Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I have no objection to that at all.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Matthew Miller, a former senior adviser to the Office of Management and Budget, had an op-ed piece about the budget. It says precisely what I believe: that the Administration should have provided Congress with a better budget, that the Republicans should be applauded for trying to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, but that the priorities in the Republican budget are all wrong, even though the goal is a proper one. I know the budget has already passed the Senate and the House, and we will be facing it shortly in conference, but in the belief that telling the truth always has some virtue, I ask that the Matthew Miller piece be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, May 16, 1995] Take the Lead, Mr. Clinton (By Matthew Miller) Washington.--I left the Clinton Administration in January when the White House issued a budget that I felt turned away from [[Page S8125]] its previous commitment to deficit reduction and sensible public investment. Today, while supporting President Clinton in opposing the cruel and counterproductive Republican budget resolutions in the House and Senate, I also wonder why the White House has let the Republicans seize this issue. Though the Administration is right to criticize plans that would cut spending for the most vulnerable Americans to help finance tax breaks for the well-off, it will not rally much support by hypocritically attacking cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid or by resisting the idea of balancing the budget altogether. Last week, the White House chief of staff, Leon Panetta, said that the Republicans would ``make Medicare a second- class health care system for our seniors.'' The Administration's 1993 economic plan, ``A Vision of Change for America,'' struck a different note. In it, the Administration hoped to ``control the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending in the long term, and thereby supplement the deficit reduction in this economic program.'' Assuming ``health care controls,'' the plan estimated that the deficit would decline to $87 billion in the year 2003-- from what otherwise would have been $399 billion. Bringing down the combined annual growth rate of Medicare and Medicaid was the single most important factor in the reduction. This slower growth would have meant saving about $66 billion yearly on average over a 10-year period. The Republican Senate budget resolution, by contrast, calls for savings that average $65 billion yearly over seven years, while the House resolution calls for $69 billion yearly over the same period. It's hard to understand how a goal the Administration considered reasonable only two years ago can seem unthinkably draconian today. Nor is the Republicans' aim of balancing the budget by 2002 as dangerous for the economy as the Administration suggests. Mainstream economists generally agree that reducing the deficit by the equivalent of 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product per year can be reliably offset by the Federal Reserve (for example, by lowering interest rates). With the Congressional Budget Office forecasting the deficit at 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 1995, that would mean a five-year path to a balanced budget by 2000 would be reasonable. In any event, it would be far better policy and better politics for Mr. Clinton to take the lead by offering his own plan to balance the budget rather than merely sniping at the Republicans. The GOP resolutions would slash basic research, investment in infrastructure and in education, while leaving untouched most of the welfare for the well-off that permeates the budget. While families struggling on $35,000 a year would continue to bear a disproportionate tax burden, for example, $30 billion in health and pension benefits would still go every year to senior citizens who have incomes above $100,000--giving these retirees far more back than they paid into the system. Yet all of the Administration's well-taken criticisms will be ignored if President Clinton does not renew his commitment to addressing the problem of the deficit. The Republicans' methods may be misguided, but the goal they have embraced is the right one. Mr. Clinton should waste no time in taking back an issue he claimed as his own from his first days in office.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I submit an amendment that I plan to offer to S. 652, the telecommunications bill next week. The amendment will ensure that when the Regional Bell Operating Companies enter the business of manufacturing, the consumer will be protected against possible price increases as a result of cross-subsidization and self- dealing. While some of us may disagree on the wisdom of allowing the Bell companies into manufacturing, no one should disagree on the need to ensure the consumer is protected against possible rate increases. I applaud the authors of the legislation for including certain safeguards already in the legislation. My amendment would take these protections one step further by requiring an audit conducted at the direction of the State. The language, which is based on last year's telecommunications bill, is simple and straightforward. I hope that my colleagues will agree and adopt this important amendment. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in the Record. On page 31, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following: ``(d) Biennial Audit.-- ``(1) General requirement.--A company required to operate a separate subsidiary under this section shall obtain and pay for an audit every 2 years conducted by an independent auditor selected by, and working at the direction of, the State commission of each State in which such company provides service, to determine whether such company has complied with this section and the regulations promulgated under this section, and particularly whether such company has complied with the separate accounting requirements under subsection (b). ``(2) Results submitted to commission; state commissions.-- The auditor described in paragraph (1) shall submit the results of the audit to the Commission and to the State commission of each State in which the company audited provides service, which shall make such results available for public inspection. Any party may submit comments on the final audit report. ``(3) Regulations.--The audit required under paragraph (1) shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by regulation by the State commission of the State in which such company provides service. The regulations shall include requirements that-- ``(A) each audit submitted to the Commission and to the State commission is certified by the auditor responsible for conducting the audit; and ``(B) each audit shall be certified by the person who conducted the audit and shall identify with particularly any qualifications or limitations on such certification and any other information relevant to the enforcement of the requirements of this section. ``(4) Commission review.--The Commission shall periodically review and analyze the audits submitted to it under this subsection. ``(5) Access to documents.--For purposes of conducting audits and reviews under this subsection-- ``(A) the independent auditor, the Commission, and the State commission shall have access to the financial accounts and records of each company and of its subsidiaries necessary to verify transactions conducted with that company that are relevant to the specific activities permitted under this section and that are necessary for the regulation of rates; ``(B) the Commission and the State commission shall have access to the working papers and supporting materials of any auditor who performs an audit under this section; and ``(C) the State commission shall implement appropriate procedures to ensure the protection of any proprietary information submitted to it under this section. On page 31, line 19, strike out ``(d)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(e)''. On page 32, line 10, strike out ``(e)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(f)''. On page 33, line 12, strike out ``(f)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(g)''. On page 34, line 20, strike out ``(g)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(h)''. On page 34, line 25, strike out ``(h)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(i)''. On page 36, line 1, strike out ``(i)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(j)''.