence, for acceleration of violence, which I think inevitably would touch our troops. Finally, if one is sitting back and watching these developments from within Kosovo, and one is expecting a vote of this Congress with respect to whether our troops will stay or they will go, one might conclude or deduce, based upon recent history, that the quickest way to accelerate our departure is to harm our troops. That is one lesson, perhaps imprecise, but one lesson of Somalia. When American forces, with overwhelming firepower, confronted basically tribal forces armed with AK-47s and RPGs, we were staying the course until tragically we lost two helicopters and a number of Army rangers and Army personnel, and then quickly we were through. We don't know if that is the lesson the leadership in Kosovo would draw, but certainly it is plausible. As a result, as we spin out these consequences, the requirement within this amendment to withdraw, unless there is congressional approval, sets in motion a chain of events which I think will not lead to stability, will not lead to an environment of peace and tranquility, or at least minimize violence, but could very well unwittingly, unconsciously--and certainly this is not the intent of anyone here particularly--lead to more violence, more instability, which perhaps would force us to withdraw for political reasons long before we could ever sit down and have a vote in this Senate and in the other body on whether we should continue our presence in Kosovo. Essentially, what we are doing here today, as I mentioned, is not charting the prerogatives of the Senate but trying to assess the consequences of what we will do, trying to look ahead and not to the rear. One could come here, and I think should come here, and question how we got into Kosovo, how we were consulted by the White House. Many of these questions are legitimate. Many of these questions have been raised many other times on this floor. But today we should be looking ahead. As we look ahead, I think the consequences of this act would be detrimental rather than helpful to our international position and to the safety of our forces on the ground. There is a second provision, and that provision is to develop a plan to shift responsibility for providing ground forces to European nations by July 1, 2001. Again, I do not believe there is anyone in this body who would question the central role that Europe must play in securing the peace, not just in Kosovo but in the entire Balkans. So the plan for the organized shift of responsibilities is sensible. Certainly I approve of this. I do not think anyone disapproves of it. There is a final proviso and that is withholding 25 percent of the fiscal year 2000 supplemental funds unless the White House certifies that European allies are paying their promised share of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Again, no one can question or argue that the Europeans should do more, should do their share. Whether or not this amendment would prompt them to do that is another question. But this is an element of the amendment that I believe certainly engenders the kind of debate, and we hope pressure, political and otherwise, that would require the Europeans to pay their share, to carry their load, to respond to a crisis that is in their backyard and not in our backyard. All of these elements together--but most particularly the first element, the deadline for withdrawal if there is no approving vote by the Congress of the United States--are troubling and will, as I suggested, set in motion a series of events that could not only destabilize our position but force us to pull out, not in an organized way but in quite a disorganized way. We all are concerned about what appears to be an open-ended commitment. I do not believe this is the way to respond to that concern. Perhaps there is no good way to respond to that concern. Perhaps the only way to do so is to begin to work with our allies so, on a programmed, planned basis, we can substitute additional U.S. forces with European forces. Perhaps it is by working with the United Nations to see that they back up their words with real resources, real dollars, so they can begin the reconstruction, and also to work with the European Community so they can do the same in terms of their commitments; also to begin to work with international groups, the United Nations and others, to develop the capacity to have available real police forces, not those who have been trained to patrol the reasonably serene streets of metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada and elsewhere, but those police forces that are trained for this type of almost paramilitary operation. Those steps take time. But that is a way to address this issue of an open-ended commitment of our military forces. It is an issue we must address because, regardless of what we do with respect to Kosovo, we have similar challenges in East Timor and other places that require the same kind of international humanitarian and reconstructive aid, as well as international police forces. There is another issue that emanates from this amendment, and that is the message we are sending to our allies about our participation in an international effort. We are in Kosovo because, not only are we a member of NATO, we are the leader of NATO. Our allies have joined us in this effort. This is not a unilateral American response to a problem. This is an international response with our allies through the mechanism of NATO. Indeed, I believe if we are signaling our response is weakening, that signal will be taken very badly by our allies in Europe and around the world. We did an extraordinary job with our military forces, our air power, in securing our entry into Kosovo, the entry of NATO. It would seem to me to be turning away from that great military success at this juncture by our own action, essentially signaling to our NATO allies we are no longer prepared to assist them in the efforts in Kosovo. I believe it would, in fact, trigger their parliaments to conduct the same types of debates we are conducting, and the same type of vote if this measure passes. And, as a result, the cohesion, the commitment--not just of the United States but of NATO and European forces--would be dissipated and, in fact, we would see perhaps the end of international involvement in Kosovo. The other thing to recognize is that, of the 49,500 troops on the ground, 5,300 are American forces, about 10 percent of the total. This is not a disproportionately American-led operation today on the ground in Kosovo. Indeed, if you look at the U.N. international police forces in Kosovo, of the 1,900 police officers, 430 are Americans. In terms of reconstruction, we are scheduled to pay about 14 percent of the reconstruction, 20 percent of the humanitarian aid. These numbers are in line with a joint international effort not dominated by the United States, but our shared participation is vital to its success. If we choose to make this judgment with respect to Kosovo, we also have to ask ourselves, reasonably: Will our participation elsewhere be questioned? What about our Australian allies who have shouldered a disproportionate burden in East Timor and have asked us repeatedly both for practical and political reasons to participate with them? Will they suddenly get nervous about our resolve there and curtail their activities in a country which desperately needs international support to make the transformation from a dependency, a captured territory, really, of Indonesia, to an independent country? We can see many other places around the world where our resolve might be seriously questioned. So the ramifications of this vote are not just within the context of Kosovo. They would reach out across the globe literally to raise questions of our role in the world with respect to our allies and our adversaries. Speaking of adversaries, one has to ask how would this be interpreted by Milosevic in Belgrade? I think he would see this as his salvation. After losing five wars in the Balkans, after seeing his country practically dismembered, after seeing his cities destroyed from the air, suddenly we would offer him the hope of some ultimate justification because, if we leave, the pressure on our allies to go also will be, perhaps, unstoppable. Also, if we leave, and if my worst fears come about that there is renewed interethnic violence between Serbs and Albanians within Kosovo, he will be able to stand in his figurative pulpit and claim that he is doing precisely what we did; that he is using his military forces to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Serbs by Kosovar Albanians, and that he is justified, morally and politically, on the same basis we were, to enter back into Kosovo with force, if necessary, to vindicate the same moral principles we claimed. Would that not be a terrible irony in history? Yet that very well could happen. I believe Milosevic and his colleagues in Belgrade would embrace any slight weakening of our resolve. The other aspect we have to look at, and it is one that is geared to all of us here but none more so than the sponsors of this amendment, is the status and the safety of our forces. Again, one can always conjure up dangers, particularly when we have troops in as close contact as they are. The simple uncertainty of what we might do a year from now with respect to a vote would, I think, inject increased risks to our forces in the field. I do not think we should do that. I do not think it is necessary to do that. We have heard from General Clark. He has been emphatic about his view that this course of action would not be wise or judicious. We have heard similarly from Secretary of Defense Cohen. Our troops in the field already face a difficult task. They have combat power, but ultimately it is the resolve and the support of this Nation that stands behind them which is their greatest weapon. They are in a very difficult and dangerous situation. They are in urban areas. Like so many of my colleagues, I traveled to Kosovo last July with Senator Levin, Senator Sessions, and Senator Landrieu. We traveled through Kosovo. It is and has been a violent land. It is a place where we saw as we went into Prizren, a town in the German sector, fires burning by renegades who are still trying to avenge themselves against the Serbs. In that complicated area with cities, I do not think we want to unwittingly invite the hotheads, the terrorists, the ideologues to begin attacking our forces because that is not a place where our advantages militarily will come to the fore. In fact, we will be severely disadvantaged. I hope we will reject this amendment. This is always very positive and productive because this body should be a place for debate and discussion. Senator Warner and Senator Byrd have, once again, focused our attention on this issue in Kosovo, once again reminding us of how we got into the situation and also reminding us of our obligations to look ahead. In that sense, they have done a great service to this Senate, as they have done throughout their careers. If