John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to congratulate the class from Westminister Christian Academy in St. Louis that represented the state of Missouri in the We the People--The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, D.C., during May 6-8, 2000. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals, where they received honorable mention. Through this experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I would like to recognize Rebekah Baxter, Anna-Grace Claassen, Samantha Denny, Jonathan Friz, Joseph Goldkamp, Nick Gustafson, Tim Ivancic, Aaron Johnson, Melissa Millar, Sarah Munson, John Murphy, Steve Ottolini, Nick Pavlenko, Dawn Piehl, Rodney Schnellbacher, Michelle Stanford, Lindsey Vehlewald and Kristen Walle and their teacher Ken Boesch. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is an extensive educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three- day national competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate fields. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I would like to congratulate the class from Westminister Christian Academy on their exemplary performance at the We the People . . . national finals. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' from Missouri the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I note with interest Vice President Gore's recent attacks on Governor Bush's comments regarding Governor Bush's thoughts on Social Security reform. In dismissing the Governor's suggestions regarding Social Security reform, Vice President Gore denied that the Clinton-Gore Administration ever proposed the dangerous idea of having the government invest Social Security surpluses in the stock market. According to the May 2, 2000 Washington Post, the Vice President claimed that the administration never made any such proposal, saying ``We didn't really propose it.'' I find it surprising that the Vice President made this denial, especially since the Clinton-Gore administration has indeed made this proposal, and done so a number of times. First, on January 19, 1999, with the Vice President right behind him, President Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, and I quote, ``Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or state government pension would do.'' Just a few weeks later, the Clinton-Gore FY 2000 budget said quite clearly, on page 41, that ``The Administration proposes tapping the power of private financial markets to increase the resources to pay for future Social Security benefits. Roughly one-fifth of the unified budget surplus set aside for Social Security would be invested in corporate equities or other private financial instruments.'' When I read this proposal, I was extremely concerned and proposed an amendment to the FY 2000 Budget Resolution that would express the Sense of the Senate that the government should not invest Social Security funds in the stock market. My amendment passed the Senate unanimously. After this resounding statement by the Senate, I hoped that we had laid the risky scheme to have the government invest Social Security funds in the stock market to rest. Despite the fact that we had sent the clearest possible signal on this issue, the Clinton-Gore administration apparently did not get the message. On page 37 of the Clinton-Gore administration's FY 2001 budget, they resurrected this risky scheme to have the government invest the Social Security dollars in the stock market, saying, ``The President proposes to invest half the transferred amounts in corporate equities.'' The only concession that the Clinton-Gore administration appeared to make was writing this unpopular proposal in smaller type than last year. In response to this repeated proposal, I once again submitted an amendment to the Budget Resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate that the federal government should not invest the Social Security trust fund in the stock market. Once again this amendment passed with no votes in opposition. The Senate has twice unanimously passed an amendment rejecting the idea of having the government invest the trust fund in the stock market. I am pleased that the Vice President now agrees with us, but I find it curious that he has failed to notice that it is his administration that has repeatedly suggested this risky scheme. The Clinton-Gore administration's repeated attempts to implement this plan violates U.S. law. For more than 60 years Social Security law has forbidden the trust funds from being invested in the stock market. This new scheme is directly contrary to six decades of U.S. policy on Social Security. In addition to the Senate and long-standing U.S. government policy opposing government investment of the trust funds in the stock market, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan opposes the idea as well. Chairman Greenspan says that investing Social Security funds in the market is bad for Social Security and bad for our economy. When Alan Greenspan talks, the Clinton-Gore administration ought to listen. Chairman Greenspan has said this plan ``will create a lower rate of return for Social Security recipients,'' and he ``does not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from a governmental direction.'' In addition to these other concerns, I am also listening to the concerns of Missourians. Last year I received a letter from Todd Lawrence of Greenwood, Missouri, who wrote: ``It has been suggested that the government would invest in the stock market with my Social Security money. No offense, but there is not much that the Government touches that works well. Why would making MY investment decisions for me be any different. Looking at it from a business perspective, would the owner of a corporation feel comfortable if the government were the primary shareholder?'' Todd Lawrence understands what the Clinton-Gore administration does not. No corporation would want the government as a shareholder, and no investor should want the government handling their investment. Even if the government were able to invest without adding new levels of inefficiency to the process, the government's putting Social Security taxes in the stock market adds an unacceptable level of risk to retirement. This risk is a gamble I am unwilling to make for the one million Missourians who get Social Security. It is hard to overestimate how dangerous this scheme really is. While individuals properly manage their financial portfolios to control risk, the government has no business taking these gambles with the people's money. Just recently, the Microsoft case gave us a chilling illustration of the potential conflicts of interest caused by the President's proposal. If the government had invested Social Security funds in the stock market, the anti-trust suit against Microsoft would have put those funds at risk. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of the case, we do not want the federal government making law enforcement decisions based on government's stock portfolio. While Americans should invest as much as they can afford in private equities to plan for their own retirements, the government should stay out of the stock market. I am glad that the Vice President has finally recognized that having the government invest the trust fund in the stock market, but I wish that he would remember that his administration has been the most vocal proponent of this bad idea. If the federal government tried to pick market winners and losers, all of us would end up as losers.