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President. We are in the process of making basic decisions for the future of our country, and one of them is whether we encourage or discourage our young people to go to college. And, I just said ``young people;'' I should change that to ``citizens,'' because a great many who are beyond the traditional college age can benefit by higher education, also. I recently visited with a woman on welfare, a grandmother, who has enrolled in a community college program that she believes may take her off of welfare. I have every confidence she is correct. To deny people the chance to develop themselves is to limit the future of our Nation. A New York Times editorial titled ``Why Student Aid Matters'' appeared the other day, and I ask to put its editorial wisdom into the Congressional Record at this point. The editorial follows: Why Student Aid Matters Two years ago, Gregory McCall almost because a dropout when he failed to make the state championship basketball team at St. [[Page S8123]] Anthony High School in Jersey City. As he told Neil MacFarquhar of The Times: ``I had no hope of going to college because my family was so poor. I thought I would end up in Jersey City working at Kmart in a minimum-wage job.'' Instead, with prodding from teachers and counselors, Mr. McCall graduated from St. Anthony this week, receiving an award for outstanding educational improvement and earning a full $20,000 scholarship to Monmouth University in New Jersey. He is one of 47 St. Anthony seniors who have been admitted to 138 different colleges and universities, accumulating $1 million in financial aid. It is the third year in a row that St. Anthony, whose enrollment of 300 is drawn from impoverished neighborhoods, has had every graduating senior accepted in college. But now the aspirations of future classes of such students are in jeopardy. The Congressional assault on student aid programs in general and minority scholarship programs in particular will put college out of reach for many minority and low-income youths. Congress threatens to freeze the $6 billion appropriation for Pell grants, which are targeted to low-income students, for the next seven years. The current maximum award, $2,300, has already been reduced to about $1,500 as appropriations have failed to keep pace with increasing numbers of needy students or rising college costs. The freeze is likely to cut grants to poor students while proposed tax breaks for middle- and upper-income families would make it easier for them to pay tuition costs. Mr. McCall and his fellow St. Anthony seniors, many of whom are first-generation college students from inner-city minority, ethnic blue-collar and immigrant families, still have hope. But without targeted scholarships and grants, the hopes of many who come after them will be dashed.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are few things that have moved me as much in recent years as the tragic case of ``Baby Richard,'' who was taken by the Illinois Supreme Court from his adoptive parents at the age of four and given to his natural parents who had abandoned him upon birth. As an adoptive parent myself, I cannot believe the pain with which this family has been afflicted and the emotional harm and scars that will be part of the life of Richard, unfortunately. The other day, I happened to see in the New York Daily News an article by Michael Quinn, on the staff of Time magazine, who is also an adoptive parent. His article is titled, ``Why adoptive parents fight for kids.'' It tells the story very simply but meaningfully. I ask that his story be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Daily News, June 6, 1995] Why Adoptive Parents Fight for Kids (By Michael Quinn) Already it ranks as one of the most shameful images of our time: Chicago's 4-year-old ``Baby Richard'' being slowly pried from the arms of the family with whom he shared every memory of his tiny universe and whisked off by strangers with whom he shared nothing but DNA. You didn't need much to join in a nation's sense of heartache--just two eyes and a soul. [[Page S8124]] Yet even now, some ask: Why didn't they just give up? When the biological father first pressed his case, why didn't the ``Does'' simply hand the child over and spare him and themselves a greatly amplified agony four years later? For the answer, consider the story of two New Yorkers, Cameron and Brandon Baldanza--a local Baby Richard case with a vastly different ending. Cameron, born in September 1989, and Brandon, born a year later, were abandoned at the hospital by their biological mother, Magaly Galindo. To be sure, Galindo did leave the boys something to remember her by--an addiction to the heroin she pumped into her system throughout the two pregnancies. Fortunately, there was someone unwilling to walk away from Cameron and Brandon: Millie Baldanza, a first cousin to Galindo, who took the boys into her home and into her heart, knowing in advance they entered the world as junkies. With her husband, Jimmie, Millie nursed the two kids through a nightmare no parent would want to imagine, let alone experience--the body-quaking ordeal of drug withdrawal. Brandon and Cameron survived--and thrived. Meanwhile, Galindo and the boys' birth father, Jose Diaz, were working as hard at being strangers as the Baldanzas were at being parents. They had virtually no contact with the boys for two years, making their very first appearance in court six months after the Child Welfare Administration began proceedings to terminate their parental rights. Millie and Jimmie could have given up then. It would have been hard to blame them, given Child Welfare's blatant bias for ``family preservation''--social-workerese for the philosophy that nothing is worse for a child than adoption. Or they might have tossed in the towel last summer, when Brandon and Cameron were forced into extended stays with their now- you-see-them, now-you-don't birth parents. But Millie and Jimmie did not give up. And early last month, less than a week after the taking of Baby Richard, Judge Marjory Fields of the Bronx Family Court ordered the return of Brandon and Cameron to the Baldanzas at the end of this month--a delay only so they can finish the school term. Fields based her decision on testimony from expert witnesses who concluded ``the children have suffered grievous harm from being removed from the [Baldanzas'] care.'' The experts backed up that grim diagnosis with tales of caseworkers forcing the screaming children into taxis for visits with Diaz and Galindo, of Cameron cowering in his closet and complaining of chest pains and headaches when the visits were increased. The prognosis for the boys if they were taken from the Baldanzas: ``personality disorder, clinical depression''-- perhaps even suicide. That would have been the fate of Cameron and Brandon had Millie and Jimmie decided to let their kids be abandoned for a second time. And tragically, it may well be what lies ahead for Baby Richard. But win or lose, there is an even simpler reason why adoptive families are willing to fight from the very first to the very last for their kids. Because that is what they are: our kids. Not some stereo equipment we're ready to return if it doesn't work out. Not a sports car we are borrowing for a test drive. Our kids. The second they cross our door, we have made a commitment for life, more serious than most marriages--and as sacred as birth. Thanks to the Baldanzas and the Does for declaring it to the world: They are our kids.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of one of my constituents, John C. Goodman. John is stepping down from his post as gateway district manager for customer service and sales at the U.S. Postal Service. A 39-year veteran of the Postal Service, John was appointed as gateway district manager in September 1992. In making this appointment, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon said at the time, ``We are pleased to have John Goodman serving our customers.'' John's outstanding record of service has made Mr. Runyon's 1992 observation even more meaningful and accurate. John began his postal career as Postmaster in O'Fallon, IL after which he was elected secretary/treasurer of the National Association of Postmasters of the United States [NAPUS]. He was then elected NAPUS president, serving at the Organization's Washington, DC headquarters. Having completed his term, John returned to the Midwest in 1978 and was assigned to positions in Granite City, IL and later in Columbia, MO. John also served as acting manager of the Grand Rapids Post Office as part of the Executive Exchange Program, and was the executive assistant for customer relations in St. Louis, MO where he was appointed St. Louis Field Division General Manager/Postmaster in 1986. John's extensive management and operational expertise has yielded an impressive array of honors and citations. Under John Goodman's supervision, the St. Louis Division won the prestigious Regional Postmaster General's Quality Award. John also won the Postmaster General's Award for Excellence for the Union/Management Pairs [UMPS] program, as well as the National Postal Forum's Partnership for Progress Award for his dedication to customer service. A native of O'Fallon, IL, John served in the Air Force and attended both the University of Denver and Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in business administration. Mr. President, I join John Goodman's family and many friends in congratulating him on an exemplary career, and wishing him all the best for the future. Illinois, Missouri and the country have benefited greatly from his superb service.