Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. This tax cut that you proposed and the analysis that has been made of it, does it have dynamic scoring? Does it provide any projected boost in the economy by virtue of the tax cut?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. If I could generally have the opportunity to speak after the last speaker, I will appreciate it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or two to raise some concerns I have about the Murray amendment which would require schools to use Title II funding to reduce class size and would cost $2.4 billion. Mandating class size reduction is a matter that we have to be very careful about. It may sound good, and it may seem that reducing class size is the right thing to do in America. And I suppose it polls well. I know President Clinton pushed class size reduction very hard during his administration. I took some time to look at the numbers and to see how this would work. I visited a lot of schools in Alabama, talked to teachers and principals. I don't hear them telling me their No. 1 goal is to reduce class size. The serious question is, Is this a public policy that we ought to mandate on the schools? We know we have reduced class size significantly in the last decade or so and have gone from an average class size of 30 in 1961 to an average class size of 23 in 1998. During the period of time that we reduced class size, there was no improvement in standardized test scores. We also know that schools in South Korea and in Taiwan have class sizes that are nearly twice ours and they have test scores better than ours. Another factor we must consider when talking about class size reduction is the cost. Schools would have to hire more teachers. I have supported money for teachers today. But if we hire more teachers, are we really getting a bang for our buck? And if we do, where are they going to teach? They can't teach out under the shade tree. They have to have a classroom. That classroom has to be heated and cooled. It has to have a roof over it. You have to have insurance and upkeep and maintenance. That costs money. If you require schools to reduce their class sizes by 25 percent, you have to have 25 percent more teachers. Not only that, you have to have 25 percent more classrooms, 25 percent more equipment, 25 percent more insurance, 25 percent more maintenance. It is tremendously expensive. All I am saying is, I reviewed an article in ``Education Week'' of September 1999. It suggested that mandating class size reduction is a bad idea. In fact, the Education Department, as late as 1988 said reducing class size would have little or no positive results and would, in effect, be a waste of money. In fact, it would be a waste of a lot of money. The numbers I have seen do not indicate that class size is a critical factor in student education. In fact, as many studies show, smaller class size seems to correspond more with lower test scores more than showing an increase. One reason is that a good teacher is critical to learning. If you are bringing on more teachers, you are more likely to bring on less qualified teachers than you have had and you could actually show a decline in learning. I won't go on about that tonight. I know there is a strong feeling that this is the right direction in which to go, but I would be very reluctant--and I think the Senate should be reluctant--to mandate at the Federal level State school systems to undertake major class size reduction when we can't say with any certainty that it is worth that expense, that it is going to get the kind of bang for our buck that we want to get. I believe that there are other things schools can do with this $2.4 billion that and could produce more of an improvement in education. We should leave that decision to the schools and not mandate a ``Washington-Knows-Best'' fix. I urge my colleagues to be cautious about a commitment to requiring schools to reduce class size, because we do not need to require our constituents and our school systems to expend extraordinary sums of money if we can't be certain that it is going to receive a benefit commensurate with that cost. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Has an order for speaking time been reached?

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand. That will be acceptable? Do we have an understanding of the time the Senators will use?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair for allowing me to talk about this important subject. We have provided a historic and highly significant increase in funding for IDEA, but the Federal IDEA requirements for schools all over America have created a dual system of education and of discipline. It is important, perhaps even more than the money we are spending, that we consider trusting those educators who have given their lives to special education children and are trained to teach them, and allowing them to handle these discipline problems in ways they think are appropriate. This would be a lot better than having Federal regulations micromanaging the schools. It is a very sore spot among every teacher in America, and if any of my colleagues do not think it is, they should just ask them. They will tell you about it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss once again some of the issues facing education. We can really do better. The Government has not, in my view, been effective enough in utilizing our resources and our laws and regulations and paperwork to produce education excellence. Yes, we should have accountability. As the Senator from Delaware: You have to have more money then to achieve excellence, and we are going to have a lot more money this year in education. That is going to be a good start. I suggest that that is not the only thing that drives improvement in education. Dr. Paige, our Secretary of Education, who served in the Houston school system from 1995 to 2000, took over the seventh largest system in the country with only 37 percent of the students passing the basic Texas test. He applied, when President Bush was Governor, principles that he believed in and learned as the dean of an education school, as a teacher himself, and as a coach. He went to work to improve education in the Houston schools, and in 5 years, he reported that 73 percent of the students in Houston passed that test. When asked recently: Didn't you get a lot more money? He said: The third year we had a proposal for more money. The voters voted it down. Test scores kept going up and things were getting better, and we came back again. And we did get more money. Most of the progress and the framework for the progress was made before he was given any more money. Testing, he says, is not an accountability factor so much as a part of teaching. It is a way, an ability. The process of helping children learn is to find out where they are and what they can do. Are they up to speed? Are they behind? What level are they on? How can you improve them? We cannot leave children behind. We cannot wait until the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth grade, and find out that children are able to do basic math and read and write. Isn't that terrible? That has been happening, we know, too much in America. I would say the key component of testing isn't just some sort of accountability, although it does provide accountability; it is a way and a technique of identifying children that are falling behind. We don't want to leave children behind. No child should be left behind. We can intervene early, and the President wants testing from third to eighth grade to make sure they are up to speed and not falling behind, because he cares about them. Dr. Paige said he loved those children. He loved them enough to test them and find out how they were doing and make sure they are catching up. And he wants to engage parents. You can bring them in if things aren't going well. If the whole school is doing badly, you can come in and improve it. You can challenge the leadership if they are not doing well. So I think we have some real potential movement in education, and that is exciting. If we allow schools to have more freedom to use their education money that they are going to be receiving--and are receiving now--in ways that they believe will drive academic achievement, but we simply say find out how your children are doing, report that to the parents and teachers and the taxpayers, and if you are not doing well, let's confront that problem quickly. I think that is something that will work. We voted today to fully fund the IDEA, the Individuals With Disability Education Act. I think that is wonderful, and it is an act that has a great goal. It has achieved some very good things. The vision of the Individuals With Disability Education Act was to make sure that children were not shunted aside, that they were allowed to participate fully in the environment in which they would be participating when they graduated, and that physically disabled children would be able to participate with other children in a classroom, that children who are blind or deaf would be able to mainstream in the classroom and benefit from