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak because I believe the right participation by the U.S. Government in the educational process of our children is fundamental to our success as a nation in the next century. It is important for us to understand that we have a limited role in this area. Mr. President, 93 percent of all the funding for education--93 percent; that is basically $13 out of $14 spent in education--comes from State and local governments. Frankly, I think that is a positive, not a negative. I think when people invest their own resources, when they invest the resources they have control over, they are likely to do so very effectively. But it is appropriate, and as a matter of fact beneficial, when the Federal Government decides to be of assistance in the area of education. When we are involved, I think there ought to be some principles that we should follow in order to make sure we maximize the positive impact we can have in terms of the achievement standing of children. I use a term such as ``achievement standing'' or the ``capacity to achieve'' because I think that is what we are interested in, in education. The question is, What do we want out of education? I think we want children whose capacity to do things, whose capacity to learn, and the things that they have learned, have been enhanced substantially. It is nice to have school buildings. It is nice to have teachers. It is nice to have education programs. But ultimately, the purpose for which we develop resources and to which we devote the resources, is to elevate the capacity of children to learn. How do we improve what happens to children? I have had some opportunity to be aggressive and active in this area at the State and local level in government. Having spent 8 years as the Governor of my State, and visiting many of Missouri's 550 or so school districts, I know it is the focal point of the community in almost every setting. It is the objective of that community to elevate the standing of students, asking how do we help students do more? Different communities have found different ways of inspiring students, preparing students, building students, and elevating what happens in the classroom. I think that is what we should be involved in. During my time as Governor of the State of Missouri, the State board of education was so convinced about getting parents and teachers involved in the education of children, because it motivates children to be achievers, that we had a slogan that said: ``Success in school is homemade.'' Talking about localizing what we do in education, if you take it all the way to the home, you have localized it about as much as possible. As a matter of fact, during my time as the president, or chairman--I forget the designation I carried--for the Education Commission of the States, it was an emphasis we agreed upon nationally that energizing parents and energizing the local community was the way in which we get the most return for our school dollars, as study after study has shown. And the anecdotal evidence is incredibly strong that cultures that involve parents and local officials in making decisions for what can and will work are the cultures where education succeeds. So the ingredients of public school success include the very important point of getting students motivated as a result of the active participation of their families. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations answered this question about what are the ingredients of educational success in a report released in July of 1998. The report was called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today.'' The subcommittee found that successful schools and school systems were not the product of Federal funding and directives but instead were characterized by--here are the ingredients--parental involvement in the education of their children; two, local control; three, emphasis on basic academics; four, dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant bureaucracy and ineffective programs. I believe these are the ingredients that are necessary for all of us to understand if we are going to talk about elevating the performance of students, which is why we speak about this issue today, because there are noble objectives and there are programs that may sound novel and noble, but if they don't elevate the status of students, we will have failed miserably. I am concerned that too often the Federal program which finds its first consumption of resources in the administration of the program and the bureaucracy at the Federal level very frequently then goes to the State bureaucracy at the State level, but it doesn't get all the way to the student. But there is more to my concern that the proposal just doesn't get all the way to the student. Frequently, when it gets all the way to the student, it directs an activity or a devotion of the resource which is not called for in the circumstance of the student. So there are two principles that are operative here: First, that we get the resource all the way to the student so that the resource is spent in the classroom and not in the bureaucracy. The second principle is, let the resource be spent, once it is at the level of the student, on things that make a difference in terms of performance and student achievement in the classroom. It would be appropriate, I think, to have some sense of satisfaction of getting a resource all the way to the classroom and not having the shrinkage of the bureaucracy that takes the resource away. But if the resource gets to the classroom and the expenditure can only be for things that aren't needed or directly pertinent to student achievement, we will have lost the battle anyhow. Yesterday, I had the opportunity of addressing this body, and I had the unhappy task of detailing the fact that for tens of thousands of individuals at the State level in our educational effort their entire existence is consumed with filling out Federal forms; that we are serving the bureaucracy with paperwork perhaps more effectively than we are serving the students with education. If the active participation by parents, community leaders, teachers, and boards of education at the local level is what really energizes schools to elevate the level of student achievement, maybe we should not have so much direction from the Federal level about how much and where the money should be spent. I think that is pretty clear as a part of this bill which has been offered by our side; that we want to get the resources to individuals in the classroom, and not only deliver the resources to the classroom but to make sure that the best use for those resources can be determined by those who know the names of the students and the needs of the school rather than some hypothetical best use being developed a thousand miles away by bureaucrats who know, in theory, that generally the country needs X or Y but do not have very much awareness of specific needs in specific classrooms, in specific districts, in particular towns, counties, or communities all across America. So this principle is, one, to get resources to the classroom and, two, to let the people who know the names of the students and the needs of the schools make the decisions. That is of fundamental importance. When you gather at the Federal level the character of the programs and say we will make all the decisions about what is done, and we may want to get the resources to you but we will tell you what you have to do, that is the equivalent of hanging a sign on the schoolhouse door: ``Parents need not apply.'' It is the equivalent of saying to them, as much as we think you are an important part of education, you won't get to help make a decision about the way the resources are devoted, about the kind of program that is conducted, because, as a matter of fact, we will make those decisions for you in some remote bureaucracy. I think the key to what we want to do is to empower those individuals at the local level by, first, sharing the resources with them as efficiently as possible, not shrinking it by running it through bureaucracy after bureaucracy and, second, empowering them by saying, once you have the resources, you have the right and opportunity to spend it in ways you know will benefit the students in a specific setting. We have watched as we have lived with the sort of status quo in education, with the Federal Government trying to impose its ideas on the country, and we aren't showing the desired results. When you are not getting the right results, if you keep doing the same things, you are asking for difficulty. The industrialist puts it this way: Your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. If we like what we are getting in education, we should just keep doing what we are doing. But if we think we can do better --as a matter of fact, if we think we must do better for the next generation of Americans, if we recognize that the world is exploding in a technological, developmental sense, and that for people to be at the top of the list, they are going to have to be able to deal with technology and they will have to have high levels of achievement and capacity in terms of education, I think we are going to have to confess that we must do better. And in order to do better, we have to change what we are doing. It is virtually impossible to do better if we just do the same thing over and over. I think State and local governments need the kind of flexibility that we provide, and I think when we try to restrict that flexibility, when we try to restrain the capacity of the people who know best what their own children need, who witness what will motivate, on occasion, success in those students, we tell them they can't use that judgment, awareness, and