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I rise in strong support. I think we all know that I oppose the death penalty. It is a penalty we reserve for those of modest means. If a person has enough money, that person will never get the death penalty in this country. That is the reality. That is not the question, though I find it of interest that today's New York Times has a story that the South African Supreme Court yesterday unanimously outlawed capital punishment in South Africa. We are one of the few countries left in the Western world that still has the death penalty. The question is whether someone who is probably innocent--that is the language of the Levin amendment--probably resulted in the conviction of a person who is actually innocent of the underlying offense. Now, whether a person is for the death penalty or against it, no one wants to send someone to prison who is probably innocent. We have done that. I can remember when we were debating this issue when I was in the Illinois General Assembly and a man was about to be executed, and suddenly someone in the State of Georgia confessed that he had committed the crime. Now, that case is clear and convincing evidence. I have to say that the bill without this amendment would take care of that case. There are a lot of other marginal cases. We are not just saying a marginal case. The Levin amendment says where a person is probably innocent, a person ought to have that chance to appeal. I cannot believe anyone who really looks at this--the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Utah, my colleagues--I cannot believe they will vote against that. Maybe Members will vote against it if they are not aware of what the amendment does, and a briefing is right at the desk on either your side or our side. These briefings--and I do not mean this disrespectfully to the fine staff--but it is very difficult to condense in a few words what these amendments do. The Levin amendment says ``If you are probably innocent, you ought to have the chance to appeal.'' I have a hard time believing that is not going to be accepted unanimously. Apparently, it may not be. I am pleased to support the Levin amendment, proud to support it and vote for it. I believe I have consumed my time, Mr. President. I hope I have been able to get the message across. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an article printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. That is correct.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I would like to take about 20 minutes?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my hope is that it would be acceptable to the managers. I think this is in the line of the spirit of what is being offered. It is in line with the original draft. It certainly is in line with the sentiments over the years that I have worked with Senator Biden, and I also believe Senator Hatch also would find this acceptable.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I am working with Senator Specter on his version. I think we will have a Specter-Simon amendment very shortly. What it does is it changes the provision if an alien is to be deported. Under the present bill, if there is classified information that alien is not informed of anything. That is a clear violation of due process and I think the courts would toss it out. What we have suggested, and we are working on the precise language now, but what we are suggesting is that the Attorney General would provide an unclassified synopsis and the court would have access to the classified information to make sure the unclassified synopsis is accurate. And then that would be given to the person who is charged with being deported. That gives some reasonable access. We provide for review and appeal procedures. We are still working on some details. Senator Specter may want to comment on this. We may offer the amendment tomorrow or later tonight, I am not sure, but I think we are very close to an accord. I might add the accord is in line with the original draft of the legislation that is before us. But I think the legislation, if it is not amended, frankly, the courts would toss it out as violating due process. My colleague from Pennsylvania may want to comment on that.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the third in a series of commentaries I am making on our Nation's condition, a series suggested to me by President Clinton after I announced my future retirement from the Senate. One of the major economic events of this year is the recent decline of the dollar against the Japanese yen and the German mark. Though this slippage was arrested temporarily a few days ago, the long-term trend is clear. We know that the drop in the value of the dollar will affect our future, but we are not sure how. We know that we should do something about it, but we are not sure what. At a White House press conference on Tuesday evening, April 18, a reporter asked President Clinton about the sinking dollar, and the President responded: ``In the present climate, the ability of governments to affect the strength of their currency . . . in the short run may be limited.'' If that is an excuse for inaction, it is wrong. But the President was right in saying: So what you have to do is work over the long run. The United States does want a strong dollar. We believe in the importance of fundamentals in our economy. We believe in getting the deficit down, getting jobs up and pursuing a responsible course. The Washington Post had an editorial that observed: Anger and frustration in their voices, Japanese and German officials have been calling on the United States publicly to do something about the [falling] dollar * * * The United States is likely to offer sympathy but little more. There's nothing useful that the United States can do. The Post is wrong. A few blamed our $20 billion loan guarantee to Mexico, and while it could have altered behavior slightly in an uneasy market, a $20 billion multiyear loan guarantee is not something major for a nation that has a $6 trillion national income, if it has its economic house in order. There are two basic questions: What does the fall of the dollar mean? What can we or should we do about it? I shall address both. What does the fall of the dollar mean? It is significant, both for our Nation and the world. Since two- thirds of the world's trade is carried on in dollars, the erosion of the dollar can destabilize economies far from us. But the British publication, the Economist, is correct: In the long run, the biggest loser from the neglect of the dollar will be America itself.--April 15, 1995. A Journal of Commerce columnist accurately noted on April 17: ``The weak dollar will decrease U.S. political influence abroad.'' Peter Passell wrote in the New York Times, on May 7: ``No indicator of the American economic decline stands out like the fallen dollar.'' Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, is quoted in the New York Times on May 2: ``If you think American leadership is important, then erosion [of the dollar] is a negative.'' Time magazine, in its March 20 issue, quoted financial analyst Felix Rohatyn: ``We are gradually losing control of our own destiny. The dollar's decline undercuts American economic leadership and prestige. It is perhaps the single most dangerous economic threat we will face in the long term because it puts us at the mercy of other countries.'' Van Ooms, economist for the Committee for Economic Development and former chief of staff of the House Budget Committee, said on the pages of the Chicago Tribune on April 13 that Europeans will take this country less seriously on foreign policy ``when it can't run a credible economic policy.'' As if to underscore all of this, the April 12th Wall Street Journal had a heading about the fastest growing economic part of the world: ``Asia's Central Banks Unloading Dollars in Shift Toward Yen as Trade Currency.'' Short-term, Americans will see little change. Yes, if we are traveling in other nations, we will be hurt a little by the foreign exchange rates. Our balance of trade with other nations may be helped a little, because U.S. products can be secured for less money, though foreign businesses--like their American counterparts--rarely immediately drop their prices, both because they want to make some additional profit and because there is a reluctance to adjust prices until the currency market stabilizes. Our balance of trade is helped because U.S. businesses that buy component parts from overseas producers will suddenly find them more expensive and will shift to a U.S. manufacturer of the same product, if one is available. But that is not always the case. The VCR, for example--invented, developed and, at one time, entirely manufactured here--now has no U.S. manufacturing source. Little-noticed economic consequences will gradually affect us. For example, securing a patent in Japan will now be more expensive for a United States firm or individual. Factors like that have a limited, short-term impact but a much greater long-range impact. Long-term, the dollar decline has more serious consequences. First, the increased cost of foreign goods will have a gradual inflationary impact on our economy. That will not only cause the consumer dollar to shrink and discourage savings, it eventually will put pressure on the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates to discourage inflationary pressures--and that will hurt our economy. The financial markets will also push interest rates up. We know that approximately 16 percent of our deficit--or about $700 billion--is publicly known to be held outside the United States. But many nations outlaw holding bonds from another nation--the United States once did-- and there is additional ownership that is not publicly disclosed, hidden usually through a third party holding the bonds. If the dollar continues its decline, U.S. bonds denominated in dollars will become less and less attractive. We will have to raise interest rates to sell this huge chunk of our deficit. Less widely known is that 