it. It had some good provisions in it. But I am here to tell you that there is a growing problem in America with this act, dealing with one just minor--really, in the scheme of things--part of it, but it has a major impact; that is, the ability of schools to discipline and deal with children who are not able to function in a classroom. It is a major source of frustration and anger, and a major factor in teachers actually quitting education. We can do something about this. We do not have to allow this to continue. I have visited in my State approximately 25 school systems within the last year and asked them about what is going on. I have been hearing routinely about the problems they are having with the disciplinary requirements that really limit their ability to maintain order in their classrooms. The head of the Alabama Education Association and Teachers Group said he believes changes need to be implemented. He said, ``I am tired of these people cursing teachers in Alabama and nothing can be done about it.'' So I believe that the time has come to deal with it, and I want to share some of the information I have learned over the last year or so about this particular subject. Let me read this letter from a student that I think gives an indication of what we are about: I am a 14-year-old eighth grader. I have a problem. There is this girl that goes to school with me. She is an ADD student. She has been harassing me for no reason. She has pretty much done everything from breaking my glasses to telling me she is going to kill me. This really bothers me because she is an ADD student and the only punishment she ever gets is a slap on the hand. My principal says there is not much he can do because her status as a special ed kid. I asked what would happen if I threatened her back and he told me I would be suspended from school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever gotten is 3 days ``in school'' suspension. I think this is wrong. She scares me and I am tired of this. It has been going on for 5 months and it's really getting scary. Doesn't that bother you? Can you hear that child saying that? She is exactly correct. That principal is able to discipline her for a threat or a violent behavior much more severely and much more effectively than he can deal with a special ed student. Let me read this story in the Dothan Eagle, a newspaper in Alabama: Until recently, Tina Ham never worried about the safety of her child in Geneva County Elementary School in Hartford, AL. But since last week, school safety is all she and other parents have thought about after a third grade special ed student threatened to kill his fellow third graders. Parents say that an 11 year old boy threatened to shoot and kill two African American students and then threatened to kill the entire third grade. Parents say that the boy has a history of behavior problems and has frequent outbursts at school. He has a history of reportedly attacking other students. Sources say the boy can be heard yelling in his classroom, and that he has been seen spitting on people, walking on tables, and throwing books and desks. The threats came to light after calls were made to a State violence prevention hotline. I would like to see more States do that, so that if a parent or teacher or student sees something they are concerned about or violence, they can make an anonymous call and perhaps something can be done about it. About 50 parents confronted the school board members recently to express their concern about the situation. One parent was quoted as saying that she ``didn't want to hurt the child, but I don't want him to hurt my child. I lose faith in school officials.'' One school official explained that since the child was in special education, they would have to meet Federal guidelines in disciplining the student. It is more involved than it is with general students. One school official was quoted as saying that it is a serious situation and has created quite a disruption to the day-to- day activities of the school. More intervention is needed. One parent explained, ``I want this child to be helped. I want him to receive the help he needs and my child afforded the education she deserves. If there is a problem, get him some help. I feel this child is capable of killing someone.'' This is a letter from a teacher from Troy, AL. First, let me just add, parenthetically, that as I went about and people would tell me stories, I would routinely ask them to send me a letter, put that in writing to me and I may share it one day on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have received 50 to 75 or more letters with these kinds of examples. This is a letter from a mid-sized rural town in Alabama: As a special educator of 6 years, I consider myself ``on the front lines'' of the ongoing battle that takes place on a daily basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that part of the ``ammunition'' that fuels these struggles are the rights guaranteed to certain individuals by the IDEA act of 1997. The law, though well-intentioned, has become one of the single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to provide all children with a quality education delivered in a safe environment. There are many examples that I can offer firsthand. However, let me reiterate that I am a special educator. I have dedicated my life to helping children with special needs. It is my job to study and know the abilities and limitations of such children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, a masters degree in special education and a PH.D. in good ole common sense. No where in my educational process have I been taught a certain few ``disabled'' students should have a ``right'' to endanger the right to an education of all other disabled and non-disabled children. It's nonsense; it's wrong; it's dangerous; and it must be stopped. There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an increasingly competitive global society it is no wonder American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on a daily basis to certain individuals there is no doubt we would have better educated students. It is even more frustrating when it is a special education child who knows and boasts ``they can't do anything to me'' and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day after day, week after week. It is clear that IDEA '97 not only undermines the educational process it also undermines the authority of educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources our credibility is being stripped from us. Strong letter. I am reading her words: I am sure you have heard the saying: The teachers are scared of the principals, the principals are scared of the superintendents, the superintendents are scared of the parents, the parents are scared of the children, and the children are scared of no one. And why should they be? I have experienced the ramifications of the ``new and improved'' law first hand. I had one child attempt to assault me (he had been successful with two other teachers) He was suspended for one day. I had another child make sexual gestures to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact that every child in my class and a majority of the children in the school knew of it, I was told by my assistant principal that nothing could be done because ``these special ed kids have rights'', I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my financial obligations to my family and my moral responsibilities to the children I had in my class kept me there. She was going to give up the profession she had given her life to. The particular child I spoke about frequently made vulgar comments and threats to my girls in my class on every opportunity he had when there was no adult present. Fortunately, the girls, also special ed, could talk to me about it. Unfortunately, they had to put up with it because ``nothing could be done''. I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a fight. The learning disabled child and her parents then attempted to sue the school system because the child was burned when she grabbed a coffee pot to break it over the other child's head. I know of another specific incident where three children brought firearms to school. The two ``regular'' children were expelled. The special education student was back to school the following week. I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington will do what it takes to take our schools back from this small group of children who feel it is their right to endanger the education of every other child in school. Listen to that: I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington will do what it takes to take our schools back from this small group of children who feel it is their right to endanger the education of every other child in school. As my grandmother said, ``right is right and wrong is wrong'' and to enable this to continue is just wrong. That is a serious commentary. The example of guns is a good one. For example, three children bring guns to school. One of them is a special ed student and the other two are not. The two that are not are expelled while the special ed student goes right back in the classroom. What does that say about equal justice and fairness? Is there any concern that the disabilities were not the driving factor in this and independent decisions can be made by these children? Mr. President, I had 15 minutes. I do not want to go over my time. Is anyone keeping time?