we seize that challenge, if we look ahead, if we try to carefully measure the likely consequences, this amendment will not advance our cause, will not advance our position in the world, will not provide additional support and resolve to those forces within Kosovo that are seeking peace and reconciliation. It will, at best, create uncertainty and doubt which will generate, in my view, violence and, at worst, be a green light for those forces that want to finally eliminate their ethnic rivals or those forces that see this as an opportunity to, once again, get the upper hand on their ethnic rivals. All these suggest we should reject this amendment and that we try, if we are concerned about the long-term status of our forces in that area, to work for an acceleration, as part of this amendment calls for, an acceleration of international assistance for reconstruction and humanitarian affairs, an acceleration of the deployment of police officers to absorb the responsibilities which now are being held by military forces, to accelerate our readiness for peacekeeping around the globe because we know, although we regret, there will be other situations such as this. If we can do that based upon this debate, then we have accomplished a great deal, but I urge my colleagues to oppose these provisions and support Senator Levin's amendment to strike so we can send a message to our allies, to our soldiers, to our adversaries that we will stand behind our forces in Kosovo. I thank the Chair. I yield back my remaining time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with the legislation before us. While I support the intent of this legislation, increasing trade between Africa and the U.S., I will not be able to lend it my support. This is in no way a comment on either Chairman Roth or Senator Moynihan. They have done yeoman's work on this legislation, which has been a longtime priority for them both. Mr. President, my objection to this legislation is what it includes, and what it excludes. The legislation includes provisions which are a less than comprehensive approach to establishing mutually beneficial trade relations with Africa. In addition, I have heard from Rhode Island textile manufacturers who remain concerned with the textile provisions in this legislation, specifically the less than perfect transhipment elements. Lastly, the legislation only includes a study of the effectiveness of Trade Adjustment Assistance, even though the Senate bill reauthorized and strengthened TAA for workers and businesses adversely affected by international trade. On the other hand, the conference report excludes an amendment which is important to our country's jewelry manufacturers as well as Senator Feingold's and Senator Feinstein's amendment on HIV/AIDS treatment in African nations. Last year, with the support of Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan, the Senate adopted a common sense amendment to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to improve country of origin marking requirements for certain types of imported jewelry. Now, improving the country of origin marking requirements for jewelry may seem like a modest proposal, but it took many years to develop a compromise on this issue that would pass the Senate. To give a sense of how long it took, I first introduced this legislation in 1996 as a member of the other chamber, when members of our struggling domestic jewelry manufacturing industry came to me with a desire to see permanent country of origin markings on imports. These small businesses told me that all too often the stickers or tags meant to inform consumers where a product was made, fell off, were obscured by price tags, or in some cases were simply removed. Customs officials in Rhode Island also acknowledged that there was a problem with the marking regime on imported jewelry. Most importantly, I found that the same concern on the part of domestic makers of Native American style jewelry had been addressed as part of the 1988 trade bill. It is upon this common sense law that I based my legislation. Mr. President, as a general rule, the United States requires all imported products to display in the most permanent manner possible the nation where they were made. One only has to look at a watch, clothing, computers, televisions, scissors, books, toys, and almost every other product to see that its country of origin is conspicuously and permanently marked so consumers know where a product was manufactured. The existence of these marking requirements is not due to some nefarious protectionist urge, rather it is simply a tool to provide consumers with information and help Customs officials easily recognize imports for the purposes of tariff classification. I would add that most of our trading partners have similar standards. It was with the above in mind that I was pleased to work with the Chairman and Senator Moynihan to develop a sensible amendment to increase the amount of imported jewelry that had to be permanently marked. However, I would point out that this language was also consistent with all trade laws and created no bar to the flow of imported jewelry. Moreover, the amendment did no more than establish marking requirement parity between non-precious jewelry and Native American style jewelry. And, lastly I am hard pressed to see how changing the method by which a product is marked leads to any increased costs for foreign manufacturers, since under the current country of origin system all products are legally required to be marked in some fashion. Unfortunately, the House cavalierly dismissed the concerns of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and California jewelry makers for reasons of either ignorance or animosity to change. I want to stress that I appreciate and recognize the time that the Chairman, Senator Moynihan and their staffs put into this seemingly non-controversial provision. While the legislation before us does not contain this common-sense amendment, I want to assure my colleagues here and in the other body, as well as the thousands of hard-working men and women of the domestic jewelry industry, that I will continue to pursue this issue and utilize all of the Senate's prerogatives to enact this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Jeffords. I commend Senator Lieberman and his colleagues for presenting a very thoughtful and principled alternative to discuss today. There are elements in this legislation which I support enthusiastically, and then there are other elements I do not accept and have great questions about. But the proposal of Senator Lieberman along with colleagues underscores some critical points. First of all, they underscore that the approach of S. 2--simply transferring money with very limited and ambiguous accountability provisions of the State--is not the way to reform accountability. Also, they recognized there is a legitimate State and local partnership that could be maintained and should be maintained, particularly in the context of title I. They are also advocating a greater investment in education. That is something I know I agree with and I know many, if not all, of my colleagues on the Democratic side passionately agree with. Also, they advocate greater targeting of these funds into those low-income schools that need more assistance and, in fact, represent probably the best example why unconstrained State and local policy sometimes leads to bad outcomes. If you look at the funding and the performance of schools in urban areas and low-income rural areas, you will see the combination of the property tax and local policies will lead to results, to outcomes we do not want. We at the Federal level have the opportunity and the resources to help a bit, at least, to change that outcome. Also, it recognizes the importance of class size reduction and school choice. All of these are very important. In addition, it recognizes very strongly the notion and the need for accountability. Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment. He worked on this measure, not just in this Congress but in the preceding reauthorization. I joined him in that work as a Member of the other body. This provision is an important one. It is not part of the Lieberman proposal. I think it is something we should emphasize. I do, though, disagree with the approach they are taking to consolidate certain programs because one of the issues with consolidation is that you tend to lose both the focal point and also we typically design specific targeted programs to do those things which States are unwilling to do or are not doing at the same level of resources which are necessary to accomplish a national purpose. We can see examples throughout our policies. School libraries, I use, inevitably, to point out the fact that back in 1965 we did have direct Federal resources going to help collections of school libraries. In 1981 we rolled them into a consolidated block grant approach, and, frankly, if you spoke to school librarians, they would point out the status of their collections, which are very poor, with out-of-date books, and they would also say how difficult it is to get any real resources from the localities or States. Frankly, that is the type of acquisition they can always put off until next year and next year, and before you know it, it is 5 and 10 years and these books are out of date. I believe, too, the proposal the Senator from Connecticut and his colleagues are advancing does not recognize some of the other challenges facing our schools. The fact is, we do need to help the States and localities, apparently, to fix crumbling schools. One of the things I hear repeatedly from the other side is the wisdom of State and local Governors about public education. If that is the case, why are there so many decrepit school buildings throughout our country? Why are there so many children going to schools to which we would be, frankly, embarrassed to send children? It is not because people are either ignorant or evil at these local levels. It is because when you have a limited tax base, when you have many other priorities, when most of the local budgets are consumed by personnel costs, it is awfully difficult without some outside help--i.e., Federal help--to do certain things. One of them, apparently, is to ensure that school buildings are maintained at a level where we would not be embarrassed to send children. There are schools in Rhode Island that are over 100 years old. They are crumbling. They need help. Every time I go into these communities, I do not have local school committee people and mayors saying: Go away; take your terrible, terrible Federal rules and regulations away from us. I have them imploring me: Can you help us get some resources from the Federal Government to fix up our schools? That is the reality, not the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo about big education bureaucrats and everything else. There is potential in the Lieberman amendment. Unfortunately, this aspect of putting all these programs together defeats the purpose. I have two other quick points.