14 percent of our corporate bonds are held by people who live beyond our borders. That money has financed a huge chunk of our industrial expansion and modernization. If the dollar continues to decline, we will either lose this source of capital, or interest rate payments will have to be raised to make these bonds attractive enough to sell. In addition, there are sizable foreign deposits in savings and checking accounts in our banks, and foreign-held certificates of deposit. Indirectly, these help to finance both our government sector-- because the banks buy Treasury bonds--and the private sector, because the banks are able to make loans to U.S. businesses with these resources. If all of this shrinks because of a fall in the dollar, the only way to salvage the situation is with higher interest rates. In the long term, higher interest rates discourage industrial investment and reduce productivity. Our economy is hurt, and the phenomenon of a lower dollar is not healthy for our Nation. From time to time, minor adjustments will occur and frequently are healthy. But the fairly consistent pattern of the drop in our dollar against the yen and the mark has major long-term consequences for our citizens that are not good. I read an exchange that took place between two economists some years ago when the dollar brought 262 yen. In 1968, incidentally, 1 dollar equaled 360 yen. Here we can see in this graph what has happened to the dollar versus the yen. The one discussant predicted that if our policies were not altered, the dollar would eventually slide to 180 yen. The other economist predicted, confidently, that this would never happen. A few days ago, the dollar fell to 82 yen and today the dollar is worth 84 yen. Recently the Washington Post published a column noting the opinion of [[Page S7751]] an economist and an economic observer who suggest we may have to think about issuing U.S. Treasury notes in yen rather than dollars to attract buyers and save on interest. The reasoning is simple: The financial markets want a stable currency for their investments, particularly long-term investments. The yen has shown itself much more stable than the dollar. To continue to sell in dollars will require higher interest rates. Therefore, they argue, we should issue our bonds in yen and pay less for interest. It would be politically unsettling to many Americans to see our bonds being sold in yen, but that is where we are headed. There are better alternatives. What can we do about the fall of the dollar? It is not difficult to diagnose much of the problem. But once the illness is diagnosed, the patient has to take the medicine, and that is much more difficult with a patient that is not accustomed to taking distasteful medicine. The basic problem is that the confidence in the dollar has diminished. Neither cheerleading by United States officials nor salvaging efforts by the central banks of Japan, Germany, and other countries will do more than temporarily heal the wound. Confidence- building measures have to be substantial. Those who now hold U.S. dollar-denominated financial certificates, who are uneasy, are not going to be assured by cosmetic actions. Four steps can strengthen our economy and solidify the dollar. First, get rid of our Government deficit. This is, by far, the most important of the four actions, and it will help the next three. It is no accident that the most recent slide of the dollar began the day after the Senate rejected the balanced budget amendment by one vote. The Federal Government has been in a deficit situation for 26 years, and for 25 years, the dollar has been in a slide against the yen and mark. It does not take an Einstein to understand there is a relationship. But it is not a straight line, and other factors are also present. Sometimes when the deficit was high, interest rates were high, increasing the value of the dollar. It is an over-simplification to attribute all of the dollar decline to the deficit. But it is a major cause. ``The Germans and the Japanese say the basic problem is America's budget deficit,'' the New York Times reported on April 25. A month earlier, the Los Angeles Times reported Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan telling the House Budget Committee that ``last week's Senate defeat of the balanced budget amendment [can be blamed] for the sudden plunge in the value of the dollar and pointedly warned Congress that the currency will remain under long-term pressure until Washington tackles the deficit.'' The newspaper called his comments ``extraordinary because he so rarely gets involved in political disputes over tax and budget policies.''--March 9, 1995. Business Week, in its March 2 issue, commented on the dollar slide: ``What the [international] market wants is simple: less debt or higher interest rates.'' The same article noted ``that sense of unease [caused by] the narrow defeat in the Senate of the balanced budget amendment. Now, investors are worrying that talk of tax cuts will continue despite the amendment's failure. `The optimism that something would be done on the long-standing U.S. budget deficit problem has disappeared,' argues Jonathan H. Francis, head of global strategy at Boston's Putnam Investments.'' The story concludes: ``Unless the U.S. * * * catches on, even more trouble lies ahead.'' Paul McCracken, economist at the University of Michigan and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Nixon, had a guest column in the Wall Street Journal of April 13, titled: ``Falling Dollar? Blame the Deficit.'' In the article, he says that the deficits have caused a decline in productive capital investment and that this ``is not trivial. If gains in real income had continued at a pace more in line with our long history, average family income today in real terms would be almost 25 percent higher than our economy is now delivering.'' The bipartisan Concord Coalition recently issued a study suggesting that family income would be $15,000 higher today if we had not had years of deficit. On April 17, Trudy Rubin wrote prophetically in the Journal of Commerce: ``If there were signs that Washington were cutting the deficit, the dollar would probably stabilize.'' Lawrence Thimerene, chief economist for the Economic Strategy Institute, wrote in the New York Times on March 23 that, to stabilize the dollar, Congress and the President must ``demonstrate real seriousness on deficit reduction.'' To the credit of President Clinton, he did that with his budget of 1993. It cost him politically, but it benefited the Nation. To the credit of our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, chair of the Budget Committee, he has proposed that we balance the budget by the year 2002. While I differ strongly with his way of getting there, I applaud his courage in proposing this. The Senate and the House now have passed different budget blueprints. During the Senate debate, several of us on the Democratic side of the aisle proposed a different budget plan which would balance the budget but with significantly different priorities. We need bipartisan efforts in the that direction. But our task is made more difficult by the one vote we failed to get in the Senate for a balanced budget amendment. I hope that 1 of the 34 Senators who voted against it--Dale Bumpers, David Pryor, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman, Dan Akaka, Daniel Inouye, Wendell Ford, Bennett Johnston, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Paul Wellstone, Bob Kerrey, Harry Reid, Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg, Jeff Bingaman, Pat Moynihan, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, John Glenn, Mark Hatfield, Claiborne Pell, Fritz Hollings, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Patty Murray, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Russ Feingold--will reexamine the issue in light of what has happened to the dollar and in light of the action taken by Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee. Even Budget Committee action alone toward fiscal balance has had an impact. The heading on the New York Times story of Friday, May 12, was: ``The Dollar Surges On New Plan To Cut Deficit.'' The story, written by Peter Truell, begins: The dollar staged its biggest one-day rally in nearly four years, rebounding against the German mark and the Japanese yen on speculation that Washington might do more than in the past to cut the federal budget deficit. The difficulty with the Budget Committee acting alone, much as its goal is to be applauded, is that the financial markets will remain somewhat skeptical, as I am, about whether Congress will follow through in the remaining 6 years. Financial savings from interest that could be applied to things like social programs and Medicare, and should be applied there rather than for a tax cut, will not be fully achieved. On the basis of estimates made by Data Resources and other forecasters, my guess is that with the same goal of balancing the budget and the firm wall of a constitutional amendment, there would be an additional interest savings of at least 1 percent. That would mean an extra $170 billion over 7 years for needed programs like education and a stimulated U.S. economy in areas that are interest-sensitive, such as home construction, car purchases, and industrial investment. Washington Post columnist James K. Glassman recently had a column under the heading, ``Year of the Balanced Budget.'' While