knowledge, they can't use their proximity to the problem as a basis for developing a solution, as a matter of fact, we are hindering the process. I stand to speak in favor of this measure which will not only move resources to the local and State level but will provide the authority and flexibility so those resources can be devoted to students in classrooms in ways that are known by the individuals who know--teachers and students--and to the needs of the institution to improve performance. I believe that is the key. For us to persist in doing what we have done with the status quo, to persist with a system that finds more and more people disenchanted because they find their hands tied, and they want to do one thing they believe will help their students but the government says, no, they have to do something else, which isn't that helpful, or, even in order to do something else, they have to file a stack of papers that will take people out of the classroom, moves people away from education. For the Federal Government, according to a study in Florida, to administer Federal dollars, it is about six times as expensive as it is to administer a State dollar. That is six times the paperwork volume that is basically involved. We ought to begin to wonder whether those individuals who actually have the stake in the circumstances, their child in the school, why we should distrust them and impose this sort of not only rigid set of requirements but this rigid audit trail which requires six times as much administration as a State or local dollar does to deliver educational capacity to children. That is something we ought to be leery of. We ought to say, wait a second. Why would we want to spend all of that money in administration and second-guessing those who know best about their own children, their own future, and who have a stake in this issue, which is the important stake, and that is the achievement of the students? I think we ought to ask ourselves what happens in education when there is more nonteachers in the education system than there is teachers in the education system? When the administration of education and the tens of thousands of full-time equivalents across the country mandated by the Federal Government consume the resources instead of the resources getting to the classroom, we ought to ask ourselves: Is this the way for us to really be achievers? We know when people have the right opportunity to succeed and the right resources, they can get the job done--my colleagues and I have talked about it over and over again--when they have the right opportunity in terms of resources and the right authority in terms of flexibility. I think those are the two keys we have offered to the American people by this measure on our side as a way of allowing them to use the money they have paid in taxes to elevate the capacity of the students who will chart the course of America in the next century. We want for our children high levels of achievement. The children are the focus. The classroom is the focus. It is the place where it happens to those on whom we focus--the children. The ingredients of success are not great bureaucracies. They are great teachers, great classrooms, and great students. And it involves parents. When we tell parents the bureaucracy will make the decisions, we shunt them aside. We tell them they need not apply. That is a dangerous strategy and damaging to our students. Our Federal programs haven't worked, and just doing more of it won't improve our performance. My grandfather's admonition was, ``I sawed this board off more times, and it is still too short.'' If you keep sawing it will still be too short. You have to change your conduct. We should change the focus at the local level; States and local governments need the ability as it relates to teachers. As Senator Abraham said, we are not going to mandate that the States and local communities deal with teachers in any specific way. We want to authorize them to be able--with the resources they earned and paid in taxes--to devote those resources in such a way that they believe it will result in elevated performance for the students. That is the long and the short of what we ought to be doing. The status quo is unacceptable. America will not survive on a continuing basis in the long term with our students being last on the list of those among industrialized nations. It doesn't matter if we are first on the list of expenditures. It doesn't matter if we have more resources devoted to the process that is eventually sucked into the bureaucracy or devoted to things that do not pay off. What matters is that students achieve. We cannot long endure as the leader of the free world if our students are the last on the list. Being the leader and being last doesn't fit. It is time for us to focus our energies, resources, and authority to make good decisions for the elevation of student capacity. That will make a difference at the local level. That is why this measure is such an important measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the important issues we are facing today regarding education. I admire the passion with which my colleague from Connecticut has spoken. I simply come to a different conclusion. I think that if we really admire those individuals who work at the local level, we won't distrust them to allocate the resources for their children in their communities, to make good decisions about how the moneys are spent. That is a real contrast to what we have had for quite some time. I wish to give a few examples about how Federal education program requirements eat up resources and they consume a disproportionate amount of the time that States and schools spend on administration. You see, when my constituents come to talk to me, they don't ask me about the process. They are asking me about the product. They are asking me can the students read? Can they spell? Can they compute? Can they reason? They want to be focused on student achievement. They don't want to be focused on whether the money is going to the State or whether the money is going to the Federal bureaucracy. They want something to happen at the end of the process that changes the lives of individuals. As we get into a culture that is more and more technically oriented, the need for education is elevated more and more. In fact, we need to make sure that the money not only gets to the local level, but when it gets there, it can do something of value. And we have a couple of big problems with our current situation. They are primarily these: No. 1, we may get the money to the local level, but only what is left of it after the Federal government and the State bureaucracies consume it with their bureaucratic redtape. So there is a small stream, a very anemic flow, that goes to the local community. No. 2, when we finally get it there, we are frequently telling people at the local community that they have to spend it for something the local community knows isn't really very important. Very few of us would want to get our help, for instance, medically, from someone who was 1,000 miles away and who didn't know anything about our condition. We would want someone who could examine us to find where our problems are and direct a therapy to address those problems. Federal programs from 1,000 miles away designed to make things uniform frequently don't work, and it is because the conditions are different in each community. My colleague from Connecticut boasted of Connecticut's ability to provide uniform salaries for teachers. Then he talked about how unsuccessful it was to have the same salary in one place that you have in another place because the conditions are different. Maybe we should conclude something based on that--that uniformity may not be the answer. Maybe we should conclude that we should give individuals an opportunity to tailor, to adjust, to refine, and to define the resource and its application so that we could have a cause and effect, which is what we are looking for. What is it we are looking for? We are looking for an elevated classroom capacity. We are looking for an elevated human capacity. We are looking for students who can read, write, spell, decipher, add, subtract, multiply, and divide. That is what we want from our schools. That isn't really different from the culture at large. We have passed the century of mass products. Henry Ford was the master of mass production in the 1930s. He said, ``You can have your Ford any color you want it so long as it is black.'' He had the best idea, and a centrally driven idea that everybody would drive the same color car. The problem was that 10 years later, after