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I thank the Senator from Texas for her steadfast leadership and commitment to education. She has been a stalwart on these issues and cares about them deeply. I also appreciate the leadership on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of Dr./Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. He is one of the champions for doing something different this time. Yes, we have the largest increase in spending percentagewise in education than any other budget item, but that is not what is so special about our education debate today. Our debate today is about children. Our debate today is about making sure what we do furthers not just a system that has not been as effective as it should be, but actually furthers learning. That magic moment in a classroom when a child and teacher come together and learning occurs is what it is all about. Nothing else really counts. When you visit schools as I have for the last year, 25 or more schools around the State, and talk to teachers, principals, and superintendents, and you hear them express their deep frustration at the burdensome strings that are attached to the Federal Government's education funding. The Federal Government only makes up about 10 percent of education spending--90 percent of it is funded by the State, and well it should be. States have always been the primary engine of education in America. The Federal Government does not need to take over. I do not think there is anyone who will stand up and defend a major, massive Federal takeover of education in America, but we are paying a substantial sum of money. We spend $125 billion improving the education of low-income children, trying to narrow the gap, and it has not worked. What do you learn when you talk to the teachers and principals? They are frustrated. They tell me the paperwork is substantial; the regulations are burdensome; the money they get can only be used for certain programs which may not be programs they need in their school, and they cannot use the money for things they think are important and would improve learning in their school system. They tell me the Federal Government--and I spend a lot of time dealing with this issue--is creating mandates under IDEA. School officials are not able to discipline children with disabilities who are disrupting a classroom. They must keep them in the classroom day after day, even though the child is not benefiting from being in the classroom and even though that child is disrupting the other children in the classroom. I started in recent months to ask teachers, Which would you rather do: Take the 10 percent from the Federal Government or let them go away and run the schools the way you want to run them? You would be surprised how many say: Take your money and leave us alone. That is shocking. I am not sure they really meant that, but their hands went up when I asked that question. It reflects a deep frustration that we are not being good partners in this deal. How do these programs come about? How have we ended up with 700 Federal education programs in America? It is something like this: Some State develops a good idea for an education program. A Senator or Congressman hears about it. He thinks it is popular and would be popular back home if he authored a bill to fund that kind of program around the country, and program after program gets adopted over the years. Some are good, some not good. Some may have been good 15, 20 years ago, but are not good today. Some of the programs are successful, and my colleagues have to understand that some of those special programs were successful because the teacher who ran it was special, and they could make certain things happen in a way that cannot be replicated with a teacher who does not have that passion to run that particular program. So we created all these systems. We send the money and say: You can only use it for this science instruction, this reading instruction, this math instruction. It has burdened our school systems and has not created as much good will as we would like. I believe our legislation today is a big step in the right direction. This legislation is designed to provide a way to give schools more money with less strings in return for accountability. Many Senators have talked about accountability. It seems to me they have a misconception of what accountability actually is. They seem to think accountability is when somebody spends Federal Government money precisely, exactly as written in a rule book. They think that if they spend it that way, that is accountability, even though learning has not been improved one bit. The growing consensus, I think, is bipartisan. Our bill came out of the committee almost unanimously. We believe accountability means finding out if the children are learning. Have they benefitted from the instruction or are they falling behind? We must look at those test scores and make sure they are brought up to speed. We must ask what can be done, at the earlier grades, to identify when children are falling behind? We must not let even one child fall behind. When the Secretary of Education, Dr. Paige, was in Houston, he doubled the number of students passing the basic Texas proficiency test. Dr. Paige says if you love children and care about them, you will test them and find out if they are keeping up. If they are not, and you love them, you figure out a way to help them do better. He did that in Houston. Some say he got a lot of extra money to administer these tests, but he did not. The third or fourth year he picked up bit extra, but in 5 years he doubled the test scores mainly through changes in policy by doing things differently, with the passion to achieve. If schools in his system were not conforming, he confronted them, and fixed them. He did not let continue to fail. In Alabama we have an excellent State superintendent of education and some wonderful schools and magnificent teachers. The new superintendent believes in testing. He has been testing for some time, and test scores are moving upward. Some say the tests in Alabama may be the most difficult in the Nation. Students cannot get a degree if they do not pass the basic proficiency test, and the test scores are moving up. If a school allows children to move to a higher grade without learning, the State superintendent can take over the school system and fix it. The State is putting a lot of money into this testing, and we need to know it is being spent well. Let's get out of the business of micromanaging schools. Let's make sure progress is being made, that children achieve, that the school system is not leaving children behind, that they are not being abandoned, are not given up on. Because when children reach the ninth grade, still unable to read, unable to do basic math, they drop out of school with no prospects for any good economic future. We can do better. Every child may not be able to handle advanced mathematics and the high sciences, but most children are able to do the basic reading, writing, and mathematics necessary to be successful in America today. Some complain about tests, calling it punishment, a way to categorize or stigmatize a child. I don't see it that way. Neither does Dr. Paige who believes it is part of a good education. The way to teach is to find out how children are learning and progressing. When we know what they need, we can do it better. I think it is the right thing to do. First, we want the States to conduct the tests. We encourage them to develop tests that fundamentally are fair and objective. If a test focuses on basic reading, basic math, basic science, and students are tested on those things, how can anyone complain if a teacher teaches to the test? Isn't that what we want? Don't we want to make sure that the basics are not being overlooked in the classroom? I am excited about the possibility today that, across the Nation, we could achieve a fraction of the progress that our Secretary of Education achieved in Houston.