whoever wrote the headline for the column may not have intended it, there is fear on the part of many that the use of the singular, ``year,'' is what will happen. We need ``Years--plural--of the Balanced Budget.'' Our experience with legislative solutions, such as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, an earlier balanced budget try, is that they have an impact for a year or two, but when the public squeeze is felt, it is much easier politically to create additional deficits than to make the tough decisions. That's where the constitutional amendment would help. But unless we confront our fiscal problems, the day will come when we will look back with longing to the day when the yen was 84 to a dollar. Second, our trade imbalances must be addressed. A report from the Congressional Research Service says that studies show 37 to 55 percent of our trade deficits are caused by the budget deficit. [[Page S7752]] But there are other causes, varying from our neglect to aggressively market, to our weakness over the decades in trade negotiations. The latter deficiency is caused in part by not having a cadre of professionals handling our negotiations, particularly when compared to Japan. Too often it has been long-term professionals against changing teams of U.S. negotiators, and I don't mean that disrespectfully to fine, competent people of both political parties who have been thrust into these positions of responsibility. The firm stance of President Clinton and Trade Ambassador Mickey Kantor in negotiating with Japan on automobiles and car parts is sound. I am optimistic that the problems can be satisfactorily resolved, but we should not be too eager. It is also worth noting that our firmer stance with Japan on trade matters has come since Japan has been a declining factor in purchase of our treasury notes. It is difficult to get tough with your banker. The United States also must build products that can accommodate the cultures of other nations; we must learn to sell in their languages, not ours; and tens of thousands of U.S. corporations that do not consider marketing in other nations must change course. We are gradually getting better, but it we can hasten the process, we will reduce the trade deficit that troubles the international currency markets. But any serious look at trade policy must return to fiscal policy. Last month, Judith H. Bello, former general counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative, wrote in the Washington Post: The United States will continue to run trade deficits, no matter what happens in trade negotiations, so long as we run federal budget deficits. If Japan and every other trading partner opened their markets completely, we would still run a trade deficit if our savings rate remained inadequate. There is little that trade negotiators can do about a trade deficit. The power to reduce the U.S. deficit lies with Congress and those within the administration responsible for the federal budget. No matter how many markets any trade representative opens, the effect on the U.S. trade deficit in isolation is peripheral. U.S. trade negotiators have relatively little power to affect the weakness or strength of the U.S. dollar through their market-opening negotiations. As long as the United States remains heavily dependent on foreign capital to fuel our economic growth, and fails to save more and spend less, the dollar is likely to be relatively weak despite our fundamental competitiveness. Third, our savings rate must be increased. Again, the biggest impediment to our savings rate is the deficit. But it is more than that. The United States culture is not dramatically different from that of Canada and other Western industrialized nations, but our savings rate is significantly lower. We save only 4.8 percent of our gross national product, Canada saves 9.1 percent, Germany 10.7 percent, and 19.7 percent in Japan. Because of the low savings rate, the United States is much more dependent on others buying our debt paper. By making some changes in our Tax Code, we can reward savings rather than debt. Our Tax Code, for example, rewards businesses that create debt to finance growth, rather than financing growth through savings or equity financing. A corporation that buys another corporation by borrowing money can write off the interest payments even through the debt may create hazards for the purchasing company. But if that same corporation more prudently issues stock, the dividends are not deductible. If we changed the tax laws to permit 80 percent of interest to be deductible and 50 percent of dividends to be deductible, the net result would be a wash in Federal revenue, but many corporations would have a more solid base, and our corporate debt base would decline. Similarly, we should create tax incentives for individual Americans to save that would not add to our Nation's debt but would add to our productivity by making investment capital more available. Our people do not have the incentives to save that citizens of many nations have. Shifts in our culture will not be brought about quickly, but we must work to bring about change. Fourth, we must do more long-term thinking and face our deficiencies frankly. The fiscal deficiency is an example I have already discussed. We have ducked telling people the truth because it is politically more convenient to duck. But there are many more examples. Can we expect to build the kind of a nation we should have if we continue to have 23 percent of our children living in poverty? Can we expect to build a nation that can lead and compete in the future if we continue to neglect the need for quality education in all of the nation? Financial markets look at our deficits and worry about long-term inflationary pressures. When our fiscal policy does not address the deficits, the Federal Reserve Board is forced to look at the long-term implications of inflation. That is why the quality of appointments to the Federal Reserve Board are so significant. If we in Congress and the Clinton administration addressed our long-term fiscal problems more directly, the pressure would be removed for Federal Reserve Board action. Germany and Japan are far ahead of the United States on nondefense research--and probably even further ahead of us in applying their research to productive purposes. Governmental America tends to live from election to election and, even worse, from poll to poll. Corporate America too often lives from quarterly report to quarterly report. Unless we do more long-term planning and acting in both the public and private sectors, our future performance as a nation will be less than outstanding. Others understand this about us. We must understand this about ourselves. If we were to address these four areas with courage, not only would the dollar continue to rebound, our hopes and spirit would rebound also. The cynicism and negative attitudes that concern many of us are not caused only by the haters and those who see only the worst in our Government and public officials. The depth of public concern that results in hostility rather than activity is also caused by good, decent public officials of both political parties who do not have the courage to face our fundamental problems or who see an opportunity for partisan advantage rather than an opportunity to lift the Nation. Yes, we can save the dollar. We can also save the Nation. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I question the presence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this spring on Capitol Hill an exiting literacy program began with the help of Senators and Senate staff. The children at Brent Elementary School are now being read to once a week during their lunch hours by volunteers in the Everybody Wins Program. Everybody Wins is a successful literacy program which matches up professionals with at-risk, inner-city school children as reading partners. During each power lunch session, the reading partners select a book and read aloud together--an activity that the Commission on Reading calls the single most important activity for building a child's eventual success in reading. Dr. Frances Plummer, the principal of Brent Elementary School, has been instrumental in making this program a success. Dr. Plummer, a native Washingtonian, attended the D.C. schools, from kindergarten through receiving her B.S. degree from D.C. Teachers College. She then went on to earn a masters degree and doctorate of education from George Washington University. Her career has included being a teacher and assistant principal in the Washington D.C. public schools before going on to become the principal of the Brent Elementary School. Dr. Plummer's philosophy is ``Teach each child at your school as you would want your own child taught.'' I, along with my colleagues who are participating in the program would like to commend Dr. Plummer's patience, hard work, and a lifetime of dedication to the children that she serves.