he had 75 percent of the automotive market, he had 50 percent of the automotive market, and he began to understand that it wasn't appropriate to try to tell everybody what they wanted or what their needs were. He changed his slogan. Instead of, ``You can have your Ford any color you want it so long as it is black,'' he just shortened it to say, ``You can have your Ford any color you want it''--because he knew he had better meet the need. It is time for us to stop saying you can have your education any color you want it so long as it is bureaucratic. It is time for us to say we want to help you elevate the capacity of students. We are not interested in bureaucracy. We are not interested even in bureaucracy at the State level. We are interested in students. We are interested in classrooms. We are not interested in interest groups. We want to elevate the capacity of students. Listen to what has happened in the Federal Government. The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork every year in order for people to receive Federal dollars. That is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time. That is a real cost--25,000 full-time equivalents just processing Federal paperwork. There are more than 20,000 pages of applications States must fill out to receive Federal education funds each year. The Department of Education brags that its staff is one of the smallest Federal Government agencies with only 4,637 people. State agencies, however, have to employ nearly 13,400 FTEs, full-time equivalents with Federal dollars to administer the myriad of Federal programs. That doesn't always reflect the total that is necessary at the local level. Hence, there are nearly three times as many federally funded employees at State education agencies administering Federal programs as there are U.S. Department of Education employees. I think we need to be thinking carefully about getting the resources to the students. We are facing a situation today in the United States of America where more than half of all the employees in public education are outside the classroom. No wonder people are wondering whether or not we are getting a return on our investment. Where do we want to focus our investment? Do we want to feed the bureaucracy and build the bureaucracy, or do we want to fund the classroom and elevate student performance? We have to look carefully at that. In the State of Florida, it takes 374 employees to administer $8 billion in State funds. It takes almost 400 to do $8 billion in State funds. For the $1 billion in Federal funds, it takes almost 300 employees. Basically, there are six times as many hours required to administer one dollar of Federal funds as there are hours required to administer one dollar of State funds. That puts us in a situation where there is a lot of money being spent on administration trying to make sure we have complied with all of the Federal requirements and working to satisfy the Federal mandate instead of working to educate the children. I submit that we ought to look at these statistics. We find that it is not surprising that the Federal bureaucratic maze consumes up to 35 percent of Federal education dollars. These Federal programs and their requirements take away not only precious dollars, but they take up valuable teacher time. I don't think there is much question about what we want. I don't think this is a partisan issue. All of us in the end want students to be able to achieve. The educational system is not for the bureaucracy. It is not for Washington. It is not for the State capitals. It is not for making people fill out forms to comply with Federal rules. Clearly, we can't afford for this trend to continue. We need to change our Federal policies to ensure a more efficient use of our Federal resources. I would be pleased to yield to the manager on my side for a comment or unanimous consent request.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, a recent example of an inflexible mandate is the $1.2 billion earmarked exclusively for classroom size reduction for early elementary grades. That is a noble aspiration-- lower classroom size. You can pursue a noble aspiration into a dead end or make a noble aspiration a financial misallocation. Last year, Governor Davis of California described how the inflexibility of this initiative is hindering his State's ability to direct Federal funds to areas where the need is the greatest. While the Federal initiative requires funds to be used to reduce class size to 18 in the first three grades, in California they have already reduced class size to near that target in grades K through 4. Governor Davis put it this way. He said of those Federal funds which are earmarked for an area where he has pretty much achieved the desired goal, that the goal to best serve the State's needs is to reduce class size in math and English in the 10th grade. Of course, it is kind of hard to see that from Washington DC. But the Governor has a pretty good shot at understanding that if he has the class size problem under control in grades K through 4, and he really has a desperate need to reduce class size in the different area, he should be able to allocate those funds in that direction. He put it this way: We need to have the flexibility to apply those resources where we think they could best be used. A lot has been made about the potential for politics at the State level. The eloquent speaker, the Senator from Connecticut, talked about how that might contaminate decisionmaking. Frankly, I think that the ability to hit the target from close up is usually far better than the ability to hit the target from long range. When we talk about helping our children learn and helping them achieve elevated capacities in terms of the fundamentals necessary, States and local schools need the flexibility to spend money in the way they see fit to improve education. Knowing the kinds of misallocations that have come, up to 35 percent of the resource being lost in the bureaucratic nightmare of regulations, the tens of thousands of full-time equivalents designed to supervise to make sure you spend the money in the way the Federal Government says it should be spent, in spite of the fact that might totally miss the needs of the student, we need to change things. We can't keep going in the same direction. They used to joke when I was a kid when someone asked for directions. Someone else would say: Any road will get you there so long as you don't care where you are going. My grandfather used to say: I have sawed this board off four times, and it is still too short. If you are not succeeding, think about changing. The industrialist put it this way: Your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. If you don't like what you are getting, think about changing it. What are we getting? We are getting a poor return on our investment. It is wrong for America to have an output from its educational effort that is at the bottom of the industrialized nations. We can't keep sawing this board off. It is too short. We can't just take any road to get us there because we know we have a destination that is important. We can't afford to be taking the wrong road. It is important to put people who are there on the spot, to see what the needs are. I say it this way: I want someone who knows the names of the students and the needs of the schools making the decisions. That is what is important. I want people who will live or die by the decisions, not someone from 1,000 miles away. I believe there is a lot of common ground here. People talk about getting money to the local level. It doesn't do any good to get it there and then tie the hands of the people at the local level, or send the money to the school district so they can only spend it for things that are not priorities. That doesn't make much sense. Send the money to the school district and allow the school district to devote the resource to those things which are important to the achievement of students.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. May I answer the question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. First you said, could I respond by saying what priorities people are being required to spend resources on, or what things are not a priority. Governor Davis of California said: You are requiring me to spend money on reduced class size in grades K through 4 when the priority is for reducing class size in grade 10 and English. I quoted the Governor a few moments ago to that effect. I believe it is very important that we be able to devote resources in ways to improve the ultimate performance. We know class size is a priority in some settings. And other kinds of priorities exist for other settings. But I think we should allow individuals who know what the students need for our ultimate priority, which is student achievement. I think they should be able to look at that ultimate priority and see how we are going to elevate the performance of students.