Mr. SESSIONS. I agree. That is precisely the way I feel. To hear him talk with such compassion and concern and determination was exciting. His advice was, ``[If we don't care about a child, we will let them just go along and we won't find out if they are falling behind.]'' What happens if we don't test? A child will be left behind. He deeply believes in President Bush's vision that no child should be left behind. The Houston example is perfect. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his steadfast leadership on matters involving education. He has served on the Education Committee, on which I serve now, for quite a number of years. He is a champion and a visionary and a person who really cares about children and wants to improve education in America. He has been very successful in making that happen. I had the opportunity last week to spend a day with Dr. Rod Paige, the President's Secretary of Education. Dr. Paige is an extraordinary individual. He has lived the kind of life we want to happen in America. He grew up in Monticello, MS. His parents were both educators. He played ball and coached at Jackson State. He then went on to become dean of the education school at Texas Southern, and was on the school board at Houston. Houston was looking for a new superintendent of their education system. They were troubled about how they were getting along. Things weren't going well. There are 207,000 students in that system. It is the seventh largest education system in America that had a number of children who had difficulty with the English language, with a diverse racial and socioeconomic makeup. It was a real challenge. When he took over, only 37 percent of the students in that school system were passing the basic Texas test. He took it on with a passion that this could not continue. He had been a dean of an education school. He said: If I knew what I know now about training teachers, I would have done things a lot differently when I was dean. But he still took over that system, and it was in trouble. He identified schools that were failing, and he did not allow it to continue. He took action on failing schools. He cracked down on discipline. He said we must have discipline. We cannot have a school system that has a reputation that it is not safe to come to it and where teachers continue to feel unsafe and where students don't feel safe. He improved discipline dramatically. He ended social promotion--the idea of just passing children along even if they are not learning the basic requirements of that grade. He said that cannot continue. He began a rigorous system of testing--not because he wanted to harm the children or because he wanted to pigeonhole students, but he wanted to find out diagnostically as part of the education process where they were academically. He said quite convincingly that if a child reaches the fourth grade and they are way behind in reading and math, they probably will never catch up. You have a rare opportunity in those early grades to constrict failure and turn it around. That is what he decided to do. He did those things. As a result, in 5 years, from 1995 to the year 2000, he nearly doubled the number of students passing that basic Houston, TX, test. It went from 37 percent to 73 percent, one percentage point below doubling that figure in just 5 years. I think that is an extraordinary achievement. He said he was able to achieve some additional financial support, but not much really until the last year after he had proven that he could achieve success. What he said they did was the very thing I just mentioned. They did not want to leave a child behind. How do you leave a child behind? You don't test them. You let them go by law to a school that is dysfunctional, that is not working, and that is not effective. You won't let them go to any other school in the system. They don't have money to go outside the system. You just say: Tough luck, child. We are taking care of it. We are giving that school as much money as we give the next school. But you have to go there even if it is a failing school. Dr. Paige said we cannot do that anymore. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is a strong believer in choice. So is Dr. Paige. Most school systems, I am sure, wouldn't adopt the option that we provide them. But Houston did. Dr. Paige said: It did not hurt the public schools. It made us better, and in fact after a period of years with our test scores going up, our success rate going up, and our discipline problem going down, the number of students coming to the public schools increased. We were drawing people from private schools. He said public schools can and will win the battle if they do the things necessary to achieve success. I will just echo that. I taught a year. My wife taught 4 years. Our children attended public schools for most of their career. My two daughters graduated from one of the big inner-city schools in Mobile, AL. We were on the PTA and have a lot of great friends who are teachers. I have visited 25 schools in Alabama this past year. I think I have some appreciation for what education is all about. Yes, we want to get as much money as possible for education. In fact, the Federal Government has increased federal spending on education by 50 percent since 1994. This year's budget has an additional 11.5 percent proposed increase for education. But it is deeper than that. We have to ask ourselves: What is happening with the money we are spending? There are States that spend a lot more money than other States. There can be schools in the same town, in the same system, receiving the same amount of money per student, and one school is functioning well and maybe the another one is not. We have to ask ourselves: What is occurring in our school systems that is not healthy? There is a legitimate concern that public policy has responded to the system. We have tried to do what the system says; and the system says, basically, we do not want testing and accountability; we just want more money. Just give us more money, and we will do better. For the most part, schools in the United States have had increased funding per student over the last decade or more. But, unfortunately, the numbers have not gone up. The Federal Government has spent $125 billion in trying to narrow the gap between low-income students and upper-income students, and the gap has not narrowed, it has widened in some areas. We still have very disturbing test scores in math and science that show we are not competitive with the rest of the industrial world. I think that is so obvious as to be without dispute. What is it we are doing wrong in education? You go to Japan, and they have classes with 50 or 60 children in a class. We have much smaller classes than that, but our numbers are not where we they need to be. So what is the problem? I think Dr. Paige and the President's plan is focusing on a couple of core events: Do not let a child fall behind. Leave no child behind. Find out at the earliest possible time if they are not keeping up. Do what needs to be done to then intervene. Do not let parents think that just because Billy is going to school every day, that Billy is learning at a legitimate rate and progressing effectively. Those tests will tell on the school. They will tell on the students. And the parents will be much more engaged. Alabama has done that. My State has stepped forward. It has one of the toughest testing systems in America. It demands that students meet certain minimum standards. The students are achieving more. Some say: I just don't like these tests mandated by the Federal Government. They direct policy in teaching and teachers have to teach to the test. But if the test is a good test, and the test determines whether or not a child can handle basic math or can read and write, and teachers are teaching to that test, I say, well done. I say that is progress. We need good testing, developed by the States, that will test basic reading and math improvement skills. If we know that, if we are knowledgeable about whether or not they are making progress, then we can help that child get even better. If they are not making progress, we can confront it. If a teacher or school is consistently failing, and not meeting those standards, perhaps at that point we need to confront the leadership at that school. Maybe we can find better leadership and improve those test scores. Because the American taxpayer, the American citizen, is entitled to know whether or not their money is producing results. How much more basic can it be? We are talking about giving more money and having no accountability? In the 4 years I have been in this body, I have learned that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle say: You just want to send more money to the schools without accountability. And I do want to send more money to the schools with less strings and less paperwork. I definitely believe in that. But the question is, what is accountability? What do we mean when we say ``accountability''? If you listen to many in this body, accountability is whether or not an individual school gets the money that we appropriate and that they do with it precisely what is said here. That is what they determine to be accountability. We have 700 Federal Government education programs. Can you imagine that--700? It is hard to believe. So they say, you cannot consolidate those problems. You cannot send the money down to an elementary school that wants to revamp its entire reading program, to spend $20,000 to develop a program that will be effective for the next decade to improve reading in their school where they have a vision and a passion for it and they just can't wait to do it. They don't have the money, and we say: No, you can't do that. You have to spend it for one of our little 700 projects. What I have learned is--and as I have thought about it--that is a wrong view of accountability. Accountability is having a learning curve. Are children improving? Are they better able to read now than