Mr. REED. I would like to speak about the amendment, not necessarily in support but speak about the amendment.

Mr. REED. I understood we would go back and forth.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Tennessee for their graciousness. I commend them particularly for bringing up the issue of increased resources and targeting. One of the ironies is, we who have been doing this over the last few years fought through the last reauthorization. Targeting of resources of title I programs is intensely divisive politically. Particularly Members of the other body do not want to see their allocation in title I funds decreased, even if they represent fairly affluent communities. It is one thing to talk about targeting, but it is something else to have the political will to engage in that. I tried it in 1994, along with others. We made moderate success. I would be happy to join the battle of targeting again, but I would be remiss if I did not point out the real challenges of getting a bill such as this through both Houses of the Congress. Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his graciousness, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request 1 more minute.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Murray's amendment and commend her. I begin by talking about this issue of status quo that has been bandied about. Let me suggest what the status quo is in America. The status quo is that Governors and mayors and school committees fundamentally decide educational policy in this country. In fact, the Senator from Arkansas gave a good example of how a Governor really screwed it up. He decided he wanted smaller class size, but he didn't understand or recognize that you also had control for the quality of the teachers, so the result is in poor districts there are lots of unqualified teachers. Is that an example of a Federal program run amok? No, it is an example of a Governor who got it wrong. What is the Republican proposal? Let's give Governors, including Governor Wilson, carte blanche to do what they will with educational policy. I can't think of any example that more closely undercuts this Straight A approach to education than the example of what was done in California. It is much different than what Senator Murray is advocating. One of the reasons why there were problems in California, I suspect, is they did not have the extra resources necessary to ensure both smaller class size and teacher quality. That is why this program is adding Federal dollars to State resources and local resources, so we control both size of the class and the quality of teachers. I also think it is interesting to note when talking about the collapse and decline of American education, people point to international experiences. Frankly, most international systems are nationally based educational programs. Japan is one which has strong national standards which do not give money away to the head of the prefecture or the head of the province. They have national curricula. They have national teacher certification. So if you are going to have a comparison between why we are failing vis-a-vis other nations, recognize the approach the Republicans are proposing is diametrically opposed to what is done in most of the leading industrialized nations of the world. They are not talking about national anything. They are talking about vesting in every little State, every little community, the authority. Sometimes, frankly, I guess this has been a useful debate. The Senator from Arkansas recognizes that Governors really mess it up sometimes. So I do not think we have to take that approach. I think we can rely, not only on statistics and studies--and the Tennessee example has not been refuted--but just common sense. Ask any teacher. Ask any parent. Would you prefer to teach 30 children or 18? I suspect anyone in the Senate with children of school age, when asked whether they would prefer to have their child in a class of 30 or a class of 18, would say, unhesitatingly, 18. That is common sense. That is what we are about here and that is what this amendment is doing. For the last 2 years we have actually embarked on this program. We are providing assistance and it is flexible, not in the abstract but in the particular. The Providence, RI, Superintendent of Schools wanted to engage in this approach, using extra resources to augment her teaching staff and reduce class size. She received from the Department of Education a waiver which allowed these resources to fund literacy coaches to co-teach in elementary schools 50 percent of the time and to deliver school-based professional development for the balance of the time. It was a flexible approach meeting local needs under the context of the existing legislation. So these theoretical concerns about a lack of flexibility are disproved when you actually look at what systems are doing and what they can do. All of this goes to the real, fundamental issue. Are we going to continue our commitment to lower class size supported both by common sense and by the statistical reviews done already, particularly in Tennessee, or are we going to embark on a carte blanche check to Governors? We have a good example in the previous discussion about a Governor who really got it badly wrong. It illustrates the status quo. The status quo is that Governors and local communities control the quality of teachers. They control fundamental policies. They get it wrong sometimes. Yet the whole Republican approach is give them more resources, give them a list of things they can do, as the menu in a Chinese restaurant, and then that is it. There is also before us now an amendment by Senators Abraham and Mack which would add to this list and diffuse even further our focus on disadvantaged children; programs and policies we know, based upon listening to teachers and parents and looking at research, could work to improve performance of schools. They want to add to the list merit pay and tenure reform and others, which I presume is their approach to professional development. But that is not going to directly improve the quality of teaching in the United States. We know from research, from listening to witnesses at our hearings, that professional development today, in the States, is generally recognized by teachers as inadequate. They feel unprepared to deal with these issues. Is that a Federal problem? No. That is because of State policies, local policies. But we can help. In fact, if you look at most professional development across the United States, it is ad hoc, one- shot lectures or seminars or sessions. In fact, in 1998, participation in professional development programs in the United States typically lasted from only 1 to 8 hours during the course of a school year. That is absolutely insufficient. We know from research and analysis that good professional development has to be in the school, embedded in the program. It has to be content based. It has to give teachers facility and mastery of the topic and the ability to relate with their children. That is not done with 1 to 8 hours. It is done constantly, persistently throughout the school year. That is what is done by an amendment that Senator Kennedy and myself will be offering later. It provides support for that type of professional development which we know works, which will deepen teachers' knowledge of content, which will allow teachers to work collaboratively. That is another failing in our system of professional development. Teachers come in in the morning; they rush from class to class. They might see the other teachers in the lunchroom for 20 minutes. They rush from class to class, go back in, and then they have to go home and take care of their families just as the rest of us. We need more collaboration. That is not in this bill, not even a hint of it. We have to also provide the kind of opportunities for mentoring and review and coaching which we know work--not just rhetorically but actually give resources to the States if they want to do it, and to local communities if they want to do it. That is the approach I think will work. That is the approach that was a large part of the legislation I submitted, the Professional Development Reform Act. I hope we can go ahead and not only support Senator Murray's well- thought-out, well-crafted proposal to reduce class size, but also to reject the Mack-Abraham approach and support, later in our debate, after deliberation, Senator Kennedy's approach and my approach, which is for professional development that has been proven by practitioners to work to the benefit of children. I hope we can do that. I think we have seen, perhaps inadvertently, what could go wrong. Talk about unintended consequences. I add, these are probably predictable consequences. There will be Governors who did what Governor Wilson did because of political pressures and other pressures: Embark on a program--maybe it is class size or maybe something else--that results in poor policy, poor results, and poor education for children. Why do we assume, as the Republicans do, that it is all right to put those forces in train, in motion, by giving them money without accountability? I suspect what we have to do, and what we should do, is concentrate on those areas where we know we make a difference-- particularly supporting disadvantaged children--and also supporting those efforts that have a basis in research and a basis in common sense: Lowering class size, improving the quality of professional development in teaching in America so you do not have the situation that they had in California. Smaller class size, perhaps, but poor teaching. If we support the Democratic approach, we would help have both, smaller class size and better teachers, which I believe will result in better education. I commend Senator Murray for her efforts. I hope in the course of this debate we can support the approach for professional development that Senator Kennedy and I are promoting and in such a way make a real contribution to educational policy in the United States. I yield back to Senator Murray such time as I have not consumed.