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask the Senator to restate his question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe the correct interpretation of Ed-Flex is that there is substantial flexibility accorded to Governors for certain programs--not for all programs--and I believe it would be a misstatement to characterize it in the way it was characterized in the question. But there is additional flexibility, and I voted for Ed-Flex because it was a step in the right direction. I don't purport to say the Governors should be the last word on this. From my perspective, we would be well served to push more of the decisionmaking authority down to the local level where the people who know the names of the students and the needs of the schools can make the determination. I have visited three or four dozen school districts in my State in the last 3 or 4 months. I have been very intensive in my examination. It is very important we understand that tailoring the resource to meet the needs of students to elevate student performance is very important. Sending money to feed the bureaucracy isn't important. The ultimate thing we need to determine is, are we doing those things that will elevate student performance? It may not even be the same thing in every case. There may be things needed in one area in one setting, in one cultural venue, that are different from in another. The presumption that Washington can know a single solution is as foolish as the idea that there is a single product that would suit everyone. Look at the march of industry in our country. We don't try to sell everybody the same computer. Look at the future. The future tells us if you call a fellow named Dell down in Texas, he doesn't tell you what computers he has to offer, he asks you what your needs are. They tailor that computer to meet your specific needs. It is called mass customization, not mass production. Mass production is a thing of the past. Mass customization is a thing of the future. Let's allow our school districts to tailor the resources we provide to meet their needs and to elevate their students' capacity. Let's not try to impose on those students some sort of template from Washington that pushes them into a program or something that is not in their best interests and not according to their needs. The idea of Washington imposing and distorting education is an idea whose time has past. In my State, there is a designation that is a result of a Federal program called IDEA. One in seven students in my State--and one in eight nationally--are designated as disabled. As a result of this designation, those students are not subject to discipline in the same way other students are. For example, if a disabled student brings a gun to school, the maximum time you can keep him out of the regular classroom is generally 45 days. Some of these disabilities, a good number of them, are behavioral disabilities, so they are students whose problem is in controlling themselves. Instead of having the 1-year suspension from class because they brought a weapon to school, they only have a 45-day suspension from class because they brought a weapon to school. It is very difficult for local school administrators to have a situation where they can't discipline students effectively to maintain order and control. I believe we ought to adjust that. We ought to get decisions about resource allocation down to the local level, to moms and dads, community leaders, school board members, to decide how to spend the resources to best elevate student performance. I think that is what they want to do with the money. That is what they want school resources for. I think we ought to also say to those people at the local and State level, you can make the kinds of decisions regarding discipline that are necessary in your culture and in your community and in your setting to secure the classroom and secure teachers. It is very important that be done, and be done in ways that will help students. The Missouri School Boards Association has talked to me recently about these kinds of circumstances. They have given me some examples of what has happened in their school districts in the area of IDEA, discipline, and safety. Here is one, ``Teacher Assault.'' High school student with disabilities was placed in an alternative school after repeatedly assaulting her high school teachers. Recently aggravated, she approached the office. The secretary was talking with a person outside the office and did not see the student approach. The student hit the secretary in the side of the head, knocking her glasses off her face and causing personal injuries. This year the student has broken her teacher's glasses four times by hitting him in the face or pulling them from his face and breaking them. This behavior continues in spite of multiple years of interventions by mental health professionals, behavioral specialists and disability experts at school. The parents continue to meet on a regular basis with the school personnel. However, assaults are frequent and cause injury at home, at school and in the community. No agencies within the community or State will provide comprehensive treatment or services as she is considered too aggressive. She remains in public school. Not subject to the kind of discipline there ought to be. I can go through case after case of teacher assault. I can talk about students who have been shot by other students, students who were injured, whether it is with a knife or with a gun, and the absence of the capacity of our school administrators to deal with students who pose threats to the learning environment of our classrooms. It is a tragic absence of capacity. We ought to return that capacity to the local level. I believe it is possible for us to do so when we think carefully about our school; whether it be assaults on teachers, whether it be the possession of weapons, whether it be the importation of drugs into the schools. So it is with this in mind that I think trusting local school officials is the way for us to respond. We need to adopt the kind of philosophy that moves decisionmaking as well as resources to the local level. Just moving resources to the local level with an administrative burden and a direction to spend the resources in ways that are not needed at the local level is nonsense. Move the resources to the local level and move the decisionmaking capacity to people who know the names of the students and the needs of those students and the needs of the institution. Let them make decisions. Second, allow individuals who are running our schools at the State and local level to have the kind of rules and disciplinary procedures which provide a safe learning environment. If we do those things, we get to our ultimate accountability. The accountability is in student performance. Accountability is not in answering to Washington. Accountability is not answering to a bureaucracy. It is not filing tens of thousands of papers. Accountability is whether our students can read and write, add, subtract, multiply, and divide. It is whether our students are prepared for a technically demanding world, a workplace where, if they succeed with the right education, it will provide them with a chance to be world leaders; where, if we do not succeed and our educational skills languish, our days are numbered as a leader of the world. It is with that in mind I want to say how important it is for us to not only have the right ability to send resources but decisionmaking as well to the local level, and then to provide a basis for maintaining a safe school environment by simply saying that school districts have the ability to discipline all children who bring weapons to school or use illegal drugs at school or possess them at school or children who assault school district personnel. I will close by just remarking that this is not something that is against the best interests of schools or of teachers or of groups of individuals. The Education Roundtable of Missouri, which is comprised of all the major education associations in Missouri, including the PTA, including the MNEA, including the AFT, including the Missouri State Teachers Association and the Missouri School Boards Association--all of those endorse this idea that we need to have the capacity to discipline appropriately all students who bring weapons to schools, who assault teachers, who threaten and assault teachers and provide drugs in the school. They should be subject to appropriate discipline measures. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter from the Missouri Education Roundtable be printed in the Record and I thank the Chair for this opportunity to express myself on this important issue.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. When the Senator asks a question of me, I would like to be able to respond.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May as the National Neurofibromatosis month. Neurofibromatosis (NF) is a genetic disorder that causes tumors to grow along nerves throughout the body. These tumors can lead to a number of physical challenges including blindness, hearing impairment, or skeletal problems such as scoliosis or bone deformities. In addition to these physical challenges, over 60 percent of those diagnosed with neurofibromatosis are also faced with learning disabilities ranging from mild dyslexia and ADD to severe retardation. Anyone's child or grandchild can have NF. This disease affects one in 4,000 children, making it more prevalent than cystic fibrosis and hereditary muscular dystrophy combined. NF equally affects both sexes and all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Although 50 percent of the cases are inherited, half are spontaneous with no family history. It is an honor to stand before this body and recognize May as National Neurofibromatosis month. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Missouri Chapter of The National Neurofibromatosis Foundation, Inc. and their efforts to provide support to those who suffer from NF as they strive towards a cure.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the marriage tax relief bill. You could characterize it as tax relief or you could characterize it, I suppose, as a tax cut. But the true characterization is one that Senator Hutchison has over and over emphasized: This is tax correction. The bill is intended to correct the Tax Code. The code needs correction because it is an assault on the very values of our culture. There is a fundamental unfairness when the Tax Code is at war with our values and penalizes a basic social institution such as the institution of marriage. The American people know this. They understand it is not right to have a Tax Code that penalizes marriage. The vast majority of the Members of this body understand this. This last week, during consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate voted 99-1 on the Hutchison amendment to support marriage tax relief. In other words, let's abandon the policy of punishing married people who pay higher taxes in the Tax Code. Despite this overwhelming vote less than 10 days ago, some of my colleagues are now trying to stop or to delay the marriage tax relief measure by demanding nonrelevant amendments. Yesterday, several Senators from the other side of the aisle spoke on the floor and agreed there is unfairness in the Tax Code and that it is fundamentally unfair to tax people only because they marry. However, these same Senators then said the Finance Committee bill gives tax cuts to people who do not need them. That seems an arrogant statement to me, to suppose Government knows best how to spend the people's money. In addition, one Senator opposed the finance bill, asking, how many of these tax cuts can we afford to give away? I submit, the real question is, how much of the hard-earned money can families afford to have taken away by an unfair system which penalizes men and women, a schoolteacher, a fireman, for getting married and beginning a family? How much longer will we continue to allow married couples to be penalized just for getting married? We are here to correct that fundamental unfairness. It is something that has grown up in the code. It is like a weed which is taking over the garden. Good things are prevented by its presence. We ought to pull it out and make sure we have a Tax Code that does not make it harder for young people to be married and have a family. Are we for correcting this unfairness? Are we against it? Or are we just saying that we are? One cannot say they oppose this penalty and then fight to take the relief away that is provided in the bill. Our colleagues in the House have already demonstrated dramatically that they back a correction for this injustice. In February, the House passed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. Thanks to the good work of the Senate Finance Committee, under the direction of Senator Roth, we have a measure which will help substantially lessen the burden of this penalty that has been laid upon the families of America. This bill makes great strides in providing relief and correcting this injustice. Twenty-five million American couples pay an average of $1,400 a year extra simply because they are married. Ending the penalty will give couples the freedom to make the choices they ought to make: The choice to be married and have a durable, lasting relationship of marriage as the foundation for the family unit. The marriage tax penalty forces some Americans to make compromises instead of real choices. Mothers and fathers should be able to choose whether both parents will be employed outside the home based on what is in the family's best interest, or whether there should be a nonworking spouse who stays in the home. The Senate bill respects the value of the contribution of the spouse who stays home, and that is very important. Our Tax Code should respect the value that is added to the equation by a stay-at-home spouse who makes the family a stronger unit and builds for this country the kind of integrity that strong families provide. In conclusion, no one has ever devised or developed or even dreamed of a better department of education, social services, a better department of health, education, and welfare than the family, and it is time for our Tax Code.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Budget Resolution before us is a responsible budget framework. Senator Domenici has done a superb job in helping to craft this budget on the Senate side, and he deserves our praise. This budget resolution balances the important goals of debt reduction, tax relief, and prudent spending levels. Most importantly, the budget will fully protect Social Security now and in the future. This represents a sea change in the way business is done in Washington. When I came to Washington, Congress routinely spent money out of the Social Security trust fund. This resolution ends the raid on Social Security, and does so in two ways. First, the budget is based on the premise that Social Security funds will not be used to pay for additional deficit spending or tax relief. Second, as part of this budget's commitment to protect the entire Social Security surplus, Senator Domenici included a point of order against any budget that spends money out of the Social Security surplus. This rule is the same as the one I proposed last year, and that was included in the FY 2000 budget. As a result of this hard-fought fiscal discipline, this budget will retire $1.1 trillion in publicly held debt over 5 years, and approximately $170 billion next year. If we continue upon the path laid out by this budget, we will completely eliminate the publicly-held debt over the next 13 years. We have already made great progress in this regard. When this budget is enacted, we will have reduced the national debt by $533 billion over the past three years. I was particularly pleased that the Senate unanimously accepted my amendment objecting to the President's plan to have the government invest Social Security surpluses in the stock market. This risky scheme would have put both Social Security and the stock market at risk. In addition to responsibly paying off our publicly-held debt, this budget allows for approximately $150 billion in tax relief over 5 years, including $13 billion in FY 2001. These actions include significant marriage penalty relief, which already has passed the House, and is working its way through the Senate. In fact, during the debate on the Budget Resolution, the Senate passed the Hutchison- Ashcroft amendment calling for marriage penalty relief 99-1. In addition to providing a judicious mix of tax relief, debt reduction, and Social Security protection, the FY 2001 Budget Resolution also includes responsible spending levels. This budget, which is a balanced budget for the third year in a row, calls for approximately $600.5 billion in discretionary spending. This budget will fully fund Medicare, rejecting President Clinton's Medicare cuts of $14 billion over 5 years. In addition, Congress' spending plan calls for a $40 billion reserve fund to pay for Medicare reform and Medicare prescription drugs. As I said, this budget focuses spending towards our national priorities, including a $4.5 billion increase in education spending in FY 2001, and $5.5 billion in agriculture spending in FY 2000. The FY 2001 budget also increases funding for domestic priorities such as Head Start; embassy security; the National Science Foundation; the National Institutes of Health; the Park Service; and highways and airports. Of course, this budget isn't perfect. I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the effort to protect the Medicare surplus with my Medicare lockbox amendment. This amendment, which would have extended the protections that now apply to Social Security to the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance trust, did not overcome a point of order in the Senate. Despite this setback, I am pleased with the overall package agreed to by Congress. It meets the vital national needs of protecting Social Security, reducing debt, cutting taxes, and funding our domestic priorities. I plan to vote for the FY 2001 Budget Resolution.