they were last month or last year? That is what accountability is. You cannot do that without testing. Almost every school system knows that. Virtually every school system tests, although there is a fierce, dogmatic, determined group of advocates who resist testing in every shape, form, or fashion. They fight it every way possible, with every kind of possible excuse. But I repeat again, if you love those children, if you want to see them reach the highest and best economic and social potential in the world, you want them to be able the read and write. You want them to be able to do basic math. You want them to reach the highest possible achievement in trig, in chemistry, and physics, and the highest form of mathematics in their school systems. We want them to reach their fullest potential. That will not happen if they are not progressing steadily every year. So I believe we can do better. I believe if we focus on learning, and if we give our principals and our teachers more freedom to use the Federal resources in a way most effective for learning, they will use it that way. If we say: You will get even more freedom if your test scores improve, such as they did in Houston, the children will benefit from that additional freedom. I assure you, the local people will be more willing to support a school that is showing progress than one that is not showing progress. I will share this story. There is a principal in Alabama named Dorothy Robinson. A number of years ago, she was a teacher in a rural school in the county in which I grew up. She also grew up there and taught in Packer's Bend. We call it ``across the river.'' Packer's Bend was an isolated area across the river from the main part of the county. They had a small school, and it was in big trouble. Test scores were not good. The school was not in good shape. The county was about to close it. They said they would. Dorothy Robinson said: Don't close it. Give me a chance. I believe I can turn this school around. It was on academic alert by the State. It was the smallest high school in the State. She started that summer, got students together, and they helped clean up the school. They got parents involved to an extraordinary degree. She called her teachers together, and they decided they could improve test scores. They were going to do the things necessary to make that school be an effective educational institution. She worked at it, and was highly successful; and 4 years later they were running test scores as high as any in the county. It was a really tremendous achievement done without any great appropriation of money, done by leadership and a determination to hold students accountable. She challenged them to be their very best. She did not put up with excuses. And she moved them forward. In fact, the superintendent of education in Alabama has now hired her to help him set up programs for similar schools throughout the State. Those kinds of improvements are happening in America. We need--as a Senate, as a Congress, and as a U.S. Government--to develop policies that help those success stories occur more often. We need to help them decide what to do fundamentally; and that is, to find out whether children are learning properly and to give those schools more freedom and flexibility to do that. If the schools continue to fail to teach our children, we need to give those children some option to reach outside that school. Because it is wrong; it is not right at its most fundamental level, to say to a poor child who has no other option but to go to public school: You must go to this failing school. You just go there anyway. This is what we do in American today mostly. The President is saying, if you can't get your school operating at the basic level, give them some options, give them some choices. But fundamentally, if we do the things Dr. Paige did in Houston, if we do the things Ms. Dorothy Robinson did at Packer's Bend, every school can move to the highest possible level. We can without any doubt substantially improve the learning of children all over this Nation without any tremendous increase in funding. It can be one of the greatest things this Nation has ever done, not to leave a child behind, make sure every one is progressing to their fullest potential. We can do this. I am excited about it. The President was a Governor of a large State. He ran for Governor promising to do something about education. He achieved some great improvements in Texas education, and he wants to do it for America. It is not a pipe dream, it is a vision that can be achieved and made a reality. I hope this Congress will not just continue business as usual, not just continue to function as an arm of the establishment, but that we will confront our failure to come up with innovative solutions for improvement and to increase substantially the learning that occurs in classrooms in America, those magic moments when a child and teacher gel and they learn. It is a thrilling thing. We need to further that and not the bureaucracy. I look forward to the continued debate on this. It is time to bring this bill up and make some changes for the better in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, during my four years as a member of the United States Senate, I have traveled across the State of Alabama meeting with local community leaders. I am proud to say that I have developed close, personal friendships with many of these folks. However, in all of my travels around the state, and meetings with public officials, I have enjoyed none more than getting to know Eddie Frost, the Mayor of Florence, Alabama, who died on March 15 after a battle with leukemia. Florence, AL is a wonderful city with a population of 36,000 people. It is located on the banks of the Tennessee River in northwest Alabama, and it is the largest city in the Shoals area. Eddie Frost was raised in the Shoals, graduated from Sheffield High School, and then he graduated from Florence State University in 1961, which is now the University of North Alabama. Before becoming mayor of Florence, Eddie Frost was a teacher and coach at Bradshaw High School in Florence. In 1976, he coached the Bradshaw basketball team to a 6A state championship, and was recognized as the Alabama Coach of the Year. He was first elected Mayor of Florence in 1984 when the city moved to a mayor-council form of government. He inherited a city with a bleak economic forecast and a high unemployment rate. Throughout his life, however, Eddie Frost always had a vision for bigger and better things. He immediately put to work his positive spirit, his high energy level, and his unsurpassed dedication to Florence. He helped the city revitalize downtown Florence, and today, the downtown area is booming. He also worked tirelessly to see the Patton Island Bridge completed across the Tennessee River. I remember vividly during my campaign for the Senate, he took me up in the Florence Renaissance Tower and pointed out some lonesome concrete supports standing out in the middle of the river. There was no doubt how strongly he felt about completing that bridge project. He understood the economic importance this bridge would have for the Shoals area, and he worked side by side with us here in Washington to find funding for this worthy project. Thanks to his leadership, the bridge is nearly complete. I also remember Eddie Frost proudly taking me on a tour of his city's recycling center. I admired greatly his use of city prisoners to separate garbage. It provided work for the prisoners, relieved landfill costs, and produced revenue. I have long advocated such projects and have never seen one better run. Eddie Frost was also instrumental in helping the City of Florence land the NCAA Division II National Football Championship game in 1986. This is a world-class event, and the game has been very successful in Florence. The game has been a success because of the hospitality shown to the players, coaches, and fans by Eddie Frost, the championship committee, and the great people of Florence, Alabama. In December, the city will celebrate the 16th consecutive Division II Championship game in Florence. In addition to football, Eddie Frost brought his love of basketball to Florence. The city is now the home of the annual Alabama- Mississippi high school all-star basketball game. He was involved in many civic and volunteer organizations, and his life was full of many achievements. He served as President of the Alabama League of Municipalities, Chairman of the American Public Gas Association, Chairman of the Board of Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital, the hospital in which my eldest daughter was born, and he was Past President of the North Alabama Industrial Development Association. He was a Deacon at Highland Baptist Church in Florence, active in the Northwest Alabama Boys and Girls Club, the United Way, the Lauderdale County Cancer Society, the Lauderdale County Heart Association, and the Leukemia Society of America. In 1993 he was named the Florence Civitan Citizen of the Year. He was the University of North Alabama's Alumnus of the Year in 1998, a member of the University of North Alabama Athletic Hall of Fame. Last month he was inducted into the Lauderdale County Sports Hall of Fame and the Alabama High School Sports Hall of Fame. Eddie Frost not only left his mark on the city of Florence, the Shoals area, and the State of Alabama, he left an impression on our hearts. He was honest, out-going, and he was genuine. But most importantly, he loved people, and he cared deeply for them. He loved his wife Bonnie, and their three children. I want to offer my sincerest condolences to them. I know the last few months since he was diagnosed with leukemia have been especially difficult for them. They will always miss Eddie, but they can take great pride in he life he led, and the hearts he touched along the way.