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I rise today to acknowledge a truly distinguished Rhode Islander, Edward J. Liston, who after having diligently served for 22 years will be retiring as the President of the Community College of Rhode Island on May 7th, 2000. President Liston currently resides in the town of Warwick, Rhode Island, with his wife Judith, where he is a proud father to six wonderful children: Christina, Edward, Jennifer, Judith, Mark, and Nancy. Throughout his tenure as President, Edward Liston worked hard to provide both educational and job training opportunities for Rhode Islanders of all walks of life. Upon his arrival on campus in 1978, to more accurately reflect his mission for the institution, President Liston immediately set out to change the name of what was then known as the Junior College of Rhode Island, to its present name of the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI). In order to further expand CCRI's programs into the community, President Liston established a system of satellite campuses in various local high schools that would offer evening courses in such towns as Woonsocket, Westerly, and Middletown. In addition, he successfully made inroads to provide educational courses at the Adult Correctional Institution in Cranston. President Liston strongly believes that CCRI should have a presence in Rhode Island's inner city communities. In 1990, he opened a downtown Providence Campus which started with a total enrollment of 650 students. Today, over 2,000 students are taking classes at that campus, and plans are underway for an expansion funded by a 1998 bond issue. To acknowledge this achievement, the state has renamed the Providence campus the Edward J. Liston Campus. Immediately after opening the Providence campus, President Liston worked to make CCRI the first higher education institution in Rhode Island to offer television courses through the public broadcasting system on Channel 36. To no surprise, this initiative also flourished, and has led to an increase in viewer enrollment from 100 students, to 1,200 students per semester. In 1989, PBS ranked CCRI the number one school in the country for deliverance of telecourses. Still pushing forward, President Liston then worked to establish a series of partnerships with business and industry leaders to improve the Rhode Island workforce through customized training designed for a particular company. One of the first partnerships was with General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division. This initiative involved a combination of on the job apprenticeship training, and classroom instruction that resulted in an associate degree. This first step led to the creation of the Center for Business and Industrial Training, now a part of the college's Office of Workforce Development. This center was also directly responsible for the creation of the successful Dental Hygiene program at the college, due to its partnership with the Rhode Island Dental Association. On behalf of all Rhode Islanders, I would like to take this opportunity to personally extend my deepest thanks and gratitude to Edward Liston for his continued hard work and dedication over the years to improving the lives of so many Rhode Islanders and their families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come, first, to say how I am strongly in support of the Democratic alternative. It does represent what is the appropriate response by the Federal Government to educational policy in the United States; that is, to find specific ways in which we can help local schools and State systems improve education, with a particular concentration on low-income students. That has been the emphasis in Federal education policy since 1965. It is an emphasis that is being severely diluted by the Republican proposal. In this substitute, there are provisions for strong parental involvement. In contrast, the Republican bill says very little about parental involvement and again leaves it to the States. It provides funds for specific programs that used to be part and parcel of Federal education policy, such as funds for libraries. But because of the inclusion of block grants, we have seen those funds withered away. As a result, our library selections in schools are abysmal and anachronistic. It also provides real accountability for results. This is another issue that I think distinguishes our proposal from the Republican proposal. There is talk about accountability in the Republican proposal but no real accountability. It states that the Governors get to select the standards they want to use to measure their progress. It is only after 3 or 4 or 5 years that there is any real examination of what is going on. At the end of that time, the idea that a Secretary of Education--any Secretary of Education--would take away all the funds or a significant number of funds from a State is, to me, somewhat attenuated. But, in addition, because the criteria for such Secretarial action is so vague and amorphous, there would be very little legal justification to do something such as that. In effect, the accountability provisions are really not accountability provisions. In the last reauthorization in 1994, and in Goals 2000 of that same year, I fought for very tough accountability standards--accountability not only for the student performance but also for the resources going into schools. We fought back and forth, and the opposition, particularly of the Republicans, was vehement. We managed through compromise to come up with provisions that were included in the legislation. But in 1995, with the advent of the Republican Congress, those tough accountability provisions were quickly stricken from the legislative record. As a result, this accountability issue suggests, with respect to the Republican proposals, that it is more superficial than substantive. We, alternatively, also have provisions to help professional development because we recognize that this is not only a local problem; this is a national problem, and we want to help States and localities. They are the key guardians of access to the classrooms and teachers. We want to help them improve professional development. We have language with respect to safe schools and afterschool programs that are targeted to specific programs that are going to aid the overall mission of States and localities. The proposals that are emanating from the Republican side move away from the core principle of involving the Federal Government in the first place in elementary and secondary education, and to help disadvantaged children who were systematically and consciously neglected by States and localities. That was the record up to 1965. They moved away from that. Now the approach is that we want to give the States the money to do that without respect, really, to an emphasis on education, and we want to give the States this money because the school systems of America are failing. Frankly, if the school systems of America are failing, if that is the premise of the legislation, you have to ask yourself who is in charge of this failing school system? Frankly, it is the Governors, the mayors, and the schools throughout this country. The Federal Government contributes about 7 percent of resources; 93 percent of the resources are provided by States and localities. One of the most decisive factors of educational policy in the United States has nothing to do with Washington. It is reliance on the property taxes, exclusively a local idea. It is exclusively a local initiative. Teachers who go into the classroom are not certified by any Federal agency. They are certified by States and localities. School construction is controlled by States and localities. These are decisive factors that influence policy in the country. If you presume that we are here today changing our system because education is failing, why in God's name are you simply going to give the money without conditions to the people who are presiding over this? I don't think we are speaking about educational failure. We are speaking about some limited progress over the last several years as a result of some Federal initiatives. But, frankly, because of lots of local initiatives, because there is a partnership now between States, localities, and the Federal Government with respect to many programs of innovation, starting with Goals 2000 and embedded in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--in fact, searching for a metaphor to try to capture what I think the other side is suggesting, it seems to me, if you were a police officer proceeding on a highway and you saw an automobile careening out of control, recklessly driven, violating the rules, failing to abide by the standards we expect for driving, and you pulled that car over, went up, looked in, and saw a driver and someone in the backseat, then you turned to the backseat driver, and said, you caused of all of this, that is essentially what the Federal Government has been doing in some respects. Yes, we are part of this voyage, if you will, of educational policy. But with 7 percent of the effort, with a limited role, we are, at best, backseat drivers. No one would suggest that the reason the car is failing to operate properly is because of who is in the backseat. It is who is doing the driving; that is, the States and localities. Our approach is to recognize that they are, in fact, in control; that we can collaborate with them; that we can, in fact, provide resources in areas where they either don't do it or do it insufficiently. That is the heart of what we are talking about today--to build on the very real progress we have made over the last several years but recognizing that this progress is insufficient. I urge that we get back to the business of proper Federal educational policy, supporting innovation where it works, overcoming inertia where it hobbles education reform, specifically targeted ways in which we can help localities improve the quality of education for all of our systems with a particular emphasis on disadvantaged American students who need more than what they get without the Federal support. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. This is a very important debate about the course of educational policy in the United States. It is important in many dimensions. Typically, when we bring a bill to the floor on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, much of our discussion is about the mechanics of the legislation. But this debate opens up broad philosophical topics which we are confronting in the bill that is before us and the alternative which Democratic Senators will offer. There are basically two philosophies at play. The philosophy I bring, and that I share with many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, is that there is a very specific role for the Federal Government in education policy. First, we recognize the primacy of State and local authorities in the U.S. Historically, culturally, indeed, constitutionally, State and local authorities govern educational policy. There is a role, though, for the Federal Government. It is a role we have played robustly since 1965; that is, to encourage innovation at the local level while at the same time trying to overcome local inertia so that together with this innovation, which comes from below, and with support so we can overcome obstacles at the local and State level, we can improve the education of our children and their academic performance. All of this leads to an approach which suggests that our role is limited and targeted, particularly with respect to low-income students, who historically have been denied the kinds of opportunities many other American children take for granted. Also, we have a role to reflect national priorities in educational policy, priorities that transcend local feelings, regional approaches, and truly create a national political and policy environment for education improvement. That policy has been established in Federal law since 1965. Today, we are confronting another philosophy. That philosophy, stripped down to its core, is essentially revenue sharing. My colleague from Connecticut suggested as much in his remarks immediately preceding mine. That approach is to say simply that we have some money and let's turn it over to the States. Underlying that approach is the presumption that, of course, the States know what is best. But one of the ironies, again alluded to by my colleague from Connecticut, is that if you are justifying this change in philosophy and change of legislation by the fact that American education policy is failing, what sense does it make to give vast resources without conditions to those individuals and institutions which control this failing educational policy? The institutions that control educational policy are the States and localities. We contribute, from the Federal level, about 7 percent of resources. It is very limited and very targeted. Ninety-three percent of the resources are governed by State and local law. So if American education is failing, who is responsible for this failure? And if the States and localities are responsible, why are we about to embark on a legislative policy which would simply turn over the money to them without any real check on how it is spent? It is States and localities that determine how they raise funds. Through history, they have been wedded to the property tax. In fact, the property tax might be the most decisive reason why some school systems succeed and some fail miserably. But that is a local initiative, local policy, and local law. We wouldn't presume to change that. Yet that has a decisive effect on American educational policy. Who certifies teachers? It is the States, not the Federal Government. If you are concerned about the quality of teachers in the classroom, don't come here and blame us for requiring poor teachers to be in a classroom. Don't come here and blame us for requiring shoddy school buildings. There is no Federal law that requires that. It is a combination of State policy and revenue measures that provide inadequate resources for many school districts. All of these things are under the gambit of State and local control. What we have tried to do for more than three decades now is to find points of leverage in the system where Federal resources and Federal policies can make a difference to help spur innovation and to help overcome the inertia we all see at the local level. This philosophical debate will rage for the next several days on this floor. It is an important debate. Again, I believe the policy we have developed over several decades makes sense, given the realities of educational policy in the United States. It recognizes the key role of States, but it is not an exclusive role. It recognizes that the Federal Government, in limited, targeted ways, can help improve educational quality in the United States. One of the key issues--indeed, it might be the fulcrum upon which this whole debate turns--is accountability. All of those who propose that we turn over resources will argue: But we are requiring more accountability. I think this argument in some respects misperceives the accountability that has already been built into Federal education legislation and assumes the States and localities will act in all cases wisely and well, when in fact history suggests that under the pressure of local budgets, under the demands of local political forces, they can be as irrational sometimes as any policy dictate from Washington. Over the last several decades, we have endeavored to improve the accountability of States and localities through principally the title I program, accountability based on student performance. Back in 1988, amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the first time got away from the simple accountability for finance which ruled title I programs before and started looking at consequences for student performance, tried to begin to develop the notion of standards-based education and of holding States accountable for their title I students and the use of Federal dollars. In 1988, for the first time, we started talking seriously about student outcomes and requiring evaluation of outcomes and improvement in student achievement in the context of the title I program. The first attempts back then were quite modest. The States were left to set the standards, and the standards were often set too low. There was no real enforcement of failure to conform to these standards. Also, in 1988, and years subsequent to that, title I funds went to schools determined on the basis of low student achievement, not based on student poverty levels. As a result, there was this perverse incentive essentially to give more money to schools that were failing rather than to look at another dimension to measure how we could allocate funds. The amendments in 1988 set the stage for action that took place in 1994. That was the Goals 2000 legislation with which, as a Member of the other body, I was deeply involved. And here we began to build on a bipartisan effort, which was begun by President Bush in the context of his educational summit, to develop goals for education in the United States as we approached the new century. The Goals 2000 legislation tried to build on those goals. One of the key elements was to try to, once again, enhance the accountability for the Federal dollars going to the States and the overall performance of the States. Part of the sensitivity to accountability and to what was going on in the States was a result of books such as Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities,'' which painted a very bleak picture of programs, particularly urban education programs, and the distinct disadvantage that low-income students, despite title I funding and State efforts, were still suffering in the 1980s. Also, at that time, there was a range of court cases. The most notable was in Kentucky, where the whole school finance system was challenged as being inequitable and inefficient. In fact, Kentucky's supreme court declared the financing in Kentucky schools to be not supportable and unequal and something that had to be changed. As a result, Kentucky took the lead in developing an equalized financing program and comprehensive reform, and other States acted at the same time, such as Massachusetts, Arkansas, and Tennessee. So this effort was ongoing throughout the country. In the context of Goals 2000, there was an attempt to develop performance standards and the opportunity to learn standards, where for the first time we were talking about the resources necessary for schools and, most important, for children, to succeed. This was based upon the commonsense notion that a child who has a teacher who is unqualified and teaching out of their subject area, a child in a program where there is inadequate facilities, a child that is not able to participate fully in activities and advance in classes that are common, indeed routine, in the suburbs, that child is not going to be able to succeed as well as other children. We pushed very hard to simply require the States to answer a fundamental question: After you have identified a school that is failing, based on these outcome standards, what will you do? Frankly, my amendment, which was focused on this effort, caused intense opposition because when you come down to the crunch, and try to ensure schools are performing, there is innate opposition from States and localities--they recognize tough actions will be required on their part, and there is a natural tendency to resist those types of tough decisions. In fact, not only did my Republican colleagues in the other body object, the White House also objected to the scope of the accountability that I envisioned. We moved forward with a concept at least. It was moderated a bit in the final legislation. It required that within the plan for applying for Goals 2000 funding, the States would indicate in a modest way what they proposed to do with respect to schools that were failing and systems that were failing. Despite all of this discussion about accountability, Goals 2000 does represent progress on voluntary standards and also an enhanced sensitivity to the notion of making sure that programs work and are accountable. Since its passage in 1994, over $2 billion has been dispensed. Every State has participated, in a way. It has been useful in helping to stimulate reform, to raise standards, and to try to develop evaluations and assessments so we can know where we are in education policy and improve education throughout the United States. That is an example, in many respects, of how we can use Federal legislation to help move forward the education agenda. I think it is a very powerful example. Contemporaneously with Goals 2000, in 1994, we reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which we are beginning to discuss again this week in the Senate. In 1994, we focused on ways in which we could enhance the effectiveness of title I. We made progress in streamlining the approach to title I, eliminating what we thought were unnecessary regulatory burdens on school systems, but at the same time focusing on high-quality standards and the notion that every child can learn, and that title I is not simply a program to placate students, teachers, and parents; it is a program to give them a real chance to succeed-- and the development of assessments that would measure the progress of students. We