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to introduce a bill today, along with Senators Bond, Warner, DeWine, and Moynihan, that will name the State Department's Headquarters in Washington, D.C., the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building.'' I truly appreciate the support of these distinguished colleagues and Secretary Albright to see this idea become a reality. Born in Lamar, Missouri, Harry S. Truman was a farmer, a national guardsman, a World War I veteran, a local postmaster, a road overseer, and a small business owner before turning to politics. Through these experiences, he gained the courage, honesty, and dedication to freedom required of a greater leader. Truman went on to become one of the most influential Presidents of the modern era. His leadership and character, especially in the area of foreign policy, have earned him well-deserved praise and respect throughout the world. He established the Marshall Plan--creating a politically and economically stable Western Europe. President Truman was instrumental in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which kept Soviet aggression at bay in Western Europe. He worked to contain the further spread of communism in Berlin, Greece, Turkey, and Korea. Clearly, President Truman was the architect of the strategy that won the Cold War and is a prime reason the United States is currently the world's sole superpower. Mr. President, the State Department should be named after a true leader in foreign policy--and President Harry S. Truman is the clear choice. And through this choice, I hope the United States will continue President Truman's principled foreign policy as seen in his 1949 Presidential Inaugural Address: Events have brought our American democracy to new influence and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty. But I say to all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in greater liberty. Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to introduce a bill today, along with Senators Bond, Warner, DeWine, and Moynihan, that will name the State Department's Headquarters in Washington, D.C., the ``Harry S. Truman Federal Building.'' I truly appreciate the support of these distinguished colleagues and Secretary Albright to see this idea become a reality. Born in Lamar, Missouri, Harry S. Truman was a farmer, a national guardsman, a World War I veteran, a local postmaster, a road overseer, and a small business owner before turning to politics. Through these experiences, he gained the courage, honesty, and dedication to freedom required of a greater leader. Truman went on to become one of the most influential Presidents of the modern era. His leadership and character, especially in the area of foreign policy, have earned him well-deserved praise and respect throughout the world. He established the Marshall Plan--creating a politically and economically stable Western Europe. President Truman was instrumental in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which kept Soviet aggression at bay in Western Europe. He worked to contain the further spread of communism in Berlin, Greece, Turkey, and Korea. Clearly, President Truman was the architect of the strategy that won the Cold War and is a prime reason the United States is currently the world's sole superpower. Mr. President, the State Department should be named after a true leader in foreign policy--and President Harry S. Truman is the clear choice. And through this choice, I hope the United States will continue President Truman's principled foreign policy as seen in his 1949 Presidential Inaugural Address: Events have brought our American democracy to new influence and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty. But I say to all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in greater liberty. Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding Congressional term limits and the ability of States to set term limits for members of the United States Congress. Mr. President, I would like to summarize the history of this proposed constitutional amendment. On November 29, 1994, the Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress. On May 23rd, 1995, in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton (514 U.S. 779), the Supreme Court denied the people the right to limit congressional terms. Before the court ruling, 23 states, including my home state of Missouri, had some limit on the number of terms members of Congress could serve. In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated measures which represented over five years of work and were supported by 25 million voters. These voters wanted nothing more than to rein in congressional power, restore competitive elections, and create a Congress that looked, and legislated, like America. Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the people to limit the terms of individuals who represent them in Congress. There has been limited debate on terms limits in this Congress. In 1995, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional amendment, they mustered only 227 votes. What would normally be a significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to ensure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting term limits. One hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who endorse term limits is for Congress to extend them the opportunity to amend the Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to limit the terms members of Congress may serve. More than 3 out of 4 people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here, captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the opportunity to serve in Congress. Furthermore, they know that term limits would ensure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to live under the very laws that they enact. In January of 1995, Senator Thompson and I introduced a constitutional amendment that would have limited members of Congress to three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. As a result of its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of the people, in May of 1995, I introduced S.J. Res. 36, a different kind of constitutional amendment. This amendment simply would give States the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the individuals who represent it in the Congress. Instead, it would give the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the members' terms who represent that State. I am reintroducing that amendment today. In the Thornton case, Justice Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I believe he is correct. This is the concept embodied in the often forgotten Tenth Amendment that would not cede all power to the federal government, only to have it doled back to us where the federal government thinks it appropriate. This proposed amendment is offered to rectify that situation. The people of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the terms of those who serve them in Congress. In light of the fact that the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch has ruled conclusively now that the States have no constitutional authority to act in this area, it is up to those of us in Congress to give the people the opportunity to be heard on this issue. We must, at least, give them the opportunity to vote on that right by sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and individuals to limit members' terms who serve the States and the districts of those States in the U.S. Congress. It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater opportunities to be involved.