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. As Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I fully support the Senate provision concerning advance appropriations in the Concurrent Budget Resolution. I think it is important that members have tools such as advance appropriations available to consider as a financing option for capital projects such as building ships.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Domenici and Grassley for their courageous effort to make sure this body has a full chance to vote on the President's tax cut proposal. It has been objected to by a host of procedural objections in a desperate effort to throw it off track, but we are going to get that vote up, I believe, and have a chance to let the American people fully consider the issue. The question I want to raise is why do we have this extraordinary surplus? Why are we having big surpluses this year? In fact, we were told recently, within the last week, that even though we have had a slowdown in this year's economy, our projection of last year underestimates the surplus we will have this year--maybe by 20 or more billion dollars. We will see how it turns out. But even with this slowdown, we have more coming in than we projected and we have had more coming in for the last 3 years than has been projected by the CBO or OMB. Why is it happening? It is because the Federal Government not only is taking in more, and not only are the American people making more, the Federal Government is taking a larger percentage. It is taking a larger percentage of America's wealth--too much. In 1992, the Federal Government took 17.6 percent of the total gross domestic product, all that we make and manufacture in the United States. Today it has hit 20.7 percent, a monumental increase. That is the highest percentage of the economy taken by the Federal Government since the height of World War II. The American people are entitled to not see that continue upwards. In fact, this tax reduction, if passed fully, would not really reduce that number but just flatten it out and keep it from going up. We need this tax cut now. We need to have this bill on the floor so we can fully debate the President's proposals. I say let it go. Let the Senators vote, vote to move this budget forward. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his effective leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we consider this legislation, I am not sure it is possible for any of us, I certainly have not, figured out who might be the winner and loser in this legislation. Who would get the most benefits, which party, which candidates, those things are interesting and, in fact, significant. I am just not terribly worried myself. I think about my campaigns and if they limit all contributions to just $100 per person and nobody else could contribute, nobody else could run a negative ad or positive ad about me, I would feel comfortable about that. I believe I can raise more $100's than any likely opponent I am facing. I could get my message out and it will be a good competitive race and that will be fine. I wish it could be that simple sometimes. I faced two opponents who spent more than $1 million against me in the Republican primary. I know what it feels like to be frustrated by ads coming in against you. I think this legislation transcends all the complexities and all the debate we have had tonight and over the last 2 weeks about soft money, hard money, issue ads, independent groups, independent expenditures, and all of that. It is a very complicated matter. I think that has caused us at some point to lose our contact with the fundamental questions with which we are dealing. In my view, I have concluded, unfortunately, that on what is constitutional and what is good public policy, this legislation does not justify our support and should not be passed by this body. America has always been a country of raucous debate, uncontrolled, exaggeration, negativity, at times emotional. That is the way we are. Sometimes I wish it were not so. Others complained on the floor of the Senate about negative ads against them. I had those run against me also. In my election, I raised a lot more hard money than my opponent, but he had equal time on television and it was mostly soft money. They came in from the Democratic Party or the Sierra Club and they ran ads against me. I know it wasn't a little environmentalist raising this money. It was money given to them so they could use it in certain campaigns in favor of Democratic candidates. That is the way life is. It is frustrating at times to see ads such as that pound on you. Soft money didn't help me in this past campaign. I say that to say I resent and reject the assertion that those of us who are concerned about the serious public policy and constitutional questions involved are somehow advocating that because we have a self-interest in it, some personal agenda that will help them beat their opponent and get reelected. There may be a tendency for some, but it is not for me. The problem is whether or not we are furthering or constraining political debate in America. Some believe, for example, that depictions of violent sex acts of all kinds, depictions of child pornography, are protected by the first amendment. Some believe that the act of burning a flag of the United States is free speech. Some of these same people, however, see things differently on this bill. On the question of pornography and child pornography, and those questions, people can go either way. The Supreme Court has sort of split in a lot of different ways. These forms of speech and press are quasi-speech. Depictions or acts of burning a flag were never what our Founding Fathers were fundamentally concerned about. They were concerned in early America about political speech, the right to speak out on public policy issues and say what you wanted to say. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, whose birth we celebrated earlier in the month, the 250th anniversary of his birth, in talking about our goal in America as to free elections and people you chose could be elected, said: The value and efficacy of this right to elect and vote for people for office depends on the knowledge of comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust, and on the equal freedom, consequently, of examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidate's respectively. That suggests this is what America was founded about, to have a full debate about candidates and their position on issues. When do you do that? You do that during the election time. Not 2 years before an election. I believe the contributing of money to promote and broadcast or amplify speech is covered by the first amendment. I do not think that is a matter of serious debate. Some have suggested otherwise. They said money is just an inanimate object. But if you want to be able to speak out and you cannot get on television, or you cannot get on radio, or you cannot afford to publish newspapers or pamphlets, then you are constrained in your ability to speak out. The Supreme Court dealt with this issue quite plainly in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. A string of cases since that time have continued that view. In Buckley they said the following: The first amendment denies government [that is, us] the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. They go on to say: In a free society, ordained by our Constitution, it is not the government, not the government but the people individually as citizens and collectively as associations and political committees who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a public campaign. What is that Court saying? That Court is saying the right to decide who says what in a political environment is the right of the people and associations of people. They have that right. The Government does not have the right to restrain them and restrict that and to limit their debate, even if it is aimed at us in the form of a negative ad and it hurts our feelings and we wish it had not happened. We do not have the right to tell people they cannot produce honest ads, hard-hitting ads against us. If we ever get to that point, I submit, our country will be less free, you will have less ability to deal with incumbent politicians who may not be the kind that are best for America. In the Buckley case the Court held that political contributions constitute protected speech