tried to target the resources more closely to low-income schools and school systems because one of the criticisms of title I is that everyone seemed to get a little piece. When the authorization came to the floor, it was everybody trying to fight to make sure their system-- be it a poor or a suburban, middle income school system, or even a rich, exclusive school system--got their little piece of the action. We did target, much more appropriately, the title I program. Also, again, we thought about corrective action, how to move this system forward, how to identify schools that are failing, and how to make those schools appropriately competent to teach children. I offered an amendment to allow States to take corrective action against any district identified as needing improvement and require such action during the fourth year following the identification. My amendment also gave a list of remedies the States could use. This amendment was incorporated in the final version of the act. In fact, it is this legislation that, for the first time, has allowed us to identify schools that are not succeeding based on State standards. Back in 1996 and 1997, it was estimated that there are 1,500 LEAs and about 7,000 schools that are not succeeding based upon their State standards. The States have the authority--and, in fact, under title I, they have the obligation--to take corrective action. I believe all of this is an appropriate introduction to suggest that we are, in fact, dealing with many of the issues that are prompting the debate we have today--this notion that we are not paying attention to accountability, this notion that schools in America are failing. In fact, I suggest that because of the steps we took, starting with Goals 2000 and the last authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we are beginning to see progress. As Senator Dodd indicated in his remarks, if you look at the statistics, we are seeing increased performance in student mathematics achievements, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, showing that all three age groups--4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade--have shown progress. Indeed, black and Hispanic students have made significant gains, and since 1982, racial and ethnic difference in achievement have narrowed. Science achievement has also improved. We are also seeing increased numbers of students taking high-level courses, such as algebra II, trigonometry, chemistry, and physics. That is good because this level of effort is so important to our educational progress. The selection of tougher, more demanding courses, once again, cross racial lines, so that we are seeing all of our students take more challenging courses. So in one sense, what we are doing is working. But in addition to this progress, last year we went further and adopted the Education Flexibility Partnership Act because we were listening to the complaints and comments of those who said: Listen, we have to unburden even further these Federal education programs. Ed-Flex, however, has not exactly been overwhelmingly embraced in the country. There was an article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago and, by coincidence, the commissioner of education of Rhode Island, Peter McWalters, stated, ``I can get the flexibility I want under the current opportunities.'' That was his reason why he was not interested particularly in the Ed-Flex approach. It exists nevertheless. So those who claim the reason we must essentially create block grants for the States is because they don't have flexibility are ignoring the fact that we did, indeed, pass the Ed-Flex legislation. Also, as indicated by the Center on Education Policy and the Institute for Educational Leadership, most State and district school administrators fail to understand the inherent flexibility that already exists under Federal law. They see it as barriers to change when, in fact, there are no real barriers. For example, the Department of Education reported that of the 617 waiver requests processed by the fall of 1998, over one-third weren't necessary because the local schools already had the authority under Federal law. One of the other factors in this issue of flexibility and appropriateness of Federal legislation policy is the irony that many States' rules are more restrictive than the Federal Government's rules. One-third of the States do not allow districts to consolidate administrative funds, even though Federal law allows them to do so. Federal law allows students to operate title I school programs to combine funds for many Federal education programs. However, some States require schools to account for all programs separately. A lot of the purported burden of Federal rules is really a consequence of State rules, which in some cases are not as flexible. All of this suggests very strongly, at least in my mind, that we have embarked on policies which are beginning to show some promise and which have already instilled significant accountability devices within the law that are targeted to national purposes and compensate for policies and programs at the State level which historically did not reach low- income children particularly and others who are typically without a voice in many local communities. But having said that, we approach this reauthorization with a common commitment and a common understanding that we have to do much more. If you look within the United States, we have made some progress. But if you look around the world, we are still not at the level we need to be. If you look at international assessments, our 12th graders score below the international average in math and science, and achievement gaps still remain between minority and nonminority students. We have closed the absolute difference. But those gaps still exist. In 1998, for example, 32 percent of students in the highest poverty schools met or exceeded the National Assessment of Educational Progress basic level in reading. But that is only half the rate nationally of students in public schools. Dropout rates are much higher than the African American and Hispanic community than the overall level. We know we have to do more. We also know that as a result of local policies, 30 percent of all math teachers are teaching outside the field of their academic preparation, and that percentages are higher in other academic areas, as well as in high-poverty schools. Once again, let me emphasize that this is not a result of Federal policies. That is the result of local hiring practices. That is the result of local certification processes. That is the result of decisions made not in Washington but in State capitals and cities throughout this country. Yet we have a national obligation and opportunity to try to assist the States to change the disturbing statistics. We also want to insist again that we have appropriate outcome-based standards for measuring performance of young people and making sure as best we can that the States are meeting these obligations. We should do that. The approach this legislation before us takes is an approach that essentially is moving away from all of this and saying simply let's create block grants, turn them over to the States, and let the States operate as they have in the past and as they will do without these specific Federal conditions and guidelines. There are two variations within the legislation. There is the 50- State Straight A's. Then there is the 15-State Straight A's pilot program, if you will, sponsored principally by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. But all of these approaches lack the quality and the emphasis that I believe is necessary to continue the progress we have made to date and to continue our appropriate robust Federal role in education policy. According to Amy Wilkins, who is with the Education Trust, an organization that promotes higher achievement for poor and minority students, I quote: The accountability provisions in Straight A's are meaningless window-dressing. The goals are too low, the time lines are too long, and the sanctions too inconsequential. In fact, Straight A's might take us way back before Goals 2000, and the last reauthorization where we, as I suggested in my remarks, took very strong steps with respect to accountability. In fact, some of us would have taken even further steps to improve accountability for Federal dollars going to States to assist States overall in improving their educational processes. We have seen since 1988 attempts to increase accountability. In fact, if you go back before 1988, it might reveal how States would react to this new freedom that perhaps they may receive under this bill, an even more chilling scenario. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, pointed out earlier in the day some of the excesses we found when essentially the title I program was a block grant with very few constraints. Money was being used to build pools. Money was being used to buy band uniforms. Money was being used for anything that the ingenuity and imagination of a good school administrator could think of, given perhaps the fact that the local community wouldn't fund it. But here is this Federal pot of money, and I am ingenious enough to use it anywhere I can. We might be headed in that direction once again, although history has moved on a bit. The pressures at the local level are still there. The budget pressures for school, the pressures to do things, and the limited money to do them are still there in every school system. The Straight A's program and the Straight A's scheme as proposed by Senator Gregg would block grant funding to the States. We know in a general way that block grants usually end up with a lack of accountability and with a diffusion of purposes. We have seen this in the maternal and child health care block grants. That has been documented by outside observers, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. My fear is essentially that we will head in the same direction with education funding. First I want to make comments about the 50-State Straight A's. It eliminates the targeting of funds to the truly most needy children in our country--migrant children, children of immigrants, and homeless students. Programs for these children are rolled into the larger block grant. It also would allow the States to proceed with an experiment for 3 years after which the Secretary of Education could terminate an agreement if there is a determination that student achievement has ``significantly declined.'' Once