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment regarding Congressional term limits and the ability of States to set term limits for members of the United States Congress. Mr. President, I would like to summarize the history of this proposed constitutional amendment. On November 29, 1994, the Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has spoken against the right of the states and of the people to limit the number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress. On May 23rd, 1995, in U.S. Term Limits v. Thorton (514 U.S. 779), the Supreme Court denied the people the right to limit congressional terms. Before the court ruling, 23 states, including my home state of Missouri, had some limit on the number of terms members of Congress could serve. In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated measures which represented over five years of work and were supported by 25 million voters. These voters wanted nothing more than to rein in congressional power, restore competitive elections, and create a Congress that looked, and legislated, like America. Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the people to limit the terms of individuals who represent them in Congress. There has been limited debate on terms limits in this Congress. In 1995, the House of Representatives fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to forward to the people a constitutional amendment on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin required for a constitutional amendment, they mustered only 227 votes. What would normally be a significant majority vote in the House, was clearly not enough to ensure that States would have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting term limits. One hope for the overwhelming number of people in this country who endorse term limits is for Congress to extend them the opportunity to amend the Constitution in a way that would allow individual States to limit the terms members of Congress may serve. More than 3 out of 4 people in the United States endorse the concept of term limits. They have watched individuals come to Washington and spend time here, captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits and the power that exists in this city. The people of America know that the talent pool in America is substantial and there are many who ought to have the opportunity to serve in Congress. Furthermore, they know that term limits would ensure that individuals who go to Washington return someday to live under the very laws that they enact. In January of 1995, Senator Thompson and I introduced a constitutional amendment that would have limited members of Congress to three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. As a result of its defeat and of the administration's refusal to recognize the will of the people, in May of 1995, I introduced S.J. Res. 36, a different kind of constitutional amendment. This amendment simply would give States the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the individuals who represent it in the Congress. Instead, it would give the States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the members' terms who represent that State. I am reintroducing that amendment today. In the Thornton case, Justice Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution is silent it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.'' I believe he is correct. This is the concept embodied in the often forgotten Tenth Amendment that would not cede all power to the federal government, only to have it doled back to us where the federal government thinks it appropriate. This proposed amendment is offered to rectify that situation. The people of this Republic should have the opportunity to limit the terms of those who serve them in Congress. In light of the fact that the administration has argued against term limits, the executive branch is not going to support term limits, and because the judicial branch has ruled conclusively now that the States have no constitutional authority to act in this area, it is up to those of us in Congress to give the people the opportunity to be heard on this issue. We must, at least, give them the opportunity to vote on that right by sending to them this joint resolution on the right of States and individuals to limit members' terms who serve the States and the districts of those States in the U.S. Congress. It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater opportunities to be involved.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the thirteen Iranian Jews wrongfully imprisoned and facing trial in Iran. I join with concerned people of all faiths around the nation, and the world, in calling for the observation of fundamental human rights and the ultimate goal of freedom for these innocent people. Iran has recently taken some positive steps away from political and religious repression toward the acceptance of freedom, justice, and democracy. Reforms, however, have been marred by a disheartening lack of concern for the human rights of religious minorities in Iran. Throughout my life, I have been committed to furthering fundamental human rights, especially religious freedom, for both Americans and people throughout the world. Therefore, I was deeply concerned by the February 1999 arrest of thirteen Iranian Jews informally accused of spying for Israel and the United States. Today, ten of the thirteen are still in jail awaiting trial, while the other three have been released on bail. This situation is especially troubling because these innocent community and religious leaders could face the death penalty if convicted. Mr. President, this entire legal ordeal has been filled with Iranian Constitutional violations and shrouded in secrecy. For instance, the thirteen have never been formally charged or indicted. This should be the first step in any legal proceeding, but it now appears almost certain the defendants will not know the charges they face until the trial begins. As a former Attorney General of Missouri, I fully appreciate what a daunting, if not impossible, task it would be to build a credible defense without knowing the charges. Additionally, although it appears the Iranian government might have recently reversed its previous position and agreed to allow the thirteen to choose their own legal counsel, the judge in the case has refused access to the defendants by their chosen attorneys. Beyond the seriously limiting results of this decision, the chosen attorneys cannot officially become the defendant's counsel until the necessary legal documents are signed, which will not occur until the attorneys and defendants meet. The courts have created one of the worst ``Catch- 22s'' I have seen. It also troubles me that the trial will be conducted in secrecy. After repeated requests by international observers and the press, the decision to keep the trial secret has been affirmed by the courts. For these obvious reasons, I believe it likely that the thirteen will not receive a fair and impartial trial. The members of the Jewish Iranian community, who out of respect and fear of the Islamic majority rarely speak out in public, have even made an uncharacteristic plea to the Iranian government. I join with this community in asking for all defendants in Iran, regardless of religion or standing, to have access to legal counsel of their own choosing, and to be afforded the requirements of Iranian law for fair and open trials. In addition, I urge the Iranian government to grant permission for the ten jailed Iranian Jewish defendants to go home on furlough for Passover, which begins on the evening of April 19th, if the proceedings have not yet been completed. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the basic principles of human rights and religious freedom. The Iranian government must do the right thing and provide these defendants their fundamental rights, and the International Community must use all available pressure and diplomatic avenues to influence them to do so. And the United States Government should demonstrate real leadership by diligently working to see the ultimate release of these thirteen Jewish Iranian defendants.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call up sense-of-the-Senate amendment No. 2946. It is a sense of the Senate rejecting the President's plan for direct Government investment of Social Security as an option.