under the first amendment. I remain at this point almost stunned that earlier in this debate 40 Members of this Senate voted to amend the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, 60 voted no. We had 38 vote yea in 1997 or 1998, and last year it dropped down to 33. But this year 40 voted for this amendment. It would have empowered Congress and State legislators, government, to put limits on contributions and expenditures by candidates and groups in support of and in opposition to candidates for office. Just as they outlined in Buckley. That is a thunderous power we were saying here, that we were going to empower State legislatures and the U.S. Congress to put limits on how much a person and group could expend in support of or in opposition to a candidate. Think about that. Where are our civil libertarian groups? I have to give the ACLU credit, they have been consistent on this issue. They have studied it. They know this is bad, and they have said so. But too many of our other groups--I don't know whether they are worried about the politics of it or what, but they have not grasped the danger to free speech and full debate we are having here. It seems to me we are almost losing perspective and respect for the first amendment that protects us all. In this debate we have focused on what the courts have held with regard to the first amendment and to campaign finance. I remain confident that significant portions of the legislation as it is now pending before us will be struck down by Federal courts. We ought not to vote for something that is unconstitutional. We swore to uphold the Constitution. If we believe a bill is unconstitutional, we should not be passing it on the expectation that someday a court may strike it down, even if we like the goal. If it violates the Constitution, each of us has a duty, I believe, to vote no. The idea that we can pass a law that would say that within 60 days of an election a group of union people, a group of businesspeople, a group of citizens, cannot get together and run an ad to say that Jeff Sessions is a no- good skunk and ought not be elected to office, offends me. Why doesn't that go to the heart of freedom in America? Where is our free speech crowd? Where are our law professors and so forth on this issue? It is very troubling to me, and I believe it goes against our fundamental American principles. I will conclude. I make my brief remarks for the record tonight to say I believe this law is, on balance, not good. I believe its stated goal of dealing with corruption in campaigns is not going to be achieved. I believe it is the case with every politician I know, that votes trump money every time anyway. If you have a group of people in your State you know and respect, you try to help them. Just because they may give you a contribution doesn't mean that is going to be the thing that helps you the most. Most public servants whom I know try to serve the people of the State and try to keep the people happy and do the right things that are best for the future. I believe this bill is not good, that the elimination of the corrupt aspects we are trying to deal with will not ultimately be achieved. At the same time, I believe we will have taken a historic step backwards, perhaps the most significant retrenchment of free speech and the right to assemble, and free press, that has occurred in my lifetime that I can recall. This is a major bit of legislation that undermines our free speech. I know we have talked about all the details and all the little things. There are some things in this bill I like. I wish we could make them law. But as a whole, we ought not pass a piece of legislation that would restrict a group of people in America from coming together to raise money and speak out during an election cycle, 60 days, 90 days, 10 days, 5 days, on election day--they ought not be restricted in that effort. In doing so, we would have betrayed and undermined our commitment to free speech and free debate that has made this country so great. Mr. President, I will proceed to see if I can close us out for the night.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9 a.m. on Friday, March 30. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 27, the campaign finance reform bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the campaign finance reform bill at 9 a.m. Amendments will be offered throughout the morning, with stacked votes to begin at 11 a.m. All amendments to the bill will be disposed of during tomorrow's session, with a vote on final passage to occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, requiring a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress to levy a new tax or increase the rate of an existing tax. I call this the tax limitation amendment, and I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senators Gramm of Texas, Kyl, Inhofe, Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, Fitzgerald, Crapo, Hagel, and Helms. In 1997, Congress balanced its checkbook for the first time in 29 years, and we are now enjoying an era of unprecedented budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the tax burden on the American people is also rising to unprecedented levels. Today, federal tax revenues make up 20.6 percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product, GDP, up from 17.6 percent in 1993. This has had an enormous impact on our economy, and it has placed an unfair burden on the average taxpayer. It is also clear the American people are frustrated with the increasing amount of government spending, and they are tired of the federal government reaching further into their wallets to pay for new spending and new programs. Today, it is far too easy for Congress to go on a spending spree and then send the bill to the taxpayers. This amendment is important for many reasons, but most importantly, it will help restore fiscal responsibility and discipline in our budget process. We need to make it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes, which will put more pressure on us to control spending. This resolution has been supported by a number of taxpayer groups including the Americans for Tax Reform, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has enjoyed broad support in previous years, and I would like to invite other Senators to join me in this effort and cosponsor this resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Once again, he has gone right to the heart of the matter. I hope the people were listening to his comments at the conclusion of his remarks in which he summed up, very succinctly, the issues with which we are wrestling. Yes, we wish money were not such a significant part of being able to get out your message in America. I do not have any personal wealth I can put into getting out my message, but it is a way to get out that message. As Senator Hatch said, this deals with real speech. This proposed constitutional amendment is breathtaking in its reach. It flat out says that Congress and State legislatures--incumbent politicians--can pass laws that would limit their opposition's right to raise money and to speak out during an election cycle. That is what we are talking about. That is what McCain-Feingold does without proposing a constitutional amendment. What Senator Hollings has wrestled with over the years is a constitutional amendment that he believes would allow the Congress constitutionally to be able to restrict the right of people to come together to assemble, to print out press beliefs that they have, or to project them and amplify them over radio and television. They say this is not an infringement on the most historic freedom, the cornerstone of American freedoms: the right to speak out. I think this, if passed, would be a colossal blunder of historic proportions. I think this proposed amendment, if passed, would reflect the greatest constitutionally proposed threat to liberty and freedom that I have known in my lifetime, maybe since the founding of this country, of speech and the press and assembly. We should not do this. If we say this Congress can stop the current constitutional right of free Americans to come together, raise money, and buy and amplify their speech on radio or TV, Internet, and so forth, to advocate their views, we will have made a major move away from freedom in this country. Senator Hatch said in his remarks that without a doubt the censorship power of the Government will have been enlarged. I remain stunned, really, that persons whom I admire as champions of liberty, such as the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, can miss this. Maybe I am missing it. I don't know. I can't see that I am missing it. I don't think I am missing it. Maybe I am. I don't think this is an itty-bitty issue. I think it is a historic and defining issue. I am wondering: Where are our liberal friends? Where is the free speech crowd? What about our law school deans and professors, are they reading this? The ACLU has picked it up. They call it a recipe for repression. They see it for what it is. I respect them for that. They generally can be fully counted on in free speech issues. They believe depiction