again, what they mean by ``achievement'' is if the States are deficient. I expect, given history as a benchmark, that States are not going to challenge themselves too much, that their achievement is going to be modest at best, and it is going to be awfully difficult to determine what ``significantly declined'' means in fact. If the Secretary makes this determination, he has to wait at least 2 more years before he or she can come in and put leverage on the States to improve significantly. In the meantime, you have a 5-year cohort of young people who are moving in a system that might be headed precisely in the wrong way, and there is very little we can do to change direction. The other aspect of the 50-State approach of Straight A's is that the State offers to participate in this block grant. The accountability provisions, which as I indicated before are rather insignificant, really apply only at the State level. A State could demonstrate improvement according to their own definition. But they could do so by simply aggregating the statistics statewide. Once again, you have laws that focus on children who have always been a part of our efforts at the Federal level--low-income children who are historically disadvantaged. The goal of the States is performance goals. Very limited local, let alone Federal, participation is provided for in creating these goals. In some respect, it might be the fact that the authors and proponents recognize that local communities might be struggling with reform, and we have to put it someplace. They have chosen the State level. But that undercuts the argument we all make on this floor that local control is paramount because the way this legislation is structured, the States would be a decisive force in determining the goals and determining the proper use to achieve those goals. There is language, of course, to close the achievement gaps. But there is no real requirement that these gaps be closed. We could conceive of progress being made even though we still have significant disparities between racial and ethnic groups. Parents are not incorporated in the process as they should, in my view; that is, in the Straight A's, 50-State process. If you move to the 15-State version, that is even more objectionable from the standpoint of targeting, from the standpoint of accountability, and from the standpoint of having an appropriate Federal-State collaboration on issues that are important to us in terms of educational policy. In fact, targeting of federal funds to schools with the neediest students would no longer be required. It is also a 5-year program, with very little control in the States for 5 years. States get to do their thing for 5 years. After 5 years, there is no real penalty, if the States are not doing well. The only time the Secretary could step in is if there were a lack of substantial progress. Once again, the States are defining what ``progress'' is, and I am sure they will not raise the bar too high. That has been my experience. And I think States keep the bar low because that helps them assure, as best they can, they will be successful. It would also not require that all students in the State be incorporated in the assessment. ``All students,'' as defined in the 15- State version, simply means all students attending public or charter schools that are participating in the State's assessment system. The State could say, we are not assessing these children, and in effect exclude a number of children from the assessment and, consequently, from their evaluation of overall performance. Then the money could be used for ``any elementary and secondary educational purposes permitted by State law,'' which could be vouchers and other programs which would undermine seriously not only Federal education policy but public education in general. There is a different approach to these two block grant proposals, an approach that will be involved in the Democratic alternative. The key element of that is the accountability provision Senator Bingaman is introducing and I am cosponsoring. It builds on the record of accountability I talked about before. It maintains current targeting toward disadvantaged students and requires a single system of accountability so you don't get into the fight between title I students and other students. It specifies goals in terms of disaggregated populations, and it requires the States to set specific numerical goals. So we are not talking about substantial progress or significant progress. We are talking about picking a goal, working towards it, and having a more objective measure of whether or not you are going to make that objective. It also requires the identification of those populations of students who are not part of the State assessment so they cannot game the system as under the 15-State Straight A's proposal. It establishes significant consequences if the States fail to respond. It requires States and districts to undertake corrective action in those situations where the schools or the school systems are not performing. It informs parents by having report cards for parents, so they know what is happening. They know if their school or school system is under a corrective action. In effect, it does what I think we all want to do. It provides not only the context but the consequences so that States will begin to improve or build on the improvements taking place in education throughout this country. We will begin to see not just progress domestically but in those statistics internationally, which is at the heart of so much of what we have talked about over a decade or more. We have a lot to do to ensure our education policy is moving forward. I believe very strongly that the approach adopted in the bill before the Senate, the two block grants, will not do that. I think it walks away from our commitment, particularly our commitment to low-income students. We know from statistics that seven times the resources of the Federal programs go to low-income students than State programs. We also know as we turn money over to the States, fully a third of the States are embroiled in debates about how they spend the money themselves. In my home State of Rhode Island, the State is being sued by suburban communities who claim they are disadvantaged, that they don't get enough State money, while at the same time, of course, in the urban centers such as Providence and Pawtucket, there are 40 languages in the school system and they have tremendous problems with new Americans coming into the school system. They need more and more resources for more programs to deal with populations that didn't even exist in my State 10 years ago. This clash goes on and on. It suggests to me that the States have real problems themselves deciding how to allocate resources. Citizens of many States are complaining bitterly about how it is done. Yet in Straight A's and the 15-State variation of Straight A's, we propose simply to turn over the keys to the State and say: Do what you will. I don't think that makes for good policy. We also know if you look at block grant funding, it historically declines. In 1981, we created block grants from some education programs, and a few years later those programs declined significantly by 12 percent. That is an example of what happens when we put things in a block grant. The support for the programs dissipates over time. We will find ourselves, particularly if we encounter a difficult budget year at the Federal level, where this block grants approach does not yield the kind of resources upon which States have come to rely. We have a lot to do to ensure our education money is spent well, spent wisely. I think we have taken appropriate action over the last decade to ensure accountability--not just for financial resources but also for outcomes, for student progress. We have to continue that. We certainly don't want to go back to the days when school systems, particularly in the late 1960s, were spending this money willy-nilly because there was no accountability. We have examples replete from programs I mentioned before. In the late 1960s in Claiborne Parish, LA, they were building outdoor swimming pools. In Benton County, MS, title I funded a 6-week course in homemaking for 11th- and 12th-grade black girls at the old Salem School, an all-black school. The homemaking course was conducted in private homes 3 days a week for 4 hours each day. At the same time, at the white high school, they were providing a summer school program in English. A report done at the time suggested the young black women were essentially being trained to be domestics, while the title I white children were being trained how to read. That might be a relic of history which in the new century is a quaint anachronism, but it shows in particular places with particular pressures, unconditional block grants could lead to results of which we would not be particularly supportive. I think we can do better than that. I do not suggest this was a phenomenon in one region of the country. In Massachusetts, in the same report, although they had a significant minority population in the Boston public schools, they were turning money back because they could not use this title I money. That suggests to me, if they didn't want to use it, they didn't want to engage in a serious way to improve every student's output. We have before the Senate an opportunity not to avert our attention and our efforts from school improvement, not to walk away from public education, but rather to engage in a serious debate of how we can improve existing Federal programs, how we can infuse these programs with more purpose, how we can go ahead and prevent local pressures and local priorities from overcoming what should be a national priority-- improving the education of every child in this country. I look forward to this debate as it ensues. I look forward to ensuring we have a vigorous debate on our policy. In the course of this debate, we will offer amendments to try to improve the legislation. I hope we will enter this debate recognizing what we have done over the last decade, the fact that progress is being made, the fact that this progress is insufficient, which should cause us not to abandon our approach but to strengthen, reform, and improve it. I ask unanimous consent to recognize Senator Murray after Senator Bunning gives his statement.

Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object, in arranging the speaking order, is it possible to request to be recognized under the unanimous consent request?

Mr. REED. Madam President, I believe, pursuant to unanimous consent, I am to be recognized now.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the last several days, we have been debating a victims' rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that is an interesting and thoughtful debate. But I think we can do something else, which is try to prevent victims in the first place. We can do that by passing the juvenile justice bill, which contains sensible controls on handguns in this society. A few days ago we saw another incident involving a handgun at the National Zoo, a place we have recognized for decades as a source of solace and education and recreation in the Nation's Capital. But, in a moment, it was turned into a place of violence and terror because a young man, apparently with a handgun, shot several young people. The tragedy in this country is that each year 30,000 Americans die by gunfire. Every day, 12 children are killed by gunfire. We can stop that and we must stop that. The most recent incident is another indication that we have to act not someday but immediately. These seven children have been harmed and their families have been forever changed. This is a tragedy that they will live with, but it is a tragedy that we don't have to live with as a nation indefinitely. We took several appropriate and responsible steps after the Columbine shooting last year in which we passed legislation that would close the gun show loophole, require safety locks on handguns to prevent their use by children, and other measures. Yet these measures languish today in a conference committee that has met only once since last year, which is not seriously attempting to address the critical issues of violence in this country. Each day we wait, another incident takes place. Again, last year on the floor of the Senate as we debated the juvenile justice bill, if any of us had stood up and said a 6-year-old child would walk into first grade in America and shoot another 6 year old, some would have said it was hysterical demagoging. That happened. If anybody said that on a Sunday or a weekday afternoon at the National Zoo random gunfire would break out and seven children would be shot down, we would be accused of hysterical demagoguery. It happened. We can prevent this, and we should, by acting promptly to pass the juvenile justice bill with those provisions included. Many in the Congress call for stricter enforcement of handgun laws. I agree with that. We should enforce the laws. But the reality is that we have to prevent these incidents rather than, after the fact, arresting people. It is against the law in the District of Columbia to possess a handgun, as it was possessed, apparently, by this young man. But the District of Columbia is not an island. It is a metropolitan area between other States that have much less strict gun control laws. Virginia, for example, is a State which is a shell-issue State. That means that practically any person who is not a felon can carry a concealed weapon with a license and without showing a special need to do so. Private sales of handguns, including gun show sales, are common throughout Virginia, and there you can in fact buy a weapon without a background check if you are buying from an unlicensed gun dealer. There is no waiting period in Virginia to buy a handgun. Now there is a law that prevents the purchase of more than one handgun a month, and that is good because it prevents trafficking in firearms. But it only takes one gun to do the kind of damage we saw a few days ago at the National Zoo. We all agree that enforcement is important. We look forward to and applaud the local authorities who apprehended the young suspect. He will be tried and the law will be imposed and enforced. But, once again, prevention perhaps could have prevented this violence or other violence throughout the United States. On this 1-year anniversary of Columbine, we should be doing something more than simply sitting and waiting for that conference report. We should be demanding, as we have in the past on this floor, that conferees meet, vote, and send us back this measure, including all those strict gun control provisions. This Senate went on record by a vote of 53-47 to take that very position. I hope that vote will energize and activate the conferees and that they will move immediately to send this provision to the President for signature. Within that bill, there are resources for the types of prevention and enforcement that we need with respect to juveniles. Twenty-five percent of the $250 million distributed annually on the juvenile accountability block grant program would be dedicated to prevention to the gun lobby. In addition, the conference report would include, I hope, child safety locks, an amendment to firmly close the gun show loophole, a ban on the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, and a ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons. It is time now to prevent, if we can, the violence that we have witnessed and, sadly, the violence that happens every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the time reserved for Senator Durbin I may speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with Armenians throughout the United States, in Armenia, and around the world in commemorating the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On the night of April 24, 1915 in Constantinople, nationalist forces of the Ottoman Empire rounded up more than 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders and murdered them in a remote countryside location. This atrocity began an eight year campaign of tyranny that would affect the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. Armenian men, women, and children of all ages fell victim to murder, rape, torture, and starvation. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians had been systematically murdered and another 500,000 were exiled. With the world community consumed in the events of World War I and the subsequent period of recovery, the plight of the Armenian people went unanswered. Today, this tragic episode in history serves to unite the Armenian people as they struggle to build an independent nation committed to democracy and peace in the Caucasus region. Despite the unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, the ongoing blockade by Turkey and the violent attack on the Armenian Parliament last October, Armenians continue to build on these principles. It is this indomitable spirit that has kept the hope of Armenians alive through centuries of persecution. The madness and cruelty which led to the tragic events of the Armenian genocide are not forgotten. Last year, when hundreds fled their homes in Kosovo, fearing for their lives, America and its NATO allies reacted quickly and decisively. We, as a nation, must continue to respond to such acts of oppression so that the deaths of all victims of hatred and prejudice are not in vain. Therefore, on the 85th anniversary of the terrible tragedy of the Armenian genocide we remember the past and rededicate ourselves to supporting Armenia as it looks to the future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a distinguished young man from Troop 66 in Garden City, Rhode Island who has attained the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. Not every young American who joins the Boy Scouts earns the prestigious Eagle Scout Award. In fact, only 2.5 percent do. To earn the award, a Boy Scout must fulfill requirements in the areas of leadership, service, and outdoor skills. A scout must earn twenty-one Merit Badges, eleven of which are required from areas such as Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, Citizenship in the World, Safety, Environmental Science, and First Aid. As one progresses through the Boy Scout ranks, a scout must demonstrate participation in increasingly more responsible service projects. An Eagle Scout candidate must also demonstrate leadership skills by holding one or more specific Troop leadership positions. Ernest Rheaume has distinguished himself in accordance with these criteria. For his service project, Ernest organized a bicycle and child safety fair at Gladstone Street School in Cranston. Mr. President, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting Ernest Rheaume. In turn, we must duly recognize the Boy Scouts of America for establishing the Eagle Scout Award and the strenuous criteria its aspirants must see. This program has through its eighty- five years honed and enhanced the leadership skills and commitment to public service of many outstanding Americans. It is my sincere belief that Ernest will continue his public service and in so doing will further distinguish himself and consequently better his community.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this amendment. As a graduate of the United States Military Academy and a former officer in the Army, I view the American flag with a special reverence borne by experience. I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol, and I believe that we should teach young people to respect the flag. I also feel, however, that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which the symbol is made. Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular and the right to protest. It is these fundamental values, reflected in our Constitution, that have distinguished our Nation for more than 200 years. It is these beliefs that give our flag its great symbolic power. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue before us is whether our great charter document, the Constitution, should be amended so that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who show contempt for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment? I would argue no, this is not such an occasion. This is an answer in search of a problem. According to Professor Robert Justin Goldstein, a noted author on this topic, there have been only 200 reported incidents of flag burning during the entire history of our country--that is less than one a year. There is no epidemic of flag burnings plaguing our nation. Others have said that flag burning is representative of a general decay of American values and patriotism, and something needs to be done about it before it is too late. I would argue the way to encourage patriotism is through encouraging civic involvement, not constitutional amendments. It almost goes without saying that people who are proud of their country will be proud of their flag. I am still moved by the statement made by James Warner, a decorated Marine flyer who was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese from 1967 to 1973, about flag burning: I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. ``There'' the officer said. ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong.'' ``No,'' I said, ``that proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' And I think that is the essence of this debate for me. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The flag symbolizes a political system that allows its people, through their actions and words, to express what they think and feel, even when the government or a vast majority of others disagree with them. I oppose this amendment because I believe that while attempting to preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it actually would harm the substance of these freedoms. Finally, this amendment to the Constitution is technically problematic. The language of the amendment is vague and fails to offer a clear statement of just what conduct the supporters of the amendment propose to prohibit, or to advise the American people of the actions for which they may be imprisoned. There is no definition of what a ``flag'' is for purposes of this amendment, or any consensus regarding the meaning of ``desecration.'' This leaves the Supreme Court to clarify these meanings, the same court that supporters believe erred in protecting flag burning as freedom of speech in the first place.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California from the time I control.