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a little-noticed provision of the budget resolution will make it more likely that student loan cuts will come out of the pockets of students, rather than banks, bureaucrats, and other middlemen. Section 207 changes the way the loan costs are scored in the budget by requiring administrative costs--such as collection expenses--to be counted on a long-term--accrual--basis, rather than on a cash basis over the 5-year budget window. While this may sound like a reasonable change, it is accomplished in a manner that is inconsistent and biased. Section 207 is not applied consistently to all loan programs. Instead, it targets student loans in particular. Furthermore, this type of end-run around the Budget Act is not appropriate on a budget resolution. Section 207 is biased. There are a number of problems with the way that loans are scored in the budget. Section 207 only fixes one of them, skewing the scoring against direct student loans. This makes it more difficult to achieve savings without eliminating the in-school interest exemption or increasing fees and other student costs. A complete reform of the budget scoring rules for loan programs would consider: Cost-of-funds. The most significant item that overstates the cost of direct lending is the discount rate that is currently used. The interest rates that students pay vary annually, and the subsidized rates that the Federal Government promises to banks vary each quarter. A Council of Economic Advisors memorandum of April 30, 1993, points out that ``a multiple year loan with an interest rate that resets each year should be treated for pricing purposes as having a maturity of one year,'' meaning that a short-term rate should be used. But CBO and OMB assume that the Government's cost-of-funds is a higher, long-term rate, the 10-year bond. This makes direct lending appear much more costly than it really is. Indeed, in a February 8, 1993, letter, GAO pointed out that using shorter term interest rates would have more than doubled the direct loan savings. Tax-exempt bonds. Many student loan secondary markets use tax-exempt bonds, costing the Federal Treasury an estimated $2.3 billion over 5 years. This cost is not considered when the Congressional Budget Office determines how much direct lending saves, or how much the guarantee program costs. Taxpayer bailouts. When guaranty agencies agree to share the risk under FFEL by paying a larger portion on defaulted loans, they are using money that belongs to the Federal Government--so the Federal Government is essentially sharing with itself. Furthermore, when any agency can't pay its share, the Federal Government steps in. These costs aren't currently considered. I would hope that the chairman would reconsider this provision prior to conference.

Mr. SIMON. Nine minutes.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to commend the U.S. Conference of Mayors for their May 16 letter restating their commitment to maintaining the Nation's gun control laws. I share their opposition to any efforts to weaken current laws, and I am particularly pleased with their restated commitment to the assault weapons ban. Some people have called for the repeal of the assault weapons ban, even before it has an opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness. These are the same people who argued that these weapons, which law enforcement officials have testified serve no purpose other than to kill as many human beings as quickly as possible, are legitimate products with a specially protected status in our society. I disagree with this conclusion. In the aftermath of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City, the push to repeal the ban has temporarily eased. When exposed to the scrutiny of the public eye, the absurdity of the effort to repeal the ban is exposed and the American public has had no trouble recognizing the inherent inconsistency of responding to terrorism by loosening common sense measures to stem the flow of weapons into our communities. I am pleased that the Senate will not be considering a repeal of the assault weapons ban, or any other gun control initiatives, in the short run. However, the efforts to repeal these measures need to be permanently removed from Congresses' agenda. Those who call for the repeal of gun control laws do not base their objections on substantive flaws with the measure, for when given an opportunity they have proven their worth. During its first year, the Brady law has made an impressive contribution to crime-fighting efforts. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) reported on the 1-year anniversary of the Brady laws, implementation that in 27 of the States which did not previously meet Brady's requirements, 19,098 prohibited people were denied from purchasing a firearm. And although there is no national reporting requirement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that background checks in the past year have stopped 70,000 convicted felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing weapons. In addition to fulfilling its primary aim: to stop felons from buying guns, the Brady law has assisted law enforcement officials in other ways. In Georgia, one sheriff reported that out of the 60 people denied weapons as a result of the Brady check in the first year, 15 had outstanding felony warrants and 15 arrests were made. Brady checks helped police in San Antonio, TX catch a suspected drug dealer, and it also led to the arrest of a man in South Carolina who was wanted for assaulting a police officer in Florida. The assault weapons ban should also be given an opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness. The only way to resist the push to repeal these important laws is for the public to join this debate and make its views known. The U.S. conference of Mayors has once again joined the chorus of voices supporting our Nation's gun control laws, and I greatly appreciate their participation in this important debate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Conrad amendment. In response to my colleague from Pennsylvania, who said this is smoke and mirrors, it took about 10 of us about six meetings to put this together, plus our staffs. It is substantial. I do not suggest that the budget offered by the Senator from New Mexico is smoke and mirrors. This is not smoke and mirrors. The question is, which is more equitable? And I think clearly the Conrad amendment is. The second question is the growth of tax loopholes or tax entitlements. I have heard the Senator from New Mexico speak often about entitlements and the need to get hold of them. He is absolutely correct. But that also applies to tax entitlements, and what the Conrad amendment does is say on tax loopholes, they can grow at the rate of inflation plus 1 percent. Finally, I would say I am a pessimist that any of these things will stand without the teeth of a constitutional amendment. Our history is after 2 years they blow up. But I believe the Conrad plan has a greater chance of standing up through the test of time because it is more fair. The burden is [[Page S7323]] spread more evenly. I strongly support the Conrad amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. All right.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Feingold who, from day one, when both parties were talking about tax cuts, said, ``This does not make sense. Our priority has to be to get this budget balanced.'' As I have said half a dozen times on the floor, and I said it in the Budget Committee, I commend Senator Domenici for moving toward a balanced budget. I disagree with how we get there. But the question is right now on a tax cut. The next best thing to passing this amendment is to do what Senator Murkowski said on the floor just a few minutes ago. He said, as a member of the Finance Committee he is not going to vote for a tax cut. And I commend him for that statement. When my friend from New Mexico says there ought to be a bonus, we ought to get something out of it, I think the bonus is to have this budget in balance to get our fiscal house in order. When he says we ought to get something out of it--I know he has more children, and more grandchildren I believe, than I do. If my three grandchildren can have a better future, that is what we ought to be interested in. I think, frankly, passage of the Feingold amendment moves us in that direction. I know the Senator from New Mexico well enough to know he will not be heartbroken if the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is agreed to. I hope it will be agreed to. I am certainly going to vote for it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to stand up and say I think this is a bad amendment. Would I like a tax cut? Of course. We would all like a tax cut. I have three grandchildren. I face the choice of sacrificing a little bit or building a better future for my three grandchildren. That is the fundamental choice. I do not have a hard time making that choice, and I do not think the American people have a hard time making that choice. Let us move to a balanced budget. I commend Pete Domenici for moving toward a balanced budget. I do not happen to agree with the priorities, but he is moving in that direction. But the Gramm amendment would take, over a 10-year period, $594 billion in tax cuts. Our history on these things, on legislative answers--and this is why we need the constitutional amendment--is they last for about 2 years, as our friend from Texas knows better than anyone else, and then they blow up in our face. The danger is the Domenici plan will last 2 years and then we will discard it because it becomes too politically potent and we will keep the tax cut. When the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, says you cut taxes and you get more revenue for the Federal Government, in 1981 we had both a Republican--the Ronald Reagan plan--and a Democratic plan to do precisely that. I voted against both the Republican plan and the Democratic plan. But I can remember Ronald Reagan saying, ``If you pass this, by 1984 we are going to have a balanced budget in our country.'' It did not make sense. This amendment does not make sense now. And to cut back from the Domenici numbers, $40 billion in Medicaid-- who are Medicaid recipients? Half of them are poor children. Forty billion dollars we are going to get here. If anyone thinks that $40 billion is not a tax cut, talk to any hospital administrator. That means we are going to cut back on what hospitals get for Medicaid. And what will hospital administrators do? They will shift it to the non- Medicaid, non-Medicare payment to the insurance companies, and our insurance rates go up all over the country. If anyone thinks that is not a tax increase, they are just fooling themselves. Oh, this is great politics. And my friend from Texas is good at politics. I commend him for standing up frequently on the courageous side of things. But this one is wrong. He is wrong. It is not in the national interest and his amendment should be defeated. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it has been my practice in each of the 40 years I have spent in public life to volunteer a detailed accounting of my finances. I ask that my financial report for 1994 be printed in the Record. The financial report and related announcement follow:

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, on May 17 the Christian Coalition announced its ``Contract With the American Family,'' a cornerstone of which is a constitutional amendment to allow ``communal prayer in public places, such as schools, high school graduation ceremonies, and courthouses.'' The coalition's ``communal prayer'' proposal will surely provide the basis for some spirited debate in Congress in the upcoming months. Before this debate begins, however, I think it is crucial for people on both sides of these issues to understand fully the current state of the law regarding prayer in schools and other public places. Only by understanding what is and is not allowed under current Supreme Court cases involving the Constitution's religion clauses and under other laws regarding religion can we intelligently determine whether the proposed changes to these laws make sense. In the hopes of beginning this educational process, I will ask to have printed in the Record a short report entitled ``Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law.'' This publication, prepared with the endorsements of 35 organizations, sets forth in a detailed and clear way the state of the law regarding numerous religion/school issues: from the question of what types of student prayer are constitutionally protected, to the question of whether students may be exempted from wearing particular types of gym clothing that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest. As the preface to this report states: ``On some of the issues discussed in this summary, some of the organizations, have urged the courts to reach positions different than they did.'' However, the 35 organizations that have issued this report agree that the statements on the law included in the report provide an accurate overview of the law regarding religion in schools. Given this agreement, the report provides a valuable service to those of us striving to understand these important and highly charged issues. At the outset of the debate, I have heard a lot about how our courts have kept and continue to keep religion out of our schools. It is my hope that this report will help demonstrate that the relationship between religion and education is in fact a far more complex one that cannot be described in absolute terms. Religion and education coexist today in a delicate balance, and if we choose to disrupt this balance, we should understand exactly what we are doing. This report is an important step in the direction of understanding, and I urge each of my colleagues to devote some time to it in the upcoming weeks. I ask that the report be printed in the Record. The report follows: Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law, April 1995 The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools ``religion-free zones'' or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed. [[Page S7262]] The organizations whose names appear below span the ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents, educators and students. Many of the organizations listed below are actively involved in litigation about religion in the schools. On some of the issues discussed in this summary, some of the organizations have urged the courts to reach positions different than they did. Though there are signatories on both sides which have and will press for different constitutional treatments of some of the topics discussed below, they all agree that the following is an accurate statement of what the law currently is. student prayers 1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate. Graduation Prayer and Baccalaureates 2. School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate ceremony. If the school generally rents out its facilities to private groups, it must rent them out on the same terms, and on a first-come first-served basis, to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services, provided that the school does not extend preferential treatment to the baccalaureate ceremony and the school disclaims official endorsement of the program. 3. The courts have reached conflicting conclusions under the federal Constitution on student-initiated prayer at graduation. Until the issue is authoritively resolved, schools should ask their lawyers what rules apply in their area. Official Participation or Encouragement of Religious Activity 4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges. Teaching About Religion 5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, ``[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization.'' It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences. The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations. 6. These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as ``creationism''), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including ``creationism,'' although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth. student assignments and religion 7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar. 8. Somewhat more problematic from a legal point of view are other public expressions of religious views in the classroom. Unfortunately for school officials, there are traps on either side of this issue, and it is possible that litigation will result no matter what course is taken. It is easier to describe the settled cases than to state clear rules of law. Schools must carefully steer between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion in a public school classroom. a. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary course of classroom discussion or student presentations are permissible and constitute a protected right. If in a sex education class a student remarks that abortion should be illegal because God has prohibited it, a teacher should not silence the remark, ridicule it, rule it out of bounds or endorse it, any more than a teacher may silence a student's religiously-based comment in favor of choice. b. If a class assignment calls for an oral presentation on a subject of the student's choosing, and, for example, the student responds by conducting a religious service, the school has the right--as well as the duty--to prevent itself from being used as a church. Other students are not voluntarily in attendance and cannot be forced to become an unwilling congregation. c. Teachers may rule out-of-order religious remarks that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. In a discussion of Hamlet's sanity, for example, a student may not interject views on creationism. distribution of religious literature 9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutionally-acceptable restrictions imposed on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at particular times. It may not single out religious literature for burdensome regulation. 10. Outsiders may not be given access to the classroom to distribute religious or anti-religious literature. No court has yet considered whether, if all other community groups are permitted to distribute literature in common areas of public schools, religious groups must be allowed to do so on equal terms subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. ``see you at the pole'' 11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as ``see you at the pole,'' is permissible. School officials, acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event. religious persuasion versus religious harassment 12. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. But school officials should intercede to stop student religious speech if it turns into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. While it is constitutionally permissible for a student to approach another and issue an invitation to attend church, repeated invitations in the face of a request to stop constitute harassment. Where this line is to be drawn in particular cases will depend on the age of the students and other circumstances. equal access act 13. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time. This is the command of the Equal Access Act. A non-curricular club is any club not related directly to a subject taught or soon-to-be taught in the school. Although schools have the right to ban all non- curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively participate in club activities and ``non-school persons'' may not control or regularly attend club meeting. The Act's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting claims that the Act violates the Establishment Clause. The Act's requirements are described in more detail in The Equal Access Act and the Public Schools: Questions and Answers on the Equal Access Act*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups. religious holidays 14. Generally, public schools may teach about religious holidays, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday and objectively teach about their religious aspects. They may not observe the holidays as religious events. Schools should generally excuse students who do not wish to participate in holiday events. Those interested in further details should see Religious Holidays in [[Page S7263]] the Public Schools: Questions and Answers*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups. excusal from religiously-objectionable lessons 15.Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student. teaching values 16. Schools may teach civic virtues, including honesty, good citizenship, sportsmanship, courage, respect for the rights and freedoms of others, respect for persons and their property, civility, the dual virtues of moral conviction and tolerance and hard work. Subject to whatever rights of excusal exist (see para.15 above) under the federal Constitution and state law, schools may teach sexual abstinence and contraception; whether and how schools teach these sensitive subjects is a matter of educational policy. However, these may not be taught as religious tenets. The mere fact that most, if not all, religions also teach these values does not make it unlawful to teach them. student garb 17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest. released time 18. Schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off- premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on premises during the school day.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, the administration concluded a migration agreement with Cuba that I hope will be the first step in the direction of a rational policy toward Cuba. Under this agreement, most of the 15-20 thousand Cubans that have been housed in Guantanamo Bay for the past several months will be paroled into the United States, with those paroles to count, on a 3- year prorated basis, against the 20,000 minimum Cuba-to-America immigration numbers agreed upon by the Cuban and American governments last fall. Cuba has also agreed to accept back those Cubans at Guantanamo who are excludable under U.S. law because of criminal histories, infectious diseases, etc. Thus, within the limits set out in last fall's agreement between Cuba and the United States, this agreement has solved the costly and potentially explosive detention of the Cubans at Guantanamo. As part of this new policy, the Attorney General has also announced that those attempting in the future to emigrate to the United States from Cuba illegally--rather than through the process agreed upon last year--would be subject to interdiction and forced repatriation to Cuba, from where they could apply for asylum at the Cuban Interests Section in Havana. Although I have some concerns about the second half of this new approach--in particular, the policy of interdiction and repatriation of future migrants from Cuba--and urge the Attorney General to implement sufficient procedural protections for those Cubans with valid asylum claims, in general I view this agreement as a significant step forward in our relations with Cuba. Unlike our policies toward Cuba over the past 35 years, the agreement represents a rational and cooperative response to a U.S.-Cuba immigration problem that has caused this Nation nothing but headaches in the past. If our government could approach every U.S.-Cuba issue with the pragmatism that is reflected in this agreement, I believe that our long-sought goal of democratization of Cuba would be much closer to our grasp than this goal is now. I ask to have printed in the Record a May 4 editorial on the agreement with Cuba from the Chicago Tribune. This editorial ends with a call to President Clinton to apply the tools of constructive engagement in our relations with Cuba, and recognizes that these tools, not a doctrinaire and obsolete policy of Castro-baiting, hold the keys to a successful Cuba policy. The editorial follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, May 4, 1995] A Welcome Change in Cuba Policy Ever since 1959, when Fidel Castro descended from the Sierra Maestra to enter Havana spewing Marxism like cigar smoke, Cuba has been a misplaced comma that jumbled an otherwise cogent political essay called the Monroe Doctrine. In a commendable turn of direction. President Clinton reinjected logic into U.S.-Cuba relations by ending 35 years of preferential treatment for Cuban refugees. Clinton ruled Tuesday that Cubans will no longer receive automatic asylum but must pass the same hurdles as any other refugee reaching our shores. Although Clinton's decision will be analyzed in terms of the Cuban-American vote and hemispheric diplomacy, its inspiration was purely practical. At present, 20,000 Cuban refugees are stuck in tents at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station; their $1 million-a-day tab for room and board comes from the Pentagon budget, which means the taxpayers' pockets. The refugees are getting restless. Clinton wants to avoid ugly riots, so a final exemption will be granted to accept that group. Any other ``raft people'' will be turned back to Cuba. Clinton has firmly announced that this nation, not Castro, controls America's borders. In addition, Clinton has denied Castro the foreign policy weapon of ``boatlift diplomacy,'' which capitalizes on the pitiful sight of refugees foundering abroad unseaworthy craft en route to the promise of Florida's beaches. There are two glaring holes in the president's program, however. First is a threat that anyone among the Guantanamo refugees with a criminal record will be denied entry. What's this? Clinton thinks Castro is going to open up his secret police files for perusal by Immigration and Naturalization Service officers? Doubtful. And second is the quid pro quo from Castro, who has promised to allow his people free access to the American interest section in Havana. There they may file a formal request for U.S. entry, which will be weighed by the INS like those of potential immigrants worldwide. But Catro's promise may be meaningless. In Cuba, one of the last remaining communist states on Earth, pressures both subtle and overt can be applied to frighten away potential applicants. By ending three decades of automatic asylum for Cubans, Clinton has demoted Castro from top devil of the Caribbean, much to the heartfelt anguish of expatriate Cubans and Cuban- Americans. If that is to be Clinton's new policy, then it is time to apply the tools of constructive engagement--as with China, a few steps at a time--using the full range of American diplomacy, trade and culture to push Cuba toward democracy and a rational relationship with its giant northern neighbor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, 50 years ago, when World War II left one in five of the world's Lutherans homeless, U.S. Lutherans mobilized to help through an agency they called Lutheran World Relief. After the needs in Europe were met, LWR's horizons expanded to people in need in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, helping people regardless of religion, race, or politics. That ethic of aid for all who are in need has shaped LWR's work in relief and in long-term development over the last half century. Lutheran World Relief's vision responded to changing circumstances-- it grew from supplying disaster to cultivating partnership in development with communities all over the world. Fifty years later, LWR is again helping refugees in Europe--now in the former Yugoslavia--as it continues to respond to disasters and promote self-help development in places like Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Peru, and Rwanda. Partnership has become LWR's hallmark--addressing local needs with understanding, skills, and resources found locally. LWR has focused on self-help and built up local capacities for emergency and long-term work as well. Working with partners to improve health, promote food security, and increase employment, LWR has seen people and communities all around the world improve their well-being. LWR's commitment to self-help and capacity building offers numerous lessons and examples that aid works when it is provided in response to local needs and in partnership with local people. Those lessons have not been lost on the larger, government and aid agencies. Increasingly, the U.S. Agency for International Development has recognized that working in partnership with local people and organizations is the key to improving aid effectiveness. LWR has also over the years taken on the task of advocacy, bringing the concerns of partners to U.S. public officials and advocating on their behalf. May the accomplishments of LWR's first half century inspire the next 50 years.