of child pornography is free speech and should be protected. I don't know that that is speech. I know the Founding Fathers fundamentally wanted to protect political speech. This amendment sets up a construction that would allow the constraint of political speech during an election of all times. I didn't want to be too involved in all this debate. I try not to get involved in everything that goes on on the floor. This is an issue in which I am interested, but I have spoken once already on a particular issue. I just want to be on record, I want it recorded on this floor for my constituents and my children, that I was standing here and being counted on this one. I want it on the record that this Senator will not support a constitutional amendment to restrict the right of people to assemble, raise money, and speak out during an election cycle. That is just fundamental to what America is about. It is important. I believe it is an issue on which I have an obligation to speak. It has been suggested, that this is not an amendment to the first amendment. Well, I suggest it is an amendment to the first amendment. They say: Well, it is going to be amendment No. 20 something; it is not going to be written right up there on the first amendment. You are not going to strike out any words in the first amendment. Well, it is going to be in the Constitution. It is going to be given equal play with the first amendment. And since it passed subsequent to it, it will be defined by the courts that if it is in any way contrary to the first amendment, then the Hollings amendment will be given precedence because it was designed to modify the problems that have arisen which courts have concluded that certain campaign finance laws people are so determined to pass infringe on the first amendment. That is what Buckley says. Buckley was based on the first amendment. That is why the Court ruled the way they did. They didn't conjure it out of thin air. It is not just the Buckley case that would be reversed. There are a plethora of cases, Buckley progeny, that have upheld Buckley and gone further than Buckley. All of them would be undermined or overruled by this law if it were to become a part of our Constitution. They say that rich people have more rights because they can afford to buy time and they have special interests. Let's be frank about it; everybody has a special interest. That is what we all are. As human beings, we have interests; we have beliefs. We want to see those made law. Whether it is dealing with low taxes, or abortion, or gun ownership, or redistribution of wealth, or the military, or drug laws, or health care, or education, we all have beliefs for which we want to fight. Everything is a special interest of a sort. I note in passing that some elite groups, some wealthy entities, apparently will not be covered--at least it is said they will not be, although the ACLU thinks they might. I suggest that some of those groups, such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, all the Gannett chain, all the big newspaper chains, they can go on and run full-page ads day after day, full-page editorials slamming the Senator from Alabama and saying he is a terrible person. Apparently, if your money wasn't consistent with the way the Congress says, a group of people couldn't go into that newspaper and buy a full-page ad to respond to their full-page editorial. Throughout the history of this country, newspapers have gone off on tangents for one thing or another they steadily believed in, biased their news articles, editorialized every day on things in which they believed. It has been protected by the first amendment. These wealthy groups of elite intellectuals and power interests have a right to propagate, I suppose, right up to election day. Surely, under this proposed amendment, they wouldn't say they couldn't do that, their newspaper couldn't run an editorial on the day of the election to say who to vote for, but they apparently are saying that another corporation, no less noble or no less venal than the New York Times, can't publish an editorial or buy an ad in the newspaper to rebut that article. This freedom to speak out is particularly valuable in times of persecution or oppression and discrimination against an unpopular minority. Is not the ability of a minority group that might be subjected to oppression sometime in the future--isn't their ability to defend themselves, to get their message out, undermined if they can't assemble and raise money and speak out against a candidate they believe threatens their very existence? I have mentioned that when I ran for office, my opponent was a skilled trial lawyer. One of my lawyer friends said: Jeff, I think you threaten our business. You don't believe in lawsuits like we do. I said: Well, I guess I don't. They spent over $1 million raising money to beat up on me. What is wrong with that? They thought I threatened the way they wanted to do business as lawyers. They thought changes on tort reform that I might favor threatened their business, and they wanted to defend themselves. Apparently, under this rule, they could be constricted substantially in their ability to complain during an election cycle about a politician who threatens them. That is just a group. That didn't deal with actual repression, but it could be a matter in the future of actual repression. We ought not to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit the rights of persons in the future to defend themselves against actual oppression. It constrains not only the ability to raise money but the expenditures of money. It says the legislature and the Congress can pass reasonable laws that would control expenditures ``in support of or in opposition to a candidate.'' That is a serious matter, saying independent, free Americans cannot come together and assemble and speak out during an election in opposition to or in favor of a candidate. That is really a change. It does affect the first amendment because the first amendment has constrained Congress from doing that, and that is why this amendment has been placed here, to allow Congress to do that very thing. I know the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, the Judiciary Committee chairman, mentioned the flag burning amendment. We have Members of this body who believe the physical act of burning a flag or desecrating a flag is speech. They object to any amendment that would protect the flag. I will just say that I think Chief Justice Rehnquist is right that if it is speech to burn or desecrate a flag, it is at best a grunt or a roar. But the amendment before us today and, in fact, in large part the McCain-Feingold bill is a bill that goes to the heart of political speech. And when do they want to control it? During the election cycle. That is when they want to control it. Oh, it is all right to have violent, pornographic videos and images. They say that is speech and it must be defended to the death. But you can't have a group of people get together in this country and propose that the Senator from Alabama is dead wrong and ought to be thrown out of office. If Richard Nixon proposed a law and Congress passed the law, when we were having protests during the Vietnam war, when I was in college and law school and all these professors, the great constitutional scholars that they were--I wonder what they would have said if Nixon had proposed an amendment that would keep people from raising money and speaking out. I think they would have been upset. I wonder where they are today. I was shocked that, in 1997, 38 Senators in this body voted for this amendment. Last year, I was pleased to note that the number had dropped to 33. I hope that number will continue to fall. Madam President, freedom is scary. It allows things to get a bit out of control, when people are free to just go and say what they want to. And you can't quite manage it as we in Congress like to manage things, because we want to have it just right so there will be no spoilage, and we don't want any corruption here or any unfair threat to us. We just want to control this thing. But we are a nation of freedom, of liberty, of independence, free to speak out and say what we want, especially in an election cycle. But over the long haul of our Nation, this free debate, this challenging of everybody's positions and issues, and debate has been healthy for us. It strengthens us as a nation. We must not turn back the clock by adopting an amendment, or some of the language in McCain- Feingold, that I believe likewise constrains freedom unjustifiably. So the censorship power of our Government would be greatly enlarged if this amendment were to pass. It would allow the constriction of debate on the core issues of America, political, philosophical issues of intellectual power and breadth that affect the future of our country. That debate would be restricted significantly. I think it would be wrong to pass the Hollings constitutional amendment. As written, McCain-Feingold, without this amendment, has a slim chance of being sustained. I think it will have to be either defeated